Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejected Photos - Please Advise - Im Lost.  
User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 16
Posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5601 times:

Hello fellows!

I am seeking help and advise for the follwing photos:

Rejected for not being level:
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.cgi?1044004211:ANC

I worked on this one, looked level to me. Let me know what I should do.

Rejected for bad quality:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.cgi?1044002171:ANC
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.cgi?1043913550:ANC
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.cgi?1043831176:ANC
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=30786

The above rejection leave me puzzled. What would you guys recommend doing, scan at higher resolution or appeal?

Thanks for your time in helping me out!

-Dmitry

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

I agree with the rejections...

The first, check the lightpoles, I can assure you that the picture is not level.

No.2 is very grainy, and doesn't appear to be level (check the mountains in the background, they are going downhill!!).
no.3 is grainy again, with jaggies and the shadow on the tail detracts from the picture, plus the titles are not visible because of a bad light reflection.
no.4, is grainy again and check the wing on the darkside of the aircraft, oversharpened and with jaggies.
no.5, very 'blue' tone (all the previous had a purple tone too), has been oversharpened again (check rego) and the vertical stabilizers have jaggies.

Regards

Dan


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5486 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5443 times:

The majority look grainy. I've been bittin by the reject bug a lot lately, I dunno what to tell you man.

User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2643 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5420 times:

Hey there Dimitry....... misery loves company.

Got a few rejections myself this week and also for the same badquality. Shot DIGITAL and they say to re-scan it due to poor scan quality. Jeezzzes, not sure where to go myself. Sometimes a full frame 2MP image is accepted, and sometime it is rejected for poor quality. Same camera, same resolution. Go figure.

As to yours.

Beech shot does nothing for me. Don't like the shadow on the tail which detracts, also the building in the back seems to dominate the frame visually.

Fedex I would rotate about 1 degree or 1.2 degrees CW.

Alaska. Looks great after I clone the light pole out of the frame. Of course we KNOW that is not allowed,  Yeah sure You could also try a chainsaw late one night..... remove the pole that way.  Smile

UPS and Atlas. They images seem flat to me. I took a look at the levels in Photoshop and think you could do some work there. The photos are a bit flat and grey looking. Also check the color cast in them. Have you run the A.net monitor calibration program? Good to keep checking periodically.
There's some grain in the photos. What film speed were you using? Or perhaps you oversharpened it a bit much which can also accentuate the grain. One thing I tried was to mask select the sky then gausian blurr it to hide the grain. Feather the edges of the mask so it blends nicely. Makes the grainy look disappear. It's not as noticeable on the aircraft, and you can't blurr that out.  Smile
But both are nice photos. Nice location you have. Love that background with the mountains.

Anyway. Wish the UPS and Atlas had been accepted. Oh well....... keep shooting.

Steve


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5366 times:

Thanks for the tips Dan, Justin and Steve.

I will fix up the Fed-Ex one, and try to rescan the others.

Well, I think the Beech looks good, nothing I could have done about the reflection.  Sad

Steve, I used an ISO of 64 for the Atals and UPS photos. I'll try to play around with them, I know I can get them to acceptable quality - have before, no reason I can't now.

Thanks!

-Dmitry


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 713 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5344 times:

I think we're seeing some classic winter sun problems here:

1 - contrasts - highlights are good, but shadows are totally blocked up with no detail. A little experimentation with curves to lift the shadows a little could work wonders

2 - in general, snow is white (I'd have thought you'd be familiar with this stuff Dimitry  Smile) but surprisingly difficult to record as white. Yes, some sky reflection will tend to give a blue cast - but you need to keep this under control

3 - I suspect your pics are underexposed by perhaps 1/2 a stop - again snow can play havoc with your metering.

Steve - the badscan is a pretty generic (too generic?) lable for poor image quality whether from scan or digi. It really refers to problems due to the digital processing of the image. In the case of a digicam, resolution is not everything. A big problem is noise (esp. in the shadows) and exposure seems to have a big affect on how much noise the sensor generates ... get it even a little wrong and you will start to see undesirable effects. In camera sharpening can also cause problems depending on the subject, lighting etc.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5350 times:

Photopilot -

"Jeezzzes, not sure where to go myself. Sometimes a full frame 2MP image is accepted, and sometime it is rejected for poor quality. Same camera, same resolution. Go figure."

