Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre/Post Screening - Vishal Jolapara  
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 4
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._z1342712938.4318img_3495_edit.jpg

Rejected for:

Quality

Soft

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"Too big for quality"

I didnt quite understand the meaning of the Screener's remark  

You want the image to be toned-down to a smaller size?

And if you can pls tell me where all & what this image suffers from?

Thanks - Vishal

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Thread starter):
I didnt quite understand the meaning of the Screener's remark

You want the image to be toned-down to a smaller size?

Yes, the image is not even close to having the quality for 1400 pix. It might be ok at 1024, but even then only maybe.

Quoting vishaljo (Thread starter):
And if you can pls tell me where all & what this image suffers from?

I would have rejected it for blurry, grainy, oversharpened, and quality.


User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
Yes, the image is not even close to having the quality for 1400 pix. It might be ok at 1024, but even then only maybe.

Alrright

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
I would have rejected it for blurry, grainy, oversharpened, and quality.

Dana you would've rejected it for Oversharpened when it was rejected for "Soft"¿

It was shot from close range with a 7D & 100-400L.
Its tack sharp at full-res, just for my knowledge, where does it appear blurry?

Does this re-worked image look better?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...q1343548559.5513img_3495_1200x.jpg

Thanks for the reply Dana


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Dana you would've rejected it for Oversharpened when it was rejected for "Soft"¿

I think the original rejection was wrong in my opinion. There seems to be a lot of inconsistant rejections at the moment, but that's for another day. I would agree with Dana, it should have been rejected for blurry rather than soft. To me, it looks like you've had to apply quite a lot of sharpening in order to compensate for the photo being slightly blurry, hence it's oversharp and lacks quality. Soft is incorrect in my opinion.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Does this re-worked image look better?

Not really, it's still slightly blurry. There's not a lot you can do to compensate for that as it's a problem with the original photo. You can't edit it out. As Dana suggested, try 1024 pixels rather than 1200 or 1400 to see if that masks the blur. I don't think it will but it's worth a try.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
It was shot from close range with a 7D & 100-400L.
Its tack sharp at full-res, just for my knowledge, where does it appear blurry?

I'm more than happy to have a look at the original for you and give it an edit. Equipment used doesn't make much difference really, blurry is blurry. I would be surprised if it's tack sharp at full res given the blur that's visible in your edits, but by all means send me an email through my profile and I'll take a look if you like.

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 offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1079 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Dana you would've rejected it for Oversharpened when it was rejected for "Soft"¿

Yes. Image looks like it was blurry/soft and oversharpened to compensate.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Its tack sharp at full-res

If that's really the case, you've done a poor job with the processing.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
just for my knowledge, where does it appear blurry?

The whole underside of the aircraft is quite soft, and the gear looks blurry. I said I would have rejected for blurry to avoid confusion with oversharpened being mentioned as well, but really there's a point where blurry and very soft start to overlap. Take your pick for which one applies to this image.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Does this re-worked image look better?

Not quite as bad as the first. I would probably remove 'quality' from the rejection reasons, but I would keep the others.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pre/Post Screening - Vishal Jolapara
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