The first 2 rejections were mainly because it was soft, which I corrected by giving it some sharping(to the whole picture).
In my opinion I think it's exagerated because I don't see almost any grain. I would like to ask for some opinion(s) to see what can I do to improve the image
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 1, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting riflex (Thread starter): So I have sent this image which got rejected due to being grainy:
There's a slight amount of noise in the shadows. Should be easy to fix. Noise often get introduced to an image when you sharpen it, so you shouldn't be totally surprised.
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2747 times:
Hello,
Thanks for your help! I'm aware that images can get noisy but in this particular case I didn't think it would get rejected because of grain.
So all I have to do is to select the shadows and remove some noise?
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
Dana, a quick question again about the noise removal:
I've used: Strenght 6, preserved 80% of the details, reduced 5% of color noise and sharpen details are at 25%. I'm note sure if I should be a bit more "harsh" in treating the photo...
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 6, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2717 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
To be honest, I don't see much difference between this one and the rejected; on the other hand, the rejected doesn't need much adjustment, so just be sure you don't overdo it.
The link doesn't appear since I'm uploading the pictures again deleting the previous one but I guess the best picture to compare is the first one that got rejected.
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2616 times:
Hello again.
Got this one rejected because it was high in frame and high contrast: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=p1350920165.4716img_4808.jpg
The contrast I agree, the centered reason...it's sort of confusing. The aircraft body is in the middle, I even lowered a bit because of the tail but still wasn't enough.
I also wanted to ask for some opinion about these 3:
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2609 times:
Ah, now I understand better the centering thank you for showing me that. I'll fix it in no-time.
About the other 3 pictures, I'll eliminate the first 2. The 3rd one...it seems that the nose needs a bit of sharpening. Is there any other area I should fix?
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
Hello Dana,
I had that in attention, I chose the photo with most light possible(the reflection of the piano keys of the runway in this case). Let's see if it makes it
Got rejected due to being oversharped and dark.
I only did one modification on this photo since the previous rejection(rejected for being soft only) which was a bit more sharpness in the nose zone.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 35, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2541 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting riflex (Reply 34): Got rejected due to being oversharped and dark.
Oversharpened? Can't see that. It's not dark so much as the contrast is a little harsh (which makes certain areas look darker). Try reducing the contrast a little, and also brightening just slightly, and see how it looks.
First time I uploaded it was rejected only because it was soft(I only sharped the aircraft), at the second time I sharped the whole picture and the rejection reasons increased: blurry, dark, soft, etc...
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 39, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2537 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Like I said above for both: it's not really the exposure that is the problem, it's the poor contrast. I think the first is more fixable, but you will be able to do that by adjusting the levels/contrast more than by just increasing the exposure.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 41, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2534 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting riflex (Reply 40): I used the levels as you said:
Contrast/exposure is better, though I can't really compare to the older versions as you seem to have removed them. This one is also starting to look a little soft & noisy.
Both rejected due to needing counter-clockwise rotation. The second one was firstly rejected because it only needed more contrast and that's what I did, there was no level rejection. Do you think it's worth appealing?
Um, I agree with the screeners. Both look leany to me. I think the second also has some quality issues. The first is pretty subjective, though. Anyway, nice pics, especially the first one, I like the smoke a lot.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 69, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting riflex (Reply 68): Wanted an opinion on these 2:
First is still marginal from the haze, but I don't see noise being a problem. First also still marginal soft/quality, again looks like from some heat haze.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
To me, the first still looks awfully heat hazy. The second also seems to be of lesser quality. I think the third is better now, although it could be a bit too dark. It semms a tad heat-hazy, but I think it's okay. Nice photos regardless
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 74, posted (5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2301 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting DL747 (Reply 73): It could just be the jetwash, though.
How could jetwash be affecting the aircraft?? Are you implying there's another aircraft taking off directly in front of the EasyJet we can't see? I highly doubt it. In any case, jet wash is rarely a cause for rejection, so it would be a good idea not to confuse it with heat haze.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2296 times:
No, not what I was saying. I think the grass in front of the aircraft towards the wing looks a bit hazy, but it could be that the jetwash is giving it that effect.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 76, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2294 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting DL747 (Reply 75): No, not what I was saying. I think the grass in front of the aircraft towards the wing looks a bit hazy, but it could be that the jetwash is giving it that effect.
Sorry, that's even more confusing..you're saying the jetwash is somehow traveling in front of the aircraft? In any case, not much point in debating something that has no relevance to the quality of the image.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2306 times:
Okay, once again, sorry for the confusion. I was saying behind the wing on the left looks hazy. In front was a brain lapse, I typed where I was looking at the time. Let's just forget that, since as you said, it doen't affect the image.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2288 times:
Hello,
DL747, thank you for your compliment and for giving your opinion about the pictures don't worry, we're here to learn and since I've been in this forum asking for help and advice I've learned a lot in how to work better my pictures and to pay more attention to the details.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2283 times:
First looks too dark for me, anyway. Nice idea, though. Easyjet looks okay, but tough for my beginner eyes to tell. Third has a bit of a funny crop in my opinion. I like it though. The fourth is jaw dropping. It might get rejected, as you said for the prop in front. Other than that, it looks fine to me.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
Hello,
About this one in the previous post: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54225029.13811dejunhode2011017.jpg
By bad crop you mean I can for example include the 3rd aircraft in the back or I have to cut the propeller in the 1st one(the closest in the bottom of the picture) so that only the engine of the aircraft in the middle appears?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 82, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2260 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting riflex (Reply 81): By bad crop you mean I can for example include the 3rd aircraft in the back or I have to cut the propeller in the 1st one(the closest in the bottom of the picture) so that only the engine of the aircraft in the middle appears?
