Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Acceptance - Post- Screening F-16 (Pete63)  
User currently offlinePete63 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2006, 6 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

Hi, people!

I recently had this photograph rejected for QUALITY, CENTERED and GRAINY...
My monitor has been calibrated and I cannot see the flaws in the picture...

The picture was taken with an EOS 50D and a Canon 100-400mm (micro-adjusted at +7 for 380mm) set @ 380mm at a distance of between 175 and 200 meters...
(This means looking at an aircraft with a 15x enlarging pair of binoculars - to give you an idea... 380mm x 1.6 crop factor for the camera...)

Any hints on improving the picture and attempting a re-upload..? If CENTERED also refers to the vertical (since the horizontal issue is less than 1.5 mm) - should I try and think up some extra grass (since it's not in the real picture..) by means of manipulating the photo..!? That's not the way I see photography; I want to stay as close to the actual original as possible...

GRAINY - I gave it a first subtle pass in NeatImage and when it was resized to 1200 pixels wide I gave it a subtle pass in Adobe Lightroom after which I sharpened the picture in DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional)... This is my usual workflow - developed in about four years since arriving here at Airliners.Net... After the Screeners told me I had my workflow quite right now, I haven't changed this winning horse - but have lost every other race (read: ALL of my photographs were REJECTED..! Rather frustrating - but I don't tend to give up - I could use some HELP there, please..!)

Since I haven't been granted more than 2 uploads at a time, you can imagine that the learning curve is very slow indeed..! Any tiny change to my picture that I send in will take about three weeks... ANY THOUGHTS..?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...910833.7783dpp_may-2009-0025-2.jpg

With kind regards,

Piet (Pete63)

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting Pete63 (Thread starter):
This means looking at an aircraft with a 15x enlarging pair of binoculars - to give you an idea... 380mm x 1.6 crop factor for the camera...)

No, it does not. Crop factor gives apparent magnification, not real magnification.

The shot is grainy and the aircraft is too low in the frame.

[Edited 2009-05-17 11:12:31]

[Edited 2009-05-17 11:12:58]


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Piet,

I think the biggest problem in your picture is the heat haze, which will not be correctable.
I would suspect the grain comes from sharpening the complete picture with a too wide pixel radius - next time try a much smaller one and mask the sky out.
It might be interesting for you to have a closer look at these guides we have online:
http://www.airliners.net/faq/editing_guide.php
http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php

Hope it helps  Smile



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlinePete63 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2006, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

Thanks, Acontador - I will have a look at those...
Piet


User currently offlineRuudb From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

It is also better to reduce noise before sharpening, otherwise you sharpen the noise.

User currently offlinePete63 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2006, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Thanks Ruud - I'll update my workflow..!
Piet


User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Pete63,

I'm a 50D user and you shouldn't be getting that much noise under those conditions! What ISO were you using? At 100/200, there's virtually no noise at all so you must have been using ISO 400 +? Even then, noise is still well controlled and I regularly use up to 800 with minimal noise reduction in Photoshop. Was the shot heavily cropped? Just seems strange you've got so much noise.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinePete63 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2006, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Dazbo5,

Thanks for your response - indeed there should be no noise at 200 ISO at which the photograph was taken (1/1000 sec f 8) at 380mm - the point of my 100-400 at which I had the lens calibrated with the micro-adjust feature...

I can't see the noise, but that must be my monitor then I suppose... The shot was not heavily cropped, so that can't be it...

I must have been doing something unforgivenly wrong in my workflow - so I went along with Ruudb's advice to reconsider the moment of noise reduction... On a Canon Forum I read that DPP has been updated and that for my EOS 50D new firmware deals better with the RAW files in conjunction with noise - and I must say it's a vast improvement..! I downloaded and installed Firmware 1.0.6 and have tried out lots of ISO-settings and am very pleased with the results - even at 1600 and 3200 ISO..!

The photograph has been through the new workflow and (at least on my monitor) there is an improvement as far as I can see... It still remains a photograph taken with the old firmware, but the newest version of DPP deals rather well with it..!

