Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post-screening - Soft/contrast (JakTrax)  
User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 909 times:

Hi folks,

Either things are tightening up again or I'm getting sloppy. Had the first three done for soft (are they really that soft to warrant rejection?) and the last one (Monacrh) for contrast (given the soft, milky, morning light the contrast looks right to me).

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2.1613g-ezue_man_220512_kn_294.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1.6325g-xxxx_man_210512_kn_308.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6.3113ha-lpm_ltn_110512_kn_300.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...5.0525g-ozbi_man_210512_kn_311.jpg

Had others from the same batch accepted a few days ago which were processed in exactly the same way.

Opinions please?

Cheers,

Karl

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 907 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
are they really that soft to warrant rejection

The EZE looks boderline to me, but I would say it's a little harsh to be rejected.

The TOM aircraft in the foreground looks sharp to me with the aircraft in the distance a little soft, but that's to be expected due to depth of field.

The Wizz is a strange one as I see jaggies, but then it doesn't look as sharp as it should be.

Contrast on the MON looks ok on my screen although it probably wouldn't do any harm to increase the shadows, but I agree it's soft.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 907 times:

Thanks Darren. Monarch only done for contrast, not soft. Any of these worth an appeal?

Where do you see the jaggies on the Wizz?

Cheers,

Karl


User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 884 times:

Appealed the EasyJet and Monarch and both were accepted. I have (and have had for a good while now) a lot of faith in the heads, however with so many successful appeals this past few months I'm beginning to think the regular screening team needs to iron out some over-zealous decision-making.

Thanks to the heads and their good work.

By the way, is the Thomson shot worth appealing?

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10256 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 866 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 3):
By the way, is the Thomson shot worth appealing?

I'd say no. I think both aircraft could use an extra kick of sharpening, though primarily the one in the distance. If it was less integral to the shot, it'd probably be fine.

For what it's worth, I don't see jaggies on the Wizz; it looks soft to me.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 864 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
though primarily the one in the distance. If it was less integral to the shot, it'd probably be fine

Yes, I decided against appeal as the focus and motivation of the shot is both aircraft, so the distant one should really be sharper.

As for the Wizz, I'm never good at spotting jaggies because I find every shot here over-sharp.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6452 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 857 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
For what it's worth, I don't see jaggies on the Wizz; it looks soft to me.

I see jaggies on the rudder leading edge, registration and titles/windows. Though in saying that, I generally see jaggies when viewing accepted pics with this monitor. The contrast between the bright rudder and the background really brings it out though.

I think there are some soft spots too like the dark edge immediately around the cockpit, the bottom of the fuselage, maybe wheels and maybe the right horiz stab.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 856 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
I see jaggies on the rudder leading edge, registration and titles/windows. Though in saying that, I generally see jaggies when viewing accepted pics with this monitor

I still run an old monitor with a pretty low maximum resolution and every image I see on here looks too sharp, so I'm sympathetic to that plight.

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10256 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 842 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
I see jaggies on the rudder leading edge, registration and titles/windows. Though in saying that, I generally see jaggies when viewing accepted pics with this monitor. The contrast between the bright rudder and the background really brings it out though.

Interesting to see how different monitors can be. I don't see jaggies in any of those places (did you mean rudder trailing edge?).

I do generally see some jaggies on accepted photos (including my own), but probably not as many as you do, simply due to different monitors.

I'm actually kind of hesitant to change my monitor, cause I'm so used to editing and viewing photos on it, and I feel like it represents what A.net screeners see reasonably well, though who knows if that's true.  



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6452 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 836 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8):
(did you mean rudder trailing edge?)

Yeah, the back edge of the plane. I haven't looked at it on my normal editing monitor yet though..

Haha yeah I understand that last point - I've got a laptop which I need to upgrade sometime so switching to a desktop for editing will bring huge changes!

[Edited 2012-06-09 01:29:21]


It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinejaktrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 817 times:

That's exactly why I don't wish to upgrade my old monitor! It might be tired and offer low-res but I'm used to it and it seems to work for me most of the time.

Karl


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 816 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
I see jaggies on the rudder leading edge, registration and titles/windows.

That's what I see on my screen too and what I was refering to, although it still looks a little soft at the same tme.

Quoting jaktrax (Reply 10):
That's exactly why I don't wish to upgrade my old monitor!

When my old CRT screen went bang 18 months ago, I was depressed for about a month! I hate LCD screens with a passion and wish they'd never been invented, for tv as well. While they may offer better colour and contrast, I don't think they offer the same picture quality and some photo look horrible on them compared to CRT. A case of technology doesn't always improve things.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10256 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 789 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 11):
While they may offer better colour and contrast

Is that true? I had always been under the impression that CRTs were better for overall image quality - including color and contrast.

I suppose it may have changed at some point. I haven't had a CRT for years now, unfortunately.

Hell, I haven't even cleaned my monitor. It's got all sorts of spots on it, but I'm so used to them that they don't bother me.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6452 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 786 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
I'm so used to them that they don't bother me.

So you don't ever get the urge to try the spot healing brush on them?  



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Post-screening - Soft/contrast (JakTrax)
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