baldwin8 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 29 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1073 times:
Another rejection today due to "soft" issues. My equipment is a Sony A350 with 18-70 mm lens and I am using upwards of F10 apareture with ISO 100 for static aircraft on the ramp.
I am chasing every camera setting to correct the problem. I've tried varying between spot to wide focus but obviously this is not working. I feel my images are nothing to compare to what I am seeing uploaded.
Today I will try shooting with Image Stability off.
The standards of getting a shot accepted is eluding me.
I know this topic has been covered but nothing recently.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2603 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1062 times:
Quoting baldwin8 (Thread starter): The standards of getting a shot accepted is eluding me.
They are tough, but certainly not beyond most people. Maybe if you can post an original photo here we can give you some pointers? It may be your post processing that is the problem, not your photography. I'm more than happy to give a photo an edit if you want to contact me through my profile and email an original frame so I can walk you through my workflow and see what it comes out like. I'm off to the Maldives on Friday though so it'll have to be sooner rather than later.
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
seahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1045 times:
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8318 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1002 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting baldwin8 (Thread starter): I am using upwards of F10 apareture with ISO 100 for static aircraft on the ramp.
Just a thought: for me at least, at ISO100 and F10, the shutter speed would be lower than I'd probably want it for regular shooting. Not low enough to cause major problems, but if you don't need the DOF that F10 provides, why not shoot at F8 or so and bump the shutter a bit? Could reduce tiny bits of camera shake.
Also, if you're shooting higher than F10, the lens might not be at its peak sharpness. I haven't found this to be a big problem on resized photos, but you never know.
My guess, however, would be that it's a post-processing issue. It took me awhile to get to grips with how sharp A.net wants its photos (so, how much sharpening I need to do after resizing). And every now and then, I'll forget and get a bunch of soft rejections.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
baldwin8 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 984 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4): Just a thought: for me at least, at ISO100 and F10, the shutter speed would be lower than I'd probably want it for regular shooting. Not low enough to cause major problems, but if you don't need the DOF that F10 provides, why not shoot at F8 or so and bump the shutter a bit?
Also, if you're shooting higher than F10, the lens might not be at its peak sharpness.
My guess, however, would be that it's a post-processing issue. It took me awhile to get to grips with how sharp A.net wants its photos.
Thanks for the replies.
Your right maybe I don't need such a large DOF, and concentrate on shutter speeds of + 1/500.
It's difficult to compare when I see so many extremely crisp image uploaded everyday. Another member has graciously offered to have a look at my images so with a software update soon, I will hopefully be on the right track. I generally get to shoot 3 or 4 aircraft before the start of my shift here at YUL.
seahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 902 times:
One thing I would suggest when converting it, make sure you add some sharpness on the conversion, if you put it at 0 when converting it it'll be soft. I had the same issues a while ago and fixed it by bumping it up to 5 or so.
baldwin8 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 881 times:
Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 6): One thing I would suggest when converting it, make sure you add some sharpness on the conversion, if you put it at 0 when converting it it'll be soft. I had the same issues a while ago and fixed it by bumping it up to 5 or so.
In fact I was not sharpening it before converting and that seemed to be most of the problem. The Sony Image Convertor software is a bit different.
PS Elements 10 is now downloaded and will be working on my editing more in the following days.
dlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 511 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 832 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
I finally came to the conclusion that many of my "soft" rejections were a result of darker regions in the image not being sufficiently dark. Part of this is my monitor and part of this is my judgement when editing. I noticed that when I switched from a CRT to a flat screen monitor, the number of soft rejections I got increased noticeably.
Taking shots that are rejected as soft, in PhotoShop I move the dark (left) end of the histogram over 3-5% or sometimes use Darken Highlights. Usually, this results in an image that gets accepted on the second submission. Only rarely do I have to do more sharpening.
That's a good point - low contrast can give a soft look to an image (as can overexposure, in my experience).
That's basically all that digital sharpening does - increase contrast between light and dark regions, just on a small scale to increase apparent sharpness.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
baldwin8 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 806 times:
I think it is always good to cover some of the basics of Editing as many new people, like myself, need advice. I feel the "Editing in Photoshop" how to section is a bit dated with software updates. The basics are the same but layout on the application is different.
As well I find the recent thread "how not to oversharpen" is good in that we hear how others tackle sharpening.
yerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 188 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 782 times:
Hi Craig,
Nice photo of A320 from Montreal!
Try to keep you hands steady as much as possible, find best aperture for your lens depending on light and do some spotting. Good taken photos out of your camera do not need a lot of post processing. In my opinion it is all about man behind the camera. Good luck!
PS. Wish to go to Canada and watch a couple of hockey games alive
baldwin8 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 555 times:
I would just like to give an update to my "soft" issues I had.
It turns out my problem was largely my original kit lens 18-70 mm. After lengthy CTI (Consult The Internet) I found a review stating how poor this particular kit lens was. Sony has recently come out with a new DT 18-135 mm lens with great reviews and just released this spring. A local photoshop had this lens on sale under $100 of list price. I decided to purchase it and low and behold I'm getting much sharper images. The A350 being my first DSLR, I had no idea what a sharp image without editing should look like.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 29 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2603 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 153 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 188 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
