EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4228 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.
Photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4130 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, You could also try a chainsaw late one night..... remove the pole that way.
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.
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.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4054 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 ) 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.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3968 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...
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...
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3939 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.
Photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3865 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.
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3814 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.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3801 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.
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3789 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.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3769 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 .
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...