Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre-/Post-Screening MLP86  
User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4782 times:

Hi,
this was rejected because of grainy and soft:



Before re-uploading the new edition I would like to have your feedback if it's OK now:



Thanks and regards,
Max

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4774 times:

Hi,

Still soft (and dark); not sure if the quality is there.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Is the soft problem only the background (mountains)? The focus sits on the wing which seems sharp to me.

User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4769 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 2):
The focus sits on the wing which seems sharp to me.

No, the wing is soft, especially the winglet.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4757 times:

It is a bit curious, the antennas are pin sharp, but the leading edge of the winglet is problematic. I've got another frame but with less aircraft visible it wouldn't fit on this site. So I made another try and added also a bit brightness. Would be a pity if it doesn't make it because I like the motive very much (but that doesn't matter I think ).



Regards,
Max


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4726 times:

Still soft. Might have a chance with some sharpening and at 1024.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4722 times:

Thank you! That's an idea, i'll see what I can do.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

At the risk of being annoying  I'd like to ask if it's going in the right direction. I now concentrated on the edges of the wing and especially the winglet:



User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Better, though I still thinking going with 1024 wouldn't hurt your chances.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

Thank you Dana for your helpful response! Now I have this one with 1024p in the queue:



Hope it will make it...


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 4680 times:

I got another one which may be difficult. So I would like to get some opinions if it would have a chance and is worth uploading:



Thanks and regards,
Max


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4625 times:

Hi,
yesterday I uploaded this one:



It would be cool to get some feedback because I took the photo in a difficult light situation and I am not sure if the quality is enough to leave it in the queue.

Thank you very much!
Regards Max


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

Looks a little soft and oversaturated, but might be workable with a better edit.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4168 times:

Hey,
I'd like to know if this one is ok in terms of sharpness. It is a new edit after rejection because of that.



Thanks a lot!
Max


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Hi,
after some repeated rejections I have to ask for feedback before uploading the reedited versions.

Starting with this one, first rejection due to soft, second oversharped (jaggies on leading edge). Hopefully I now got the right balance:



Here the reason were oversharped titles:



The next one was a bit overexposed:



Thanks!
Max


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4014 times:

Quality should be ok on the second and third, but don't think it's there for the first.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

Thank you for the fast reply!

Again to the first one, do you mean there is a problem with sharpness or can you specify missing quality? It's a pity that such uncommon shots are so difficult to get accepted...


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 16):
Again to the first one, do you mean there is a problem with sharpness or can you specify missing quality?

Looks a little blurry, and oversharpened to compensate to me.

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 16):
It's a pity that such uncommon shots are so difficult to get accepted...

Sorry, there are thousands of widow view shots already accepted, and yours is really too dark to see anything interesting. Don't see why it should get special consideration.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Thank you for the explanation, it's really helpful for me to collect experience. And yes you're absolutely right. In this case I already used ISO1250 and additional pushed it in post-processing about 1EV - so when I think right, yes, there are really better shots online - no problem.  

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Hello,
can someone with a reliable monitor look if the color of this photo is ok now? My monitor is not professionally calibrated, so I have to rely on the AWB of my cam...
In the rejection there was no remark, only the tag color. It could have been a bit yellow, I have tried to correct that:



Thanks,
Max


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

A bit yellow, but the bigger problem is the contrast. In fact, checking the logs, this had been rejected twice for contrast, and it looks like you've made minimal to no change to the contrast between the two images. I suggest you do something to address that if you decide to attempt the image again.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3400 times:

Thanks for your evaluation. Yes I have to adjust contrast and crop. Just wanted to clear the color problem first...

User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 21):

Since your contrast is higher that yellow-ish cast is more prominent as well  



Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Hehe,
so that brings light into darkness. Am I right that the contrast is to high? I thought in the other direction and increased it after the first rejection, did I misunderstood?

HB-JHJ (now with less contrast and corrected white balance):



So I have to ask about a second shot from this sequence. Maybe I over-corrected the contrast issue after this one was rejected first because of low contrast, in the second rejection contrast was complained without notice so I increased it again. You can have a look:

HB-JHD:


[Edited 2012-07-29 14:23:29]

User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

In my view (but I might be wrong) both have a tad too much contrast.

Tom



Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 23):
Am I right that the contrast is to high?

Second version is better.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 25):
Second version is better.

Ok, than I assume contrast of the other shot (HB-JHD) is also to high?


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 26):
Ok, than I assume contrast of the other shot (HB-JHD) is also to high?

   Sorry, missed that they were two different regs. -JHD in reply #23 looks passable, but -JHJ the contrast looks a little low.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Ahh ok, it was not clever from me to ask about two similar shots in the same post.
But it's no problem, so I will let JHD in the queue how it is and add some contrast to JHJ.

Thanks for your help!
Max


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

Hey,
can someone confirm if colour is ok now?

http://www.abload.de/img/hb-ixr.1024.new.highiylbu.jpg

Thanks!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 29):
colour is ok now?

Now? Compared to what?


