boing From Italy, joined Nov 2011, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7040 times:
Sorry, but soft to fix the problem what to do?? photo taken in backlight.
If I can give advice to solve the soft, I do not understand how to do (my photos are always soft)
thanks
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8316 posts, RR: 28 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7037 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting boing (Reply 2): Sorry, but soft to fix the problem what to do??
You would have to sharpen it in Photoshop or a similar editing program.
However, given this:
Quoting boing (Reply 2): photo taken in backlight.
There's not much point in editing it for A.net.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7317 posts, RR: 31 Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7033 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting boing (Reply 2): photo taken in backlight.
It is very difficult to get backlit photos accepted here without the proper motivation. The best thing for you to do is wait for better conditions (i.e. clear skies and sun at your back), and then try again. We can worry about sharpening at that time. I don't think any editing will help you save the photo above.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8316 posts, RR: 28 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6915 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Looks a bit oversharpened to me.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
teopilot From Italy, joined Jul 2010, 528 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6820 times:
I agree with what Dana said... (and how can he be wrong?! LOL)
You've applied too much USM, thus probably ending up into grain (because I don't know if the picture was already grainy by itself, but the USM usually make things worse...).
Also, I see some grain in the sky, probably due to the fact that you didn't use the USM selectively (there's a quick how-to-do guide for this on A.net photo editing guide)
A general rule: exceeding never pays off... and, also in this case, by exceeding with the USM you have got a picture that seems quite "unreal" to me, because of its excessive sharpening.
I'll give you a word of advice, basing on my experience: generally I apply USM three times...
1. 200%, 0.2, 0
2. 200%, 0.2, 0
3. 100%, 0.2, 0
This technique works almost perfectly for my combos, both 70-200L and 15-85 on my 450D.
But there are not general rules when it comes to sharpening... you can be given advice, but you have to try and try until you find the perfect settings.
But what I think you're missing too is a quick pass with NR tool: USM generally makes some grain come out... with a "soft" NR pass, you can benefit a lot (at least, this works with me!).
I can see lots of jaggies on your last picture too.
It's better to apply USM on a duplicated layer and then to use the eraser tool to erase them. (Jaggies are those "white lines" that came to be noticeable with strong USM passes).
teopilot From Italy, joined Jul 2010, 528 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 6792 times:
Well, to be honest, I see it better if compared to the previous one.
But it is still soft to my eye... I'd go with several further USM passes. Don't be harsh in applying it... and use the same method: duplicate layer, select the aircraft, USM, eraser tool, Noise reducion and flatten image.
That's all!
boing From Italy, joined Nov 2011, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 6789 times:
sorry but I have not quite clear how to use the eraser
Can you explain it to me since you're so kind
thanks
applied two mask steps as you said 200,0.2,0
thanks
Best one so far, though just a little too soft now. It looks like heat haze might be present, and if that is the case, you will not be able to fix the image.
25 boing: although I really like, changing image. How about this thanks [Edited 2012-03-08 09:23:25]
26 dlowwa: Not too bad, though there seems to be a fair amount of compression. Because of that hard to say for sure if it's too noisy/os.
27 teopilot: I agree that heat haze is always a pain in the neck as it is not fixable in any way... but I can still remember a word of advice someone (probably Da
28 boing: We tried again in 1024 what do you say thanks I love this photo!! and also put this occasion. Thanks to all
29 vikkyvik: It is a nice photo, but just might not be what A.net is looking for. Acceptance or rejection here isn't necessarily a judgment on your photographic s
30 dlowwa: Yes, probably best to give up on this one. No, you are correct on both counts Vik.
31 boing: I understand it, the obstacles that are seen close to the wheels and the motor are cause for rejection. thanks ok I know abandonment, try again with
33 dlowwa: A little flat and noisy, but otherwise ok.
34 boing: I was rejected because soft What do you think?