Well I figure that your shots are bordeline and whether they get accepted or not depends [AS EXPLAINED A THOUSAND TIMES ON THIS FORUM] on:

* Rarity of the subject [and this is database rarity not actual rarity]
* Composition
* Aesthetic qualities

If you don't like the decisions then appeal but don't jump on one of these threads and shoot your mouth off, please stick to the issue in hand.


thanks,


J





Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5323 times:

Dimitry.

You know that 14/32 sloaps downward to the right in that phot from the viewing point at Pt. Woronzoff. I know it does. I don't think we are going to be able to convince those guys that it does.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5258 times:

L-188, there is no convincing to be done I can assure you, the photo IS NOT LEVEL. I'm surprised that after the topic and everything on levelling photos you still didn't pick this one out dmitry, it is not level...

The colour is off on your photos, it is easily rectifiable. Just playing about with colour levels on photoshop...

here:

http://www.eggd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rotate.jpg

rotate the photo, using the measure tool on the lightpoles, then using the arbituary (sp?) in 'rotate canvas' menu... in this case it was 1.07% rotated..

then the colour, this and most of your pictures have a pretty bad magenta tint, so sliding it more towards the green fixes the problem, of course i only did it quickly but there is already an improvement...

http://www.eggd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/colour.jpg

then the final result:



of course the colour can still be better, but LOOK!! The runway is still not level, but the picture is, marvellous!!!


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5260 times:

And dont forget to get rid of the borders after roatating the picture like shown above Big grin
Peter



-
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5240 times:

Peter - shut the hell up  Laugh out loud  Smile  Big thumbs up.

The border wouldn't have been there if you were starting by scratch (that was the copyright border)...

Dan  Smile


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5229 times:

Thanks guys, I get the point.

Coling I was shooting in Shutter Priority, I don't remeber what teh shutter speed was, probably around 200 or 250. I alos compensated - 1/3 of a stop.
Yes, I am used to snow, usually plenty of it - this year is really weak.

Shawn, That is true that 14/32 slopes down, especially at the beginning, but I am a beleiver in level background - thats what counts. The airplane can look like its going off the cliff, but if the background (poles, buildings, etc) are level, then its a beauty.

My early days:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Kudryn

(flat)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Kudryn

(this has been commented as the Tower of Pisa inf the background, man isn't ANC a awesome place!)  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I just have been having trouble lately on this tele shots of the Fed-Ex/UPS parking photos. This one took me a while (I usually upload these in the middle of the night, that might be a factor?):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Kudryn



Dan, thanks for the tips - like I stated above I upload these sometime when your having lunch, so I usually off.......but without helpful guys here on the forum, I'd be confused.

-Dmitry
ANC = Awesome




User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

Why did you compensate - 1/3 stop????
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2643 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5155 times:

To Screener Jason Taperell:

I am sorry you feel that I was "shooting my mouth off" in my recent comments on this thread. Quite obviously and despite the fact that I am a full-time photo-editor/photographer/photojournalist/graphic designer/aviation photographer who has been shooting longer than you have been alive, I don't have the skills and talents you have. I also assume that my long list of national and international awards are somewhat worthless and must have been a matter of simple luck. Thank god for autofocus, autoexposure and the occasional hail-Mary or I wouldn't have a decent photo at all ! ! ! ! !

I offered Dimitry my honest comments and suggestions on improving his photos (including a tongue-in-cheek comment on the light-pole) and don't appreciate your mouthing off comments.

In addition, having edited and chosen for publication literally thousands of photos per year, I do in fact find some rejection notices somewhat ambiguous in their nature. I have never delved into "screener bashing" (until your comments) but expressed what I term "fair comment" on what is sometimes a mysterious process in its appearance. I don't upload lots of same-old, same-old photos where there are hundreds in the database, but rather look for photos that are not represented in either angle or view and of different types. What's the challenge in the 10 zillionth photo of a 737?

So please, don't confuse me with someone who gives a damn what you think or accuse me of.

