MDL_777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
I recently uploaded some photos, and I just got the rejection E-mail today. I'd like to get some feedback on these photos, to see how they can be improved. I've been working on approach shots like this since March, and these are the best I've been able to produce so far. I'll try to give as much information as possible as far as equipment, film, scanning, etc.
Equipment: All photos were taken with a Koica TC-X SLR camera, with a Konica Zoom - Hexanon AR 35~70 F3.5-4.5 lense. It's basically a manual SLR camera, but it does have an auto-exposure mode, which I do not use. All photos were taken at the 70mm focal length, at f8 @1/500 of a second.
These photos were taken with Fuji Reala Superia ASA100 print film, and scanned on a HP Scanjet 2200c flatbed scanner at 300dpi. They were edited in Adobe Photoshop Elements. They were rejected due to low image quality.
These photos were taken with Kodak Elite Chrome ASA 100 slide film. I had the slides scanned at the lab where I take my film to be developed. Number 9 was rejected due to low image quality. Number 10 was rejected due to being blurry or unsharp, which kind of puzzles me. It looks pretty sharp to me, but I just may need someone else to look at it.
Anyway, I would appreciate any feedback you have on these photos, I know it takes some time to look at each picture, but I could use the help. The rejection reasons give you a good ballpark idea of what was wrong, but it would help me to get some more specifics. I was able to get some of these accepted at another aviation photography site, so I know I'm geting closer and making progress. I just need to know what I need to do to get them accepted here. The prints and the slides look great; I think it may be the scanning and the editing that are the "mising link."
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 1, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1477 times:
I'd say that all of them were soft, the last 3 are particularly off-colour, most of them are 1024x6... instead of 1024x768, the fedex A300 is also quite grainy.
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
Dan,
what is wrong with a size of 1024x6..??? I always crop my pictures to a size of 1024x683 (3:2). How do you manage to scan a full-frame slide with a size of 1024x768? That's simply not possible.
Michael,
your shots are quite good and on the top end of what can be done with flatbed scanners and Picture CDs (you didn't use the very expensive Kodak PhotoCD, did you?), but they are to grainy to get accepted. Additionally, they suffer from blurriness. Try to experiment with the unsharp mask in order to increase the sharpness and attempt to apply some blur to the grainy areas (especially the skies).
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
Well, I've always known the proportions to be 4:3, and the ratio for 1024 is 768, and not 683. I didn't know slides were 3:2, but thats not what most photos on this website are, and the standard for web photos.
MDL_777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1397 times:
Frank -
Thankfully, I didn't have the pictures scanned to a Kodak Photo CD. I've had several bad expereinces with Kodak Photo CD's where the quality was horrendous. I try to sharpen the photos being mindful of not oversharpening them. I just may have to fool around with it little more to get it where it needs to be.
Dan -
As far as picture size, I always resize to at least 1024 wide, but the height may vary because I want to get the aircraft as large in the frame as possible without degrading the quality. None of the pictures that I have in the database are 768 in height. I always under the impression that 1024 was the more important number.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