35 Cargolex: It looks like a fair rejection to me - it does look soft overall to me. Selective sharpening might help. If you're working in photoshop, try selecting
36 boing: I selected only the plane and I applied unsharp mask. I can better explain what it means to select individual parts of the plane (what you mean by pa
37 dlowwa: I think what I said in reply 9 is still true. There is some heat haze, and you weren't able to hide it even at the smaller size. You probably cannot
38 boing: ok, I just wanted to understand what needs to be done to solve the problem "soft" thanks while I post this. Give me good news .....
39 dlowwa: A little oversharpened. Might be acceptable with a better edit.
40 boing: recommendations? less sharpening! thanks
41 dlowwa: Hard to tell without seeing the original. I can take a look if you would like and tell you if the quality is there to make it worth another attempt.
42 boing: original image, reduced to 1200 thanks waiting for news
43 dlowwa: Reduced to 1200 defeats the purpose. Contact me privately, and then I can give you an address where you can send the original full-size file.
46 dlowwa: Hi, it's soft, dark, and poorly centered.
47 boing: but it is possible that I was rejected for the following reason Reject reason: soft oversharpened or are the subjects that are not interesting?? if n
48 dlowwa: Yes, it does have that look... Personally, I try to never give soft and oversharpened as reasons for a single image as I can see how confusing/contra
49 boing: ok, but at least when the place can tell me please the image be accepted, so I avoid long waits and then ..... thanks always very kind
50 boing: do not give up, I go back to the office How about thanks
51 dlowwa: Not too bad. Maybe a touch soft, but only needs minor fixing.
52 boing: I only adjusted levels and unsharp mask 80, 02, 0 This is the original, what do I trim and clean only. thanks
64 dlowwa: Seems to be, yes. Can't really fix heat haze, so still no.
65 boing: sorry, but what does it mean? Contrasts are now better, but the aircraft is still high in frame. Regards centered personal the plane so I have to hit:
66 dlowwa: It means you need to place it lower. Much softer than the previous version.
67 boing: no, just tell me if you look at the quality so it is centered thanks
68 boing: I'll explain the first is rejected as the second plane collagato more below. do not look at quality photos but only if the aircraft is positioned exac
69 boing: I'll explain the first is rejected as the second plane collagato more below. do not look at quality photos but only if the aircraft is positioned exac
70 dlowwa: Both are somewhat soft, possibly due to heat haze. The first also as the nose gear obstructed (avoidable) and the second a border along the bottom of
73 boing: I try ..... and this Thanks to the availability
74 boing: [quote=dlowwa,reply=57]Some heat haze, but otherwise not bad. dlowwa excuse I say not bad but then I was rejected for this reason sky abnormally brigh
75 dlowwa: Will be rejeced for oversharpened/quality. I think the sharpening is ok, but the corners do look a little bright...did you try to remove some vignett
76 boing: give me the certainty that goes beyond the passage! I redid the image, I want to point out that there were alterations of the image, I think the white
77 dlowwa: Corners look more normal, so it must have been your previous edit that had caused that issue.
79 dlowwa: Unfortunately these are all likely to be rejected. Soft, dark/contrast for the first; oversharpened, noisy, quality for the second; noisy, soft, cont
80 boing: proceed in order. oversharpened, noisy, quality for the second; and now as; noisy, soft, contrast for the thrid. and now as; [Edited 2012-04-08 12:55:
81 dlowwa: Now soft, low contrast, quality. Contrast, quality, soft. Still dark/backlit, contrast Sorry, I don't think any of these have the quality necessary t
82 boing: I was refused, oversharpened dlowwa What do you think thanks http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...412_c1333574433.6226okdsc_2861.jpg[Edited 2012-04
83 dlowwa: Yes, looks oversharpened, especially on the titles (regular & special).
84 Tomskii: Do not mean to be harsh or anything, but the white around the characters of the airlines name is caused due to the sharpening .
87 dlowwa: Motive should be ok, but there are several quality issues. The contras is quite low, and it looks quite soft & over-processed, maybe from too much
92 boing: so! I added a bit of unsharp mask, then the rubber jaggies and a bit of noise reduction. hope for the best thanks
93 dlowwa: Sorry, I think the quality's just not there, or at least it has been over-edited to the point you've destroyed a lot of the quality.
