rejected for badblurry & badcommon...i don't think it's all to common to get a shot of something this nice from some airstairs, looking down into the run-up pad at the DL TOC...and also, another case of a sharp slide that didn't scan so sharp...i already sharpened it once before adjusting the image size and sharpening edges produced prounounced jaggies and so forth... http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=813DE1.jpg
just thought while i was at it that i could include this one as well...rejected for badjagged...yes, it's got some jaggies here and there...but would you rather it be blurry? all i did was sharpen edges as the final touch....oh well...no CO 764 in the db for me...:/ http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=76062_1.jpg
this one was badblurry too...again i didn't want to oversharpen because i just thought that it messed with the titles and reg. too much...didn't look too real...and my apologies for the barbwire at the bottom...they put that up on the fences at DFW recently and it's a pain in the butt..... http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=513NA.jpg
anyway, just thought i would share these with you all...i wanted to hear some other opinions before deciding if they were worth appealing...let me know what i should do...especially about the blurry/sharpen/jagged deal...
Flpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2120 posts, RR: 31 Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2837 times:
I will speak for 611AE and 813DE...
On my PC screen, both scans look a-okay to me. If they were any sharper, they'd be rejected for "oversharpening" and "jagged edges". So where's the medium? One also needs to take into account that scans look different on EVERY monitor regardless of the calibration system.
I just have the opinion that the composition of the shot should come first then the quality of the scan. If the composition of the shot is good but there are tiny tiny miniscule details about the scan, then the image should be accepted. Who the heck cares of one corner of the shot isn't crystal clear in focus, even if it's not totally blurry!?!?!
And this stuff about "bad commons". C'mon. Who else has a shot that close, that full frame in the RUN UP pad??? Jonathan is in an exclusive spot right there. And just look at the guy in the MD-11 shot, underneath the winglet.
I will vouch that Jonathan puts a lot of time and care into his scans. Ok, just b/c he does that doesn't mean all his scans should be accepted. But once again, we're finding ourselves in a situation where there is so much nitpicking about scans it's unbelievable.
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1749 posts, RR: 31 Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2829 times:
thanks chris...i try..
yeah, by the way i forgot to mention that i have a mac...if that makes any difference in the monitor thing...so stuff that looks incredibly awesome to me might look like garbage to someone else on a pc or what not...but what am i supposed to do? i want my photos to look good for ME, on my screen...so where's the medium? should i just not upload them, because they'll look bad to other people?
i just find the consistency (or lack thereof) of the screening appalling...i sent in some scans that look worse than these, and they get in...it's confusing to me!
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1749 posts, RR: 31 Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2813 times:
just got a little notice from the screeners...another rejection message...
i had tried to upload 917DL again...but alas, a different rejection message! I wonder what else could be wrong with this pic?!? maybe if i try to upload it again i'll get it kicked back, but for another completely different reason!
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2799 times:
I think the screening is pretty consistent actually. Your shots are difficult to screen because they're right on the edge of being sharp enough and 'blurry'. They don't have that 'bite' that marks out an a.net image. Therefore, every time I screen one of yours I have to look in the db and find a reason [like it's a rare shot] to lower the standards otherwise it gets bounced. The reason you see some shots getting in and others being bounced is purely, IMHO, down to whether the shot's rare or not.
I think all you need is a bit of extra sharpening to get that airliners.net 'bite'. They're all great shots, you just need to help us a little bit. I've taken the liberty of taking one of your shots and sharpening it a bit to show you what I mean. Rather than put the whole shot, I've done three before and after shots of different areas, in all cases, yours is on the left.
I hope, when you see them side by side you can see the difference between the two shots. With my screener hat on, the shots with the extra USM are no-brainers for acceptance.
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1749 posts, RR: 31 Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2787 times:
Thanks a lot for your input! That's just what i need...and thanks for the extra sharpening...what did you use for the usm? i've played around with it a bit but i'm just not fond of it...i guess i should make good use of it too though...but what kind of settings did you use for the unsharp mask?
btw, i don't usually complain and bitch about rejections...usually just roll with the punches i guess you could say, but i guess these just got to me for some reason...
thanks a lot for your help jason...it's much appreciated
Blink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5455 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
I don't mean to be negative, but it could perhaps be the variety? I mean, a lot of those photos you shot, which are nice indeed, tend to be from more common view points in DFW and it seems that there are a whole lot of shots with the same type of aircraft and airline that were taken from the location.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1749 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2731 times:
first off there's not much variety at DFW and i also don't have any shots in the database from my recent trip out there...and i don't have a shot of a national 757 at DFW...or a good pic of an ERJ for that matter...so i don't see where the variety problem lies...second of all, 9/11 ruined things for our usual trip down there....we couldn't get out onto the ramp, nor the ramp tower, or the FAA control tower, and we couldn't get into the hangar either....so we were limited as to our photo opportunities...not too mention the fact that we hardly went out to DFW ...and when we did we were only able to go to the west side complex for photography...sorry about that
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2765 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2717 times:
I think those are some real nice shots from DFW.
Your MD11 one is sweet! nice wideangle there.
Perhaps some of them could use an extra topping of sharpening.
One of the screener that showed you his "tinkering with some of your picts" did show some difference for the end result.
Also if possible, sharpen just a part of a plane such as the reggie, nose or engines and logos. I use Photoshop to do my work and I follow that rule and it usually does the trick to get up there onto this site.
I use for unsharp mask-= 110%/ 0.2-0.3/ threshold 1.
And at some cases, a bit of Gaussian blur to help rid of the noise/grain chunks.
Once done, upload again and lets see em on the site.
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..