I have no means of showing you the photograph via a website, so I decided to upload it again for screening... It can be found here:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...42672736.4625dpp_may-2009-0175.jpg

Could you please have a look at it again and say if I missed out on something..?

Anyway, for now - thanks for all your help..! Much appreciated..!
Piet (Pete63)


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



Quoting Pete63 (Reply 7):
Could you please have a look at it again and say if I missed out on something..?

Yes, my post  Confused
But don't worry, will not bother again...



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2734 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Acontador (Reply 8):
Quoting Pete63 (Reply 7):
Could you please have a look at it again and say if I missed out on something..?

Yes, my post
But don't worry, will not bother again...

I imagine this is why screeners chime in less these days... A screener gave you his opinion and you ignored it.

To comment on your new edit, it still has no chance for the database, but if you are looking for comments on the noise issue, yes it does look better.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinePete63 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2006, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Acontador,

A double thanks to you again - I'm sorry I forgot to credit you again in my last message...
Shame on me - By the way, I'm doing my best - but I don't have all the software that the articles you mentioned are referring to, so I'll be looking at alternatives and as soon as I have my hands on the right software, I hope I can raise the acceptance rate...

Thanks again..!

Pete63


User currently offlineRuudb From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Piet you didn't read the most important thing, you cannot get rid of the heathaze.

User currently offlinePete63 From Netherlands, joined Jul 2006, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Silver1SWA,

I don't wish to be impolite and I think I am not... You state that I am ignoring a Screener's opinion, but I honestly do not..! Far from that; I am reading all these pages over and over, I've updated all of my photo-software, but I simply haven't got all of the software referred to, so I will have to try the alternatives...

I'm seriously doing my best and am willing to learn...

Well, thanks anyway,

Piet (Pete63)


User currently offlineLOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pete63 (Reply 12):
I'm seriously doing my best and am willing to learn...

Something that will save you a load of time, headaches, and frustration in uploading here; recognize the few factors that no amount of programs or editing can help.
1) Blurry
2) Heat haze
3) Massive exposure problems.
4) Poor framing

These problems all happen before the file even gets to PS or whatever program you are using.

In this shot you can see the heat haze pouring of the runway.

I'm sure everyone has lost a great shot to heat haze, so don't take it to badly.

Cheers,

Kevin



Missed 4 chasing 1
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2680 times:



Quoting LOCsta (Reply 13):
Something that will save you a load of time, headaches, and frustration in uploading here; recognize the few factors that no amount of programs or editing can help.
1) Blurry
2) Heat haze
3) Massive exposure problems.
4) Poor framing

These problems all happen before the file even gets to PS or whatever program you are using.

Bingo!!!! Every photographer should REMEMBER THIS!

Get the shot correct when you take it - the right colour temperature, the right composition, the right exposure, the right shutter speed, the right focus!

Post-processing is for minor adjustment. It should only take a few minutes.

Above all, if there is heat haze, put the camera away and just enjoy the view.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
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...
Photo Acceptance - Photo Rejected posted Tue Mar 3 2009 12:30:46 by Canuckspot
Concorde Pic Rejected... Any Help? posted Thu Jan 24 2008 15:16:48 by EGTESkyGod
Rejected, Any Chance? posted Thu Jan 10 2008 11:23:35 by Phxplanes
"Level" Rejected -- Any Suggestions? posted Fri Oct 26 2007 07:57:33 by Domjan
Air To Air Photo Scanned- Your Thoughts? posted Sat Jun 16 2007 23:41:10 by Opso1
Any Thoughts Or Criticism? posted Mon Apr 16 2007 22:11:19 by Madjones
TAM Photo Rejected, Appeal Also Rejected, Why? posted Mon Dec 25 2006 18:15:34 by A388
Photo Rejected. Help? posted Wed Apr 19 2006 21:01:05 by Christeljs
Why Was This Photo Rejected? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 19:07:00 by Bravo45
Any Thoughts On Improving These Shots? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 22:35:33 by D L X