94 boing: sorry I do not understand the first was soft now with two passages I have destroyed. but when it is soft what to do!! add some contrast? how about thi
95 dlowwa: It was either too soft to start, or you've made it that way through editing, primarily through noise reduction. Without seeing the original, I can't
96 boing: summary, then tell me if the steps are ok: amount of photos regulate levels image cropping dust Removal color and levels only sharpening rubber serrat
97 dlowwa: Looks basically correct, though I'm not sure what 'amount of photos' means. Remember, there is no one 'correct' way to do things. We each need to find
98 boing: Sorry, can see steps to make my eye clipping cleaning levels as is? I have to apply a contrast curve ?[Edited 2012-04-17 11:58:19]
99 dlowwa: You could maybe add a little contrast, but looks pretty good as is.
111 boing: so you think you can go thanks http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...6831886.618provaokbasedsc_0463.jpg[Edited 2012-05-12 07:17:54]
112 dlowwa: Color looks better than the previous one.
113 Boing: I want to try with this photo What do you think thanks
114 dlowwa: A bit flat and mostly backlit. Not a great angle for the light. The sky also seems to have some banding.
115 boing: ok you're right, thanks observation I learned another thing that I did not know abandonment, I want to try with this photo
116 dlowwa: Also a little back/toplit but that's not an immediate killer. It would also need a little ccw rotation. The main problem is that there is pretty heavy
117 boing: I changed the method of cropping photos with the lowest possible JPEG compression (highest quality, 12 in Photoshop). [Edited 2012-05-16 13:33:39]
132 dlowwa: Softer and more compression than before. Are you simply re-editing the same file each time, or are you starting from the original? Should be ok.
133 boing: starting from the original I try this foto photo otherwise cancellation thanks
134 dlowwa: I don't see much compression in this one. It's slightly high, but other than that could be ok.
155 dlowwa: If you say so, but impossible to compare given you have removed the first version. The second one is soft, has a red tint, and a soft editing halo. L
156 boing: statement was not, was only a request you have removed the first version because I put a different picture same airplane now or this [Edited 2012-07-
157 dlowwa: Don't see much difference between the two, but if I had to choose, it would be the first.
185 dlowwa: Second one is better, but there is a fair amount of jpeg compression visible.
186 boing: jpeg compression visible. can you help me ???? I followed your guide edit where am I wrong ?? original image I reduce 1200 save jpg thanks
187 dlowwa: Looks like you're taking the right steps, so it might just be that imageshack is compressing it upon upload.
188 boing: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._r1347301837.3516cosmodsc_0948.jpg Reject reason: quality soft I did it again What do you think thanks
192 boing: try this different angle best light or this I used more USM and rubber [Edited 2012-09-22 09:59:21]
193 dlowwa: First one I guess; the second has far too much jpeg compression to determine much else about.
194 boing: let's try this other picture what do you think thanks [Edited 2012-09-23 10:26:38] dd [Edited 2012-09-23 10:27:36]
195 boing: let's try this other picture what do you think thanks [Edited 2012-09-23 14:19:44]
196 dlowwa: Over-exposed and backlit. Not a good combination.
197 boing: but it is possible to this photograph is reduced so bad to receive such a refusal thanks Reject reason: quality blurry grainy common oversharpened htt
198 dlowwa: Not too bad, but as the 'common' rejection should tell you, standards are even higher for more common subjects such as this.
199 boing: ok I understand this what do you think thanks
200 dlowwa: Oversharpened, bit noisy, and some vignetting in corners.
201 boing: this what do you think thanks [Edited 2012-09-30 10:00:57]
235 dlowwa: High in frame, soft, and oversaturated color.
236 boing: This Fotografia What do you think thanks
237 boing: This photography What do you think thanks you can check also this photography thanks [Edited 2012-11-06 13:51:23]
238 dlowwa: First has a cyan tint, harsh contrast, and editing halos; second is dirty and will get you an editing rejection and possibly even warning or ban for w
239 boing: top left I have not done anything, not my interest to change the forografie. I see the original photograph to find out what happened. then the problem
240 boing: top left I have not done anything, not my interest to change the forografie. I see the original photograph to find out what happened. then the problem
241 dlowwa: As I said, almost certainly from editing, probably from removing either the dust spot or the vignetting in the corners.
