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.
teopilot From Italy, joined Jul 2010, 542 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7108 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, 542 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7080 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.
teopilot From Italy, joined Jul 2010, 542 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7026 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 24): It looks like heat haze might be present, and if that is the case, you will not be able to fix the image.
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 Dana himself) here gave me some time ago: to try with a resize.
I think that in this case it worth a try, since the image should be around 1200px wide... So, if I were you, I'd have a go with a 1024px resize and see what it looks like.
Maybe I remmber wrong... but I used it at times and it seems to work properly when heat haze is not so incisive!
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9010 posts, RR: 28 Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7009 times:
Quoting boing (Reply 28): We tried again in 1024 what do you say thanks
I love this photo!!
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 skills, or even on the particular photo. It's worth keeping that in mind.
Even at 1024, your photo looks quite soft in parts, yet almost oversharpened in others. I think heat haze is probably the killer for this one.
It's soft and a bit high in the frame for my taste (Dana may disagree), but the major obstacle (no pun intended) is the blockage of the gear and engine by the taxiway signs. That will likely result in a motive rejection.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
boing From Italy, joined Nov 2011, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6976 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 29): It's soft and a bit high in the frame for my taste (Dana may disagree), but the major obstacle (no pun intended) is the blockage of the gear and engine by the taxiway signs. That will likely result in a motive rejection.
I understand it, the obstacles that are seen close to the wheels
and the motor are cause for rejection.
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 29): 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 skills, or even on the particular photo. It's worth keeping that in mind.
I know abandonment,
try again with more photos
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1238 posts, RR: 8 Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6893 times:
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 individual areas of the aircraft and copying them into a new layer, then applying unsharp mask (I realize you may already have done this).
I get a significant number of soft rejections and I have to tell you, sharpening is probably the most difficult and frustrating aspect of working on my images - so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
boing From Italy, joined Nov 2011, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6888 times:
Quoting Cargolex (Reply 35): If you're working in photoshop, try selecting individual areas of the aircraft and copying them into a new layer, then applying unsharp mask (I realize you may already have done this).
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 parts?)
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31 Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6707 times:
Quoting boing (Reply 47): but it is possible that I was rejected for the following reason
Reject reason: soft oversharpened
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/contradictory that can seem, but there are certainly are cases when it could happen. If your image is quite soft to start and you apply too much sharpening to compensate, that would be the result. I can't say if that's exactly what happened with your image, but like I said, it does have that look.
boing From Italy, joined Nov 2011, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6320 times:
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 at the edges is due to the fact that in opening the raw files I have given the type of lens, and this causes the clear corners, I cut , slight unsharp mask 90, 0.2. (if you want I can also do the original image where you found no alterations or cloning) I like you mentioned in the link of rejection under edit.
I forgot I have always rejected the images and post them to wait 10 days or so or you have to send in another address??
because of the availability
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31 Reply 97, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6076 times:
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 the best way that works for us. My editing flow may differ from yours, but as long as the results are there, it doesn't really matter. If you're not getting results you are happy with, maybe try changing things up, and see what happens.