N737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 676 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1763 times:
Aaron here. The Gulfstream V was with a 10" exposure. The Global Express was with a 5" exposure. It really is hard to give details into how to get them like this. I am familiar with the lighting at my airport, so when I go out, I evaluate the lighting in that spot and choose the best exposure for that angle.
Planeboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1756 times:
I have been admiring your night time photos as of late - you have captured some real beauties. Looking at the 3 in question I will say -
Number 3 - Lines look crisp and not too oversharp. Sky - however - a little blotchy (compression)
Number 2 - Sky - again a little compressed
Number 1 - Jagged lines on the plane and the sky is compressed
I have a crappy monitor - hope to upgrade soon - but this is what I see in the 3 photos you have in question. I am sure if I see this on my monitor, the screeners will surely see it on theirs.
Keep the nice photos happening Aaron - I think some of your earlier shots were so good that you have set a standard for yourself. I know this - the screeners know this - and maybe now - YOU know this !!
Chazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1714 times:
I see the same thing as Planeboy... The plane and ground look great... These are tremendous photos... But yes, the sky is kind of blotchy, especially in #3 (N949GP). Look very closely at the blues and you'll notice what I would describe as a mosaic pattern, especially toward the upper left and right corners... The hues don't look uniform, and don't blend into each other... I can see it plain as day on my 19" CRT.
FYI, just for what it's worth... Flatscreens are nice, but I honestly have yet to find one that's as sharp as a glass tube... Yours may not be as crisp as you think it is.
Chazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
Now that I've had a little time to reflect on my previous comment, I realize my comments about flat screens might be a little misleading...
It's not that they aren't sharp... They are... But my experience is they just simply don't have the same range of colors as a tube, which would explain why the tiling effect isn't appearing on your flat screen. Two pixels side-by-side that are just a tiny shade different will appear to be of uniform color on a flattie... But a CRT can differentiate those color differences better. A lot of flat screens I've seen, including our two at work, can only handle 16 bit color, whereas tubes can handle 32 bit color. My old flat screen (may it rot in peace) was only good for 256 colors!
Chazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
I still see the compression "squares" just like the screener mentioned... Give us some details about your process... What software are you using?... What tweaks are you doing, if any?... My guess is at some point you are saving or exporting your JPGs to your hard drive, and it's at that point your software is compressing the image... There is probably a setting in your software that defaults to some level of compression, and you just need to change that setting...
N737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 676 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1615 times:
Ok, here is the process.
I get home. I attach my USB cord from my camera to my computer. I turn my camera on with connected to the computer. Which then creates an F: drive for the camera on the computer. I open that up and all my pictures are there from on the camera. I open a photo up In Adobe Photoshop 6.0 and I sharpen my photos, take out a little of magenta to get rid of some of the yellowish colors in the pic. Then I resize to 1024X768. Add my name to the bottom corners, then I save the picture I opened up from my camera to the Hard Drive with the compression setting slider all the way to 12, which causes a large file size for the picture on my HD. Then I upload.
Thats all I do. I really can't see this compression sqaures on my screen guys, no joke! Its actually starting to tick me off that I don't see what you are.
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1611 times:
I don't see compression squares but I do see a blotchy sky which is more pronounced on some shots than others. This is no way JPEG compression, I think it's something to do with the sensor and the processing software being unable to produce the deep blue colour of the sky. This is a known problem of digicams and most have nmore noise in the blue channel.
I think you've been very hard done by with the rejections. I'd think about pressing the appeal button if I was you.
Chazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
Hmmm... Certainly sounds like you are doing everything right...
Does anyone think the problem could be in the sharp filter?... Maybe try resizing, but without the filter... Maybe that will soften up some of those blues, enough that they'll pass... Just a guess though. You've got nothing to lose at this point I guess.
Clickhappy may have a point too, although I would think the noise would show up other places than just the sky.
Kingwide mentions digicams having trouble with blues... I had always heard digicams (and all CCD devices, like TV/video cams) have trouble with reds, so I don't know what the answer is there.