The out of focus aircraft in the foreground is the problem. It's blocking the main subject. Without it, you would be fine.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1507 times:
1. Looks very over-exposed towards the nose and a bit oversharpened.
2. Not too far off, but could be a bit less brighter in the rear.
3. Kind of hard to tell, but the nose looks a bit blurry to me. The rest looks oversharpened to me.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 134, posted (4 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1455 times:
I was just about to give feedback for the pics, but Dana beat me to it. Anyway, on number 3, the nsoe gear area looks very blurry. I'm not sure what that is, but if it is blurry, it likely isn't fixable.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
Pretty poor light one both (especially the second); if they were mine I'd pass. Don't see the first as blurry, though again, quality overall isn't that great.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
Yes, it is fairly grainy in the sky, and in the shadows/belly of the aircraft. It isn't that bad, but it is there, and with this site's hyper-sensitive grain attitude, it is a bit grainy. It is also a tad soft, but really not that bad.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 147, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
Yes it is a bit dark in the under belly. The crop is a bit odd looking for me, but I can't comment on why it was rejected for being this way. Also not of great quality. It looks very soft at the far ends of the frame.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
I was sort of expecting a rejection by dark or so, but the crop one I wasn't expecting. Well it does look sort of odd without the stabilizer but I thought that since the rest of the tail was appearing ok that it wouldn't be a problem :P
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 151, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1261 times:
1. Looks soft in the nose and maybe a bit dark.
2. Maybe soft and a tad overexpsoed, but I am not sure. I also see a bit of vingetting.
3. Soft, dark and a bit noisy for me. Might be kind of tough to fix unfortunately. I can't tell if it is way off-level or if that is natural slope of the terrain.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 153, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1249 times:
Hello,
About #2, I didn't noticed the vignetting at all. The only way to fix it would be to give it more bright and try to crop a bit more? But I think if I do that it would ruin the picture...
DL747. in #3 it's a natural slope from the terrain
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 154, posted (3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting riflex (Reply 153): About #2, I didn't noticed the vignetting at all. The only way to fix it would be to give it more bright and try to crop a bit more?
You can fix vignetting with software, but it often leaves pretty bad halos or banding. Better to stop down your lens a little more next time to avoid it.
Noisy and quality issues (soft in places, oversharpened in others). Not sure it will be fixable.
Quoting riflex (Reply 157): By the way just to make sure, a shot like this is considered nose shot altho it shows some part of the front of the aircraft?
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1147 times:
Hello,
Thanks for the help Dana.
Got a few rejections that wanted to ask if you agree, all rejected due to softness...I honestly sometimes can't say if a photo is too soft or oversharped, most tricky part IMO:
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1154 posts, RR: 9 Reply 164, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1107 times:
Quoting riflex (Reply 163): I thought it was soft actually what do you think?
It's a combination. Soft in the low-contrast (darker, in this case) areas but too sharp in the high contrast areas (the brighter parts, in this case). The jagged edges are most apparently on the edges of the winglets and tail, since those are the most high contrast elements.
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 165, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1102 times:
Thanks for the answer Cargolex!
I see what you mean, the jaggies are most noticeable indeed in the winglets and tail. I'll try and fix the shadow parts better, do you think the heat haze will be enough for not being accepted?
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1154 posts, RR: 9 Reply 166, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
The haze isn't as apparent as on the Star Alliance TAP, so it might be fixable, but getting those shadowy areas sharp is going to be hard as you might get some grain going on in those shadows if you sharpen those areas.
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1026 times:
Hello,
Sorry for the very late answer. Thanks for your help Cargolex, I'll give it a shot later to the Star Alliance.
Got a few rejections that I want to ask if you guys agree:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=b1360101651.1361img_8371.jpg
Rejected due to level(needs CW rotation it says) and overexposure. The overexposure reason is a bit exagerated I think but the level I may agree more, I don't have a clear object to level so I tried to guide myself by the roof of the houses.
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 315 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 515 times:
Hi,
#1 - I don't see softness in the nose but the sky and darker parts of the fuselage do look a bit grainy.
#2 - This looks to me like it might have been soft/blurry and needed too much sharpening to compensate. The sky also looks quite grainy.
#3 - There is a spot almost at the left edge of the frame and about the height of the undercarriage. I agree that the right wing look oversharpened as well as the joint between the windshield and canopy. I would also smooth the stripes a bit.
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 315 posts, RR: 0 Reply 178, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 466 times:
I don't think your new edit looks grainy.
For the other two:
G-CGSP does look a bit dark, but I'm not sure about the level. The fence posts do seem to be off level, but I don't know if I would trust them over the pole...
riflex From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 180, posted (1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 358 times:
Hello,
Thank you for both answers. I corrected both pictures. I tried to appeal the second one but no-one answered and in the mean while the photo wasn't in the appeal queue anymore...
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 99 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2570 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, 
From India, joined Nov 2012, 179 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
 you mean the noise is more visible in the aircra','2')){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}