Steve Liard


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5104 times:

Jan, the reason I compensated a - third stop was because I was advised to do so in snowy conditions and when the sun is shinning hard to give the slide a richer look - otherwise I have been into photography for exactly 1 year, I did take a photo class in order to get the basics strait, but compensation was not covered.

Possibly you could give me a lecture on compensations, and how much and in what type of conditions to use it? Would certainly appreciate it!

This is the shot that brought up the talk about compensation, because my light meter gets tricked by all the white.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Kudryn

(and notive the flat look the plane has)

Thanks guys, really appreciate all the help.........I'll make it one day.

-Dmitry


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 713 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5091 times:

Dimitry - be wary of help in terms of exposure - people can give you guidelines, but advice like "use 1/3rd stop compensation" is not too helpful. It all depends ... exactly how much snow is in the picture? How bright is the sky etc. etc. (very few of us shoot at your latitude!).

The fact is, yes, you probably do need to compensate, but only you can determine how much. I would suggest instead that you a) invest in a grey card and take your meter readings off that and b) bracket your exposures

In this (and only in this way) will you build up the experience that allows you to assess a scene and say, "hmm a little compensation is in order here".

Having said that, I think you've come a long way real quick, and you seem to have the right attitude (asking, trying again, asking) - but there is a lot to learn, and only some of it can be picked up from books and courses. I've always felt that if you don't get a few rejections from A.net, you're not pushing yourself hard enough - much of the fun in photography is stretching the possibilities and trying new techniques. A.net is a really useful feedback loop that gives you an objective opinion as to what does and doesn't work and I think can really accelerate the learning process.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

Ckw's advise is good as usual.
My point was: In conditions with sunlit snow, the basic compensation is +, not minus. Hence my question.
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5072 times:

So please, don't confuse me with someone who gives a damn what you think or accuse me of.

Which we would have believed had you not put the biggest irrelevant "I love myself" tirade before it thus proving to us that you not only give a damn, you obviously took offence.






ADG


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

Thanks so much Colin! BTW, I do have a grey card - but haven't used it for aviation photography (used it for my photo class when I shot B&W). I will definately take a reading next time I am out shooting, but as far as I remember it does not give a compensation reading - or am I wrong? I know it does very well with shutter speed and aperture - but thats about it.

-Dmitry


User currently onlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1655 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

D

I scanned my slides using USM in Photoshop following settings

500%
0.2 Radius
0 Threshold

Try this, I use 0.8 radius, it just too much and not clear/sharp as 0.2. This will give you a less grainy yet much sharper in finer detail part of the plane.

I tried this and get about 80-90% of the slides scanned accepted using S20

Sam


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 36
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5059 times:

Yes, exposing shots in snow can be extremely difficult. There was a really good article in a digital photography magazine on how to get your snow shots looking exposed, but I lost the magazine... I had a lot of trouble in Canada, but I blame it on my camera lol  Smile.

Anyway, what I suggest is you have a look at your surroundings, if the sun is high it will probably reflect off the snow more and you may need to under-expose the picture (but then the aircraft may be underexposed if its not in full sun). If the sun is lower then you shouldn't compensate, and if it is at sunset i'd over compensate by +1/3 or whatever.

Trial and error I guess, the light conditions are probably completely different in ANC compared to BRS so.... Cloudy i'd almost certainly recommend you over-expose by 1 stop...

Regards

Dan...



User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5027 times:

I have never so far had to underexpose in snow!! Overexpose on the other hand..
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm with Jan on this Big grin

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4974 times:

Hi all,

I have not shot aviation shots in snow but when we had a snow-fall here in SE England recently I went out to take some wintery shots I found myself normally used + 1/3, sometimes 0 but normally + 1/3.

Dmitry, the beauty of a DSLR Big grin Shoot a shot - 1/3, 0 + 1/3 and see within 3 seconds which is best (sorry to tease! Big grin)

LGW


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2643 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

By far the easiest answer it to use an incident light meter. Whether it is digital, film, negative or transparency, the only sure way to get predetermined results is incident light measurement.

Snow itself can have different levels of reflectivity. Is there an icy surface, corn snow etc.? All have differing reflective values that no compensation value can account for.