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Hi Dana,
this is the rejected one:



I got no advice in which way the colour should be corrected. For the rejected one I used automatic white balance. I adjusted the new one a little bit into the blue direction because from my experience awb sometimes tends to have a yellowish tint.


While we're at it I would link to ask another question:



This one was rejected first time due to over-sharpened (the only reason). I reedited it and now it was rejected because of crop, dead space in front of the aircraft. But as described in the rejection guide (acceptable off-center) I have a reason to crop it this way - to show the aircraft behind. How is your opinion?

BTW, I never get these rejection mails, so I have no chance not appeal it. Do I risk a warning when I try it again maybe with a comment to the screeners?

Thanks, Max

[Edited 2012-10-24 16:52:40]

User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 31):
this is the rejected one:

Can't say I see a big difference between the two, but they both seem a bit yellow.

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 31):
I used automatic white balance.

I would try to avoid automatic anything really, nothing better than using your own judgment.

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 31):
While we're at it I would link to ask another question:

Centering should be fine, as the awkward centering is probably better than the awkward crop that would result if you cut the 74SP behind.

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 31):
BTW, I never get these rejection mails, so I have no chance not appeal it.

Bookmark this:

http://www.airliners.net/myphotos/appeal_photo.php


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

I am going to adjust the colour of the first photo again, it is no problem because I use RAW format. Generally I just have more confidence in the AWB then in my uncalibrated monitor and mostly it works good.  

As you share my opinion on the off-centered second photo I decided to appeal it - let's see what is going to happen...

Thanks again for your help!
Max


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

I am not surprised that the appeal was declined because of the grainy issue, but beside that the reason is again bad centered. Sure that I should crop it this way? It really does not look better with this cutted 747:



Or should I first work on the grainy issue only and try it again with the first crop?


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

I see there were not any comments about the crop on the appeal so it could be that whoever handled it forgot to remove 'centering' as a reason, but I guess you'd be better off now just re-submitting with the tighter crop.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

What do you think about heat haze in this shot, would it be acceptable?



Thanks for your contribution!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

Heat haze shouldn't be a problem, though whatever you've done to the sky has made it quite blotchy.

User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Thanks for the fast reply!
I think the sky got blotchy because I brightened up the shades of blue a little bit, that should be fixed now:



User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 38):
that should be fixed now

This should be fine.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

How is your opinion about this one? I reedited it after it got rejected because of "quality grainy soft dark":



Te rejected one is here.

Thanks!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 40):
How is your opinion about this one?

I don't see noise being a problem, but the light isn't very good.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

Hey,
I got another rejection:



reason: low contrast motive contrast personal

Can someone explain the motive issue? Should I crop tighter on the instruments?

Thanks in advance!
Max


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1737 times:

Maybe this way?

New edit:


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 42):
Hey,
I got another rejection:

I think the motive should have been passable on the first, but the contrast is a bit low. The second is overexposed and quite noisy; and I think the crop is better on the first personally.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

Thanks Dana, I will follow your suggestion and make a new edit tomorrow.
Best Regards, Max


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

I recently changed my monitor and have calibrated it. Now I can comprehend why some shots before got rejected.  However I have to get used to it. Unconsciously I still apply the compensation which was necessary with the old monitor. 

So this one was rejected for color (blue cast) and grainy in 1400px resolution. I reedited the shot today and exported in only 1200px:



Is it OK now? For me it looks good, but it is tricky to get the right balance due to the different light temperatures between the foreground (shadow on engine and wing) and the daylight in background.

Regards, Max


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1618 times:

Quoting MLP86 (Reply 46):
Is it OK now?

Maybe a touch blue, but I don't see color being an major issue.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Since I got my new and calibrated monitor, I understand why the picture in post 40 (Swiss A319) was rejected.  

Now I was trying to get a reedited version accepted, but it was rejected twice for overexposed and now for low contrast and soft. Before getting the next rejection I would like to ask for your opinion.

First two of the rejected to compare:
Overexposed

low contrast, soft:


This is the new one which is now in the queue with higher contrast, more sharpness and only 1024p:


Regards, Max

[Edited 2013-04-29 14:24:54]

User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

The new one appears a bit oversharpened in spots, for example the reg letters and the rear of the tail.

The contrast looks pretty good to me now, but I sometimes err on the low side so others might not agree.


User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

Thanks for your response!

I reduced the sharpness in some spots and clarity for the tail because it looked strangely dark after increasing contrast to this level. This is the result:



User currently offlineMLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

OK, I have to ask again:

This one was rejected for low contrast:
Version 1

I increased the contrast slightly (already for the second time) and now it got rejected for harsh contrast:
Version 2

How is that possible? I do not see enough difference between these to versions allowing two rejections for opposite reasons!?

Additional question: The second rejection reason was soft, can someone specify where exactly the 1024p version is soft? In my eyes it is borderline over sharped which user mjgbtv in post 49 also said.

Thanks in advance,
Max


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pre-/Post-Screening MLP86
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format