Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Too Soft, Too Sharp Or Just Right  
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 888 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

As this thread http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...tion_photography/read.main/318666/ was drifting off topic, I thought I would post these photos to illustrate the point about how difficult it is to judge whether a picture is sharp or not.

I uploaded three photos taken around the same time with roughly the same camera settings. They were all processed in same way with the same software.

This one was accepted.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson



This was rejected for soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0907_EGCC_100608_GMRJKDSC_9882.jpg

and this one for grainy and oversharpened.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...906_EGCC_100608_GEUUM_DSC_9997.jpg

It has been suggested that there are plenty of accepted photos to look at to see what is right but I find it difficult to judge what is right . The BA does look sharper than the other two but the Jet 2 and the Monarch look the same to me. All three are really not very different to me.
The margin between success and failure is fine indeed.


Whatever.......
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They all look very different to me, and I'm not even on my screening monitor now. No way the Monarch and Jet2 look the same in terms of sharpness.

the ba is oversharpened much more than the other 2
not a fine line at all

[Edited 2008-09-17 10:57:07]


Alderman Exit
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4215 times:



Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 1):
They all look very different to me, and I'm not even on my screening monitor now. No way the Monarch and Jet2 look the same in terms of sharpness...no way

Thank you for proving my point. They do look the same to me.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 1):
the ba is blurry

Really? It was given oversharpened and grainy(??)



Whatever.......
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4207 times:



Quoting DerekF (Reply 2):
It was given oversharpened

A lot of the time oversharpening is a result of trying to hide blur. It rarely works. You can have a blurry shot and get an oversharpened rejection also if you've used too much USM to compensate.

Karl


User currently offline777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4191 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DerekF (Reply 2):
Thank you for proving my point. They do look the same to me

What exactly is your point?

If you take a quick glance at each shot you can see the exposures are different. The flymonarch is underexposed. Especially if you compare it to the others.

Quoting DerekF (Reply 2):
Really? It was given oversharpened and grainy(??)



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 3):
A lot of the time oversharpening is a result of trying to hide blur. It rarely works. You can have a blurry shot and get an oversharpened rejection also if you've used too much USM to compensate.

 checkmark 

Oversharpening also magnifies grain.


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4166 times:



Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 1):
They all look very different to me, and I'm not even on my screening monitor now. No way the Monarch and Jet2 look the same in terms of sharpness.

the ba is oversharpened much more than the other 2
not a fine line at all

Agree. Same here.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4158 times:

The Monarch is soft indeed, except for the 'Monarch' titles. The BA is oversharpened.
Looks to me like the exposure setting were roughly the same, but the camera was focusing differently.

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2310 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4150 times:



Quoting DerekF (Reply 2):
They do look the same to me.

none of us are seeing the same qualities in the three pictures. The one that got accepted is spot on!



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently onlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3292 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DerekF (Reply 2):
Thank you for proving my point. They do look the same to me.

Wait, what? He's saying they DON'T LOOK THE SAME. As in, one is CLEARLY sharper than the other.

Quoting DerekF (Reply 2):
Really? It was given oversharpened and grainy(??)

Did you change what Tim said in this quote??? Nothing you quoted him as saying appears anywhere in his post.

I agree with him. The BA is definitely oversharpened and grainy, and the Monarch is clearly soft.

Nothing inconsistent here. And not a fine line at all. I've found that sharpness is one of the most consistent screening critiques.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4130 times:

I have the original of the BA shot and I can't see any blur. I therefore did not oversharpen to hide blur. I oversharpened because I thought that was the right amount of sharpening required - obviously it wasn't.
I disagree that the Monarch is soft and to be honest the Jet2 that was accepted looks oversharpened to me anyway.

With an acceptance rate of 18% I guess you just have to know when to quit.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4133 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Derek dont quit. But if you think we ask for shots with that much sharpening you need to look at what we accept because that is clearly not it. The jet 2 looks good to me why not take that as a future reference

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 4116 times:



Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 8):
Did you change what Tim said in this quote??? Nothing you quoted him as saying appears anywhere in his post.

I certainly did not. Tim edited his post after I replied . You'll have to ask him why he edited it.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 8):
Wait, what? He's saying they DON'T LOOK THE SAME. As in, one is CLEARLY sharper than the other.

No need to shout.

As I said before, I give up.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8899 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 4109 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting DerekF (Reply 11):
As I said before, I give up.

if I checked correctly you have 1398 pictures in the a.net database, that is a lot indeed. LONG way to go for most of us.

Do not give up! You know what is accepted here as you have proven 1398 times already. We all have our rejections we don't understand and it is frustrating. But move on and re- edit those shots, I am sure they can be edited that they get accepted here.

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 4099 times:

To be honest, my acceptance ratio means it is barely worth the effort. The last batch of 17 got 2 acceptances. It's hardly enough to make it worth while. My point from the beginning is that I edit to what I think is right on the equiment I have. It is all I can do.


Whatever.......
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sharp Or Soft posted Mon Feb 5 2007 12:45:50 by Steamin
First Soft, Now Sharp posted Wed Jan 3 2007 00:53:44 by Ptrjong
Thai Air Asia, Indonesia Air Asia Or Just Air Asia posted Fri Apr 14 2006 07:08:39 by Paparadzi
Bad Dirty Or Just Air Traffic posted Thu May 26 2005 21:31:33 by WakeTurbulence
Photography, Documentation, Or Just Bullseye? posted Sat Nov 23 2002 22:50:12 by Planephoto
Photo Improvement Or Just Accept It? posted Thu Oct 10 2002 10:31:37 by Cabbott
Do You Collect Registrations Or Just Take Photos? posted Thu Aug 9 2001 10:37:01 by LGW
Mission Impossible? Or Just Plain Tricky posted Mon Mar 26 2001 22:16:45 by Chris28_17
Am I Blind Or Is It Just Too Early? (rejection) posted Tue May 24 2005 15:41:18 by Fiveholer
Can It Be Saved Or Too Backlit? posted Tue Jan 1 2008 12:52:13 by Jawed