Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejections - Advice Needed Please  
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3966 times:

Hi guys,

I would appreciate some info how to improve those pictures:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=9G-MKJd.jpg : badscan
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=G-VFAB_B747-4Q8.jpg : badjagged - badcommon
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=SE-DMFd.jpg : badexposure
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=BA_B744_CR.jpg : badjagged
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=NZ_B744.jpg : badscan
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N662UA.jpg : badscan - badexposure
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=G-VSHYb.jpg : badblurry

I really don't know what to do to improve them.

For your info: I use psp 7 to work on my pictures, and the Olympus C2100 UZ is my camera.

For the action shots, I used ISO100, and diafragma 7.0 settings.

Regards, and thanks a lot,
Frederic

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

1.) Apparently you tried to brighten up the background, resulting in a dark border around the fuselage. The light was also not really good for this pic.
2.) Sun on the wrong side of the fuselage. Oversharpened (look at the titles).
3.) Overexposed fuselage (it's almost white)
4.) Sun on the wrong side of the fuselage, lack of contrast and oversharpened (look for example the upper part of the fuselage)
5.) In my opinion the best shot and the only one with chances of improvement. But there are strong jaggies on the upper part of the fuselage abut at the same time I think the rest of the fuselage (for example the windows) are a bit soft. And again: the sun is on the wrong side. The pic lacks of contrast.
6.) Completely underexposed. And again: the sun is on the wrong side.
7.) The sun again. I think you tried to sharpen up a blurry image, resulting in oversharpened edges and blurrynes around some details.

I don't see much chances for those pics, sorry.

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

1. Maybe you oversharpened a bit over here? But the fact that it's such an unusual visitor to BRU should compensate for this I think.
2. Badcommon: nothing you can do about it. Badjagged--> I don't see jaggies. Nice shot by the way!
3. The sun just hit this bird when you took the shot (let me guess which camera Big grin ), so it tends to overexpose the fuselage...Too bad  Sad
4. No idea.
5. No idea. Looks good to me!
6. Looks a bit too dark, but this is just caused by the UA livery. And the fuselage shows a rather high amount of grain.
7. No idea. The only thing is, like an MD-80 or so, this aircraft also looks rather like a cigar, which leads to much clutter underneath and above the aircraft. But apart from that, it looks neat!

Can't wait to go to LHR. Now let's cross our fingers and hope for some good weather, shall we?

The only thing is: don't get depressed when your best picture gets rejected. I also think from time to time 'yeah, this one's definitely going to make it, the other one isn't, but let's upload it as well'. And, guess which one gets accepted? Right, the second one, the first one gets rejected...So I wouldn't bother that much. You have those great pictures for your own little database, and I think that's more than enough. If you think they are great (as will most others, like me), that should be more than enough...

On the other hand, too bad they won't make it to this great database, unless you can improve them.



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

Oops! Forgot to mention something about Nr. 4. (BA B744)

Try to crop more on the left part. Otherwise this shot could also have a tinly little chance. But the lighting makes it hard to get a decent pic.

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

Almost all of these are what our editor in chief would call "low quality digital images"... To put it simply, there's a lot of noise in these images, especially in the darker areas. The only picture where it isn't evident is the Scando MD-90, which I am actually surprised was taken with the same camera - that pic stands out a mile as being better in overall quality.

I don't know the camera so I have no idea whether this is a general problem with images produced by this model, but if these were scans (I know they're not) I would see the noise as typical symptoms of underexposed pictures that that had been pushed to acceptable levels far too agressively post-scan. So, are you using the very best quality setting on the camera, no compression when saving in photoshop I hope, and you're using levels and curves to tidy up the look of the image rather than brightness, aren't you???

Andy


User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3887 times:

Skymonster:

The SAS MD90 picture wasn't taken with the same camera. As a matter of fact, it was taken with my new D60. I met Frederic that day at BRU, and I said he could try and take some pictures with a D60. Hope this explains a lot...

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

YEP, that was also written in the caption of the SAS pic.

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

Hi guys,

Thanks a lot for your replies.

Sad thing about the quality, I like the shots in general.

@Andy:
You have a sharp eye! Big grin I forgot to mention it of the SAS picture, indeed taken with a D60.

It's not easy for a starting photographer to get your pictures accepted  Sad

Regards,
Frederic


User currently offlineKG4IKI From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 55 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

All of these photos, except the MD90, are overly sharpened. Not sure if it is the camera or the post processing in your photo editor. Way too many jaggies.

Chris


User currently offlineAirhead711 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 249 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

Hello,
I am also using a C-2100UZ camera and i'm pretty happy with it but I definately notice that the photos are quite grainy in darker areas and on the shady side of the planes.