Go incident or keep guessing. Educated guesses maybe, but no certainty.

Steve


25 Kingwide : Photopilot - read my post again. Just referring to the fact that you were just stating the same old crap again "My photos were prepared the same way -
26 Ckw : Dimitry - Steve is correct - an incident meter is the ultimate solution ... I was assuming you didn't have one, and I don't think it is absolutely nec
27 Post contains images EGGD : Jan - are you sure? If you take a picture when the sun is at its highest and you take it with half snow/half sky or some other object then if you don'
28 Post contains images Ckw : Dan - I think Jan is correct - in a typical snowy scene you will probably need to use an exposure greater than that indicated by an averaging meter re
29 Post contains images EGGD : Maybe its my POS camera then
30 Alaskaairlines : Thanks fellows! Colin, your explanation cleared up a lot for compensation. I will try "A" mode next time, and then shoot all manual strait from the Gr
31 Thomasphoto60 : D, While I use a handheld meter as well, there have been the times when the meter for whatever reason was not available, in such a case I will use som
32 Rindt : Jan, I'm with ya here... if you're shooting in snow, your camera automatically wants to shoot at a higher shutter-speed because of the bright snow...
33 Photopilot : *********To All Fellow Posters************* I would like to apologise to other forum posters for the apparent "slagging" match that seems to have occu
34 Alaskaairlines : The reason those slides were probably rejected for bad quality is because of underexposure - I should have made a + 1/3 compensation. Thanks for all t
35 ADG : Stephen, That is good to hear, I asked the moderators to delete the post but unfortunately they felt it was OK to leave online. I'm glad to see that y
36 Post contains images Gerardo : Something I learned taking pictures in snow with two different cameras: - with my "normal" film camera (Canon EOS 30), I always had to OVERexpose, mea
37 Ckw : I think what we're beginning to see here is a situation where digicams are responding in a different way to film cameras. It may well be that Sony (an
38 LGW : I find from the shots I have seen the F707 tends to be a bit brighter/over expose or have blown highlights more than other digital cameras, although I
39 Post contains images Alaskaairlines : Hello Gerado! Thanks for the kind comments! Alaska is a wonderful place! We have tons of beachs with lots of fish heads laying around - just wonderful
40 Post contains images EGGD : Gerardo - I guess you are in the same position as me. I always have to underexpose snow shots just like aircraft shots in low sunlight, just because m
41 Alaskaairlines : Dan, what type of digi you using? -Dmitry
42 Post contains images Gerardo : Dmitry, you're welcome! Of course, I woudn't really mention that part with the "fish heads laying around" to my wife. Hope you understand Dan, with my
43 Post contains images Alaskaairlines : Gerado, yes, I said that purposely..........no, but really, Alaska is an awesome place - especially in the summer! Nice and warm, and almost 24 hrs of
44 Post contains images KLAX : Dmitry, I dont think I could stand around an airport fence for 20 hours Besides, my camera would run out of batteries, or I'd get hungry -CLovis
45 Post contains images Timdegroot : D, I really shoot take a trip to Alaska sometime, that nice scenery in your slides can't be beaten , and 20 hours of shooting in one day, yummy Tim
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 - Please Help! posted Thu Oct 10 2002 15:37:13 by 747 4-ever
Rejected Photos - Please Help! posted Tue Mar 19 2002 07:22:45 by 747 4-ever
Rejected Photos Advice Please posted Wed Jun 15 2005 23:10:10 by Lhrmaccoll
Advice Please On These Rejected Photos posted Thu Feb 14 2002 00:53:05 by Hkg_clk
Johan Rejected These Photos. Please Help! posted Tue Feb 27 2001 22:10:29 by AviationIvi
Rejected Photos: Help Please posted Fri Jun 23 2000 19:31:13 by Koala
Any Opinions On This Rejected Photos posted Sun Sep 3 2006 09:32:37 by AirMalta
Some Help With My Photos Please posted Tue Aug 8 2006 23:26:07 by Globalpics
Rejected Photos Any Help Pls? posted Sat May 20 2006 17:26:44 by AirMalta
Rejected Photos Any Tips Pls? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 06:26:13 by AirMalta