Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejected Photos, Some Help.  
User currently offlineN737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 17
Posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Hey guys, just got a couple rejected after having a good acceptance rate. It was for bad compression????? What? How?

What do you guys think?

http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/N601MD2.jpg

http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/N601MD.jpg

http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/N949GP.jpg

My shots were taken with my trusty Sony DSC-F707, incase anyone wondered.

Some help appreaciated.

Thanks

Aaron Mandolesi

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Huh?

Those are gorgeous. How long are your exposures (to get the stars)?

Rejected?

Wow.


User currently offlineN737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3359 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.


Thanks for the compliments.


Aaron Mandolesi


User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Hello Aaron,

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 !!  Smile

Good Luck !!


User currently offlineN737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Terry, thanks for the compliments. You know what. On my monitor I cannot see what you guys are describing as this compression. I am using an Flatscreen, and it is so crisp. I can't figure this out.

Thanks alot.

Aaron Mandolesi


User currently offlineEGFF From UK - Wales, joined Sep 2001, 2201 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

The pics are fantastic IMO, absolutely outstanding! Rejected? strange  Sad
EGFF



All together or not at all
User currently offlineChazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

Aaron-

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.


User currently offlineNikonF100 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

Your problem is the flat screen...I see the blotchy sky in all of the shots...

User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

N737MC:

What you want to do is run them and resize in photoshop and save to maximum space (12) that leaves the least compression


User currently offlineChazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3240 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!



User currently offlineN737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Ok guys, Add these to the Rejects as of right now. Because of bad compression, and the message from the screener.

"too much "squares" in the sky"


Guys, I still don't see these squares on my screen. I don't think I can do anything about this. Come on screeners. These are good pictures for the database for the fellow enthusiasts to look at.


Here are the new Rejects.

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N56LC.jpg

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N949GP.jpg


Help guys, I don't know what to do. Other than upload them to the other site.


Aaron Mandolesi


User currently offlineChazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Aaron-

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...

Give us some info.



User currently offlineN737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3211 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.

Help guys.

Thanks.

Aaron Mandolesi


User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3207 times:

Aaron,

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.


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

I think the guy who rejected that must be blind. It is like a looking for a fictional reason for rejection. The shots are brilliant.

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9604 posts, RR: 69
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3196 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I see random noise, reddish pixels, which looks like digital grain from a high ISO setting.

User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Perhaps you could try a lower shutter speed? Probably creates less noise in the sky...

I really like them though!

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineChazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3190 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...


User currently offlineScreener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Aaron,

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...

S3


User currently offlineAirbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Aaron, those are amazing shots of bizjets, seriously. Keep up the great work. N601MD2.jpg is so good it has made my wallpaper for my computer.

Again great shots. I just wish it was accepted for other people to admire.

Trevor




People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3148 times:

An the Falcon became my wallpaper. Hold Your head up!

User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3140 times:

Hi!
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 Big grin Thanks!!!



-
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3135 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.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineGRZ-AIR From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 574 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N56LC.jpg

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 !
Regards,
Patrick



When I joined A.net it was still free, haha ;).
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3086 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.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineGRZ-AIR From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 574 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3078 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



When I joined A.net it was still free, haha ;).
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...
Rejected Photos Any Help Pls? posted Sat May 20 2006 17:26:44 by AirMalta
Rejected Photos - Please Help! posted Thu Oct 10 2002 15:37:13 by 747 4-ever
Rejected Photo-some Help Here. posted Fri Mar 22 2002 01:05:46 by N737MC
Rejected Photos - Please Help! posted Tue Mar 19 2002 07:22:45 by 747 4-ever
People Purchasing My Photos - Some Help posted Mon Dec 24 2001 19:51:24 by LGW
Rejected Photos, Need Some Help. posted Tue Feb 4 2003 12:09:04 by Delta777-XXX
Some Help With Rejected Photos posted Sun Jan 26 2003 00:24:34 by AA 777
Some Help With My Photos Please posted Tue Aug 8 2006 23:26:07 by Globalpics
Please, Some Help With Photos. Third Times A Charm posted Tue Dec 13 2005 02:03:43 by Cadet57
Help With 2 Rejected Photos posted Mon Jun 6 2005 15:59:50 by Sfilipowicz