dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2954 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1115 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.
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.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
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.