242 boing: you did not say if this picture has any chance thamks
243 dlowwa: It is backlit, and there is a fair amount of compression in the sky.
244 Boing: hi What do you think of this picture thanks
258 boing: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...7141.3912ala_okprova2_dsc_9638.jpg Hello and I was rejected this photo reason Reject reason: soft category so w
264 boing: I just wanted you opinion before putting
265 boing: What are you think? Thanks an opinion for the previous Thanks
266 dlowwa: Color's off (cyan hue) but otherwise not too bad. See:
267 boing: I just wanted you opinion before putting
268 dlowwa: Yes, and I've said my opinion three times now: it will be rejected for 'Motive' because of the obstruction.
269 boing: kindly a comment for this picture before posting thanks
270 DL747: Looks oversharpened, but still soft towards the back. Might the original be a bit blurry? I am not sure if it has the quality, but consult Dana, as he
272 boing: I made these two tests what do you think thanks also add this test [Edited 2013-01-07 14:32:58]
273 boing: hello Dana can valuare my photos thanks
274 DL747: As for the CRJ, third is best.Perhaps a bit dark and oversharpened.The UA looks way oversharpened. In addition, it looks sort of like HDR, which is ag
275 boing: UA is not HDR, I used it only applies image, Melting channels and fusion. It will definitely be the effect of shadows / highlights Thanks for the ride
276 DL747: ??? Did you use the auto levels? Something is definitely not right, but I can't put my finger on it. It is probably a couple of things.
277 dlowwa: Unfortunately all are quite poor, so don't think there is much chance of them being accepted. A bit soft and has some editing halos/banding in the sk
278 Boing: hello I would like to try again with these two photos we hope that.... thanks
279 dlowwa: First is a bit oversharpened now, and the color is still a bit strong. Second is generally not too bad., but there is some vignetting in the corners.
280 Boing: I reduced the saturation and the mask contrast what do you think thanks
281 dlowwa: Color looks better, but the contrast is too harsh. You also should make sure you post your images with sRGB as the embedded profile, otherwise you ar
282 Boing: I did not notice the color profile.. in this photo I lightened the contrast what do you think thanks
283 dlowwa: Some banding in the sky and contrast a bit harsh.
284 boing: hello I did two tests reworked image, contrasto nullo schiarito ombre ect as you see thanks
285 dlowwa: Halos and banding in both, though much stronger on the first. Sorry, don't know what that means.
286 boing: okay see if that works better with this picture thanks
287 dlowwa: This has pretty severe banding as well.
288 boing: I do not understand why the bands are formed I do not see in this bands hopefully good add this photo I do not see bands ???? [Edited 2013-01-13 13:27
289 dlowwa: No banding in either of these two. Almost certainly from your editing. Quite obvious in your earlier attempts, but as they have been removed, I can't
290 boing: ok but what do you think? I try to put them in the queue? thanks
291 MeisterManuel: I'm sorry I should create a new Thread I didn't found the delete option Sorry[Edited 2013-01-15 10:53:11]
292 dlowwa: A touch soft and colors still seem a bit off.
299 dlowwa: Same as above, but contrast is even lower than before. Also a bit dark.
300 boing: I changed my photo i did not have space to raise airplane. this photo as you see it ? thanks
301 dlowwa: Not sure why you changed the centering; now it is too high. Also starting to see some editing halos.
302 boing: so ' as halo is observed , what procedure needs to be done thanks
303 dlowwa: Don't introduce them with your editing. You are in danger of receiving an official warning of upload ban if you upload an image like the above, as yo
304 boing: sorry but the command shadow / highlights you can not use ???? Now i have brighten up the shadows with camera raw as I did before. but the filter acce
Sponsor Message: 
From Italy, joined Nov 2011, 168 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7317 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8316 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