I will say there are certain really beautiful shots that the screeners should be given some "wiggle room" to pass through, even if there are small flaws like this... Of course, I guess that gets to be a slippery slope, but these photos really are breathtaking. I hate you are having this kind of trouble with them. But, the standards are there for a reason, and we all need to live with them.
I'd be curious to look at the raw output from your cam... If you want, look up my email address in my profile and email me one of the originals... I'll look at it on my CRT and see if I see the "blocks" in the original...
Screener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
I didn't reject your latest batch, only the first ones.
I've calibrated my monitor now a couple times now with our AN calibration tool, and I still see the squares. It's hard to put these into the reject category of badJPG. If I labeled them "grainy" you'd probably think I was nuts (well, I am). I think your digital has a bit of a problem with the sky. Try shortening your exposure times a little (1-2 seconds) and increasing your aperture. Less light will get through, resulting in a darker picture, which might help knock out some of the boxes. I know it's harsh, normally your stuff is "no brainier" (which I like), however the "compression" was very apparent, and was to other screeners as well who commented on it.
I'd suggest not appealing...Not because I don't want you to, but you might have your shots sitting in J's line for 2-3 months. Try reworking them a bit, darken the sky...Not as much sharpening...
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1544 times:
It was me. i have to admit that jpeg wasnt may be the exact category, but what would you have written if i marked it blurry? You would have also asked where the screener saw it because the planes are pretty sharp. An thats why i wrrote the personel comment about the squares in the sky to point out what was the issue.
@Danny: I think the guy who rejected that must be blind
Nice attitude you have Thanks!!!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1539 times:
OK, I've done some experiments - using a CRT monitor, set to 16 bit colour, the pixelisation (which is what I think it is) is barely detectable. At 24 bit colour it is very apparent.
What's going on - well regarding colours, it is true that digital devices sometimes have trouble recording reds accurately, but blue is the real problem area. I think this is due to comparative lack of sensitivity to blue light, hence noise is more readily introduced to the image. Also, there is the problem any RGB device has in displaying the full gamut of blues.
In this case I think we are seeing a combination of the camera's relatively poor ability to record the full range of dark blues in the scene and the effect of in-camera jpg compression.
If I'm right, a histogram examination of the blue channel of the original image should show a very spikey pattern at the far left hand side.
I don't think there is a cure for this unless your camera can save in .tif format. If you can do this, you can avoid the camera "interpreting" the scene colours when processing the image and it might be possible to map the image to a colour space other than RGB (eg. Adobe or Bryce RGB) which have a larger gamut range and then covert to .jpg.
As a screener, I thought these were quite exciting images, and despite the pixel problem, marked them as HQ since a) they were good pics and b) the problems were down to pushing the technology to its limits.
I think these pics show both the possibilities and limitations of digital technology - to record the scene as well as you have is an acheivement. To get rid of the problems may well require better technology. I suspect (and will try if I get a chance) a RAW file off a D30/D60 or D100 would offer the necessary post processing image control to pull this off, but clearly these shots are pushing the envelope and deserve respect.
this is such a great picture. I have been looking at it for quite some time now!
It makes me think I could just reach my hand towards it and touch it..great.
Is the sky really so important ? Or is the motiv of the pic - the plane - in this case beeing absolutely perfect !
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Those pictures are great. I'm surprised they were rejected.
However, what I did notice from past experience on my Sony Mavica FD-95 (a decent digital, not as good as your F707), is the same blotchyness. I've noticed this happens in pretty much all digital cameras so I call it "digital grain", although it's not really grain.
On film, you don't usually get this blotchyness, but instead you get fine grain, more like noise. As if it is tiny sand in the photograph.
So I guess that's one big difference between digital and film.
I think it does have something to do with the exposure setting like everyone has mentioned, although I am still surprised it was rejected as those blotches really aren't a big deal and don't interfere with the photo.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
GRZ-AIR From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 573 posts, RR: 4 Reply 25, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
Hm..I just tried to save on of the shots on my HD. Well , it would only allow me to save it as a Bitmap. However the filename is a .jpg , and it says so in the properties field. Try out if you can save it as .jpg - it should be no problem unless the picture really is a bitmap. talking of this pic http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N56LC.jpg