Scott


User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

Frederic,

Nice shots. I use the same camera. This camera has limitations. Frederic, your composition is excellent in the photos you have listed above but the 2100 is not doing you justice. I think you should upgrade to a better camera - one that will keep up with your eye... I would like to purchase a better camera , but the time is not now - too many expenses !!

Other than that - GREAT SHOTS !!



User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Thanks again for the valuable comments guys, they are much appreciated!

@Planeboy:
Thanks a lot for the nice comments! I certainly want to upgrade, my feelings say yes, but my bank account says no  Sad  Sad  Sad

Regards,
Frederic


User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Sabena 690:

I wouldn't give up. Since you got your new camera, more than 6 months ago I think, you have proven yourself that you are capable of doing some great shots, and getting them accepted on Airliners.net. So I think your still capable of producing some nice incredible shots with your camera.

Have you already tried improving your shots with the levels, curves, saturation etc etc? I just discovered the 'levels' function, and it is awesome. I already regret the fact that I didn't wait 2 more days to upload my AA 767 shot  Sad I have it over here on my desktop, and it has much more colors (saturation), and has better overall lighting due to the levels function. Curves are even better.

Just try to experiment a little with your pictures 'out of the camera', and maybe you can turn them into something even nicer, and something the screeners over here won't reject?

Ivan




Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineAirhead711 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 249 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3685 times:

Hello,
I am not familiar with the levels and curves adjustments.Can someone please explain to me how to do this?

Thanks
Scott


User currently offlineXenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3678 times:

Frederic,

Don't give up!
I also uses a C2100UZ...
Ok, its "only" a 2MP but that makes it more challenging to get pics on A.net!!

Keep going...!
 Big thumbs up

Daniel



AirTeamImages -ATI-
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3648 times:

Thanks Ivan and Daniel!!!

@Airhead: never used the curves. The levels: try to experimentate with it, I had to learn it also. It's difficult to explain.

Here are some other rejections:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4R-ADC.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=9A-CTJ.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=S2-ACQb.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N701GC.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=bus-744.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=EC-HHU.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=RG_B777.jpg

What's wrong with those?

Thanks and regards,
Frederic


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3622 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Frederic, I think it is always helpful to list the reason for the rejection.

User currently offlinePRM From Burkina Faso, joined Apr 2002, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

Hi Frederic,

On your latest shots:

- http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4R-ADC.jpg
Blurry/unsharp - check the reg, tail and nose titles - more unsharpmask

- http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=9A-CTJ.jpg
- http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=S2-ACQb.jpg
Both slightly blurry/soft - Front half of the Croatia seems softer than the tail area.

- http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N701GC.jpg
This is close to being ok I think - possibly too sharp?

- http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=bus-744.jpg
I guess this is an esthetic rejection?

- http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=EC-HHU.jpg
Nice shot, but I would have liked to see the whole tail too - so I'd say 'Bad angle'  Wink/being sarcastic

- http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=RG_B777.jpg
On first impression looks sharp, but then the reg is fuzzy - possibly oversharp?

They don't look far off in general - just need some tweaking I think - possibly some more unsharp mask for the first few, and less the the last 2.

Good luck
Paul



User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Hi guys,

@clickhappy:
sorry, forgot to add them.

Rejection reasons for the ones in my last post:
1) badcommon
2) badsoft - badcommon
3) badsoft - badcommon
4) badscan
5) badmotiv - badpeople
6) badmotiv
7) badcommon

So 4 times badcommon!!!

@PRM:
Thanks for the advice!

Regards,
Frederic


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...
Rejections - Advice Needed Please posted Sat Aug 10 2002 10:09:59 by Sabena 690
Camera Advice Needed Please posted Sat Nov 18 2006 10:24:37 by Sabena 690
Quality Rejections, Advice Needed posted Thu Dec 8 2005 00:31:30 by Mrk25
Photo Advice Needed Please posted Sun Apr 3 2005 04:09:49 by SkyWestFan
Badquality Rejections - Advice Needed posted Mon Feb 21 2005 18:15:00 by Parsival
Low Quality Rejection - Advice Needed Please. posted Tue Apr 22 2003 20:38:18 by Toady
Advice On Some Rejections Needed Please! posted Mon Jan 2 2006 07:00:26 by JBLUA320
Advice Needed On A Motive Please posted Sat Oct 8 2005 14:49:58 by JumboJim747
Advice Needed On Photo Sale Please posted Fri Jul 29 2005 22:33:34 by Sabena 690
Advice Needed On A Rejection Please. posted Thu Feb 24 2005 19:03:58 by Fergulmcc