gonzalu From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 194 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 451 times:
Hello all, long time no speak. I am posting about two recent rejections that I need help with figuring out just what I can do to improve them if any.
First up: SOFT OVEREXPOSED
As far as my levels measure up, the brightest white not being a reflection is around 91 on a scale of 100 (or about 249-251 on a 255 level scale) As for soft, where should I be looking? I actually thought I may have overdone it a bit.
Second up: SOFT
Again, the entire image is quite sharp. Even the original is quite sharp and it started life as a 7000+ pixel original. Is the perception that the front of the engine nacelle is soft? That area will always seem soft as it is a rounded soft metal piece. Please look carefully at the rivets and other supporting evidence in the image...
Either way, if I am still considered wrong, could a screener willing to do so show me graphically a better result I should go for in these two? The second one I have no appealed so it may stand a chance. The first one has been appealed and rejected once more so that one is binned
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8228 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 451 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
First one does look a tiny bit soft. Could use a bit of sharpening overall. Doesn't look overexposed to me. Only a few small areas are blown out in any channel, and it doesn't really look too bright either.
Second one looks OK to me, though it probably could stand a bit of sharpening without being oversharpened. But looks sharp enough as it is.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
gonzalu From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 194 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 451 times:
Thanks Vik, but I think it would be splitting hairs without any real gain pro or con. I have always felt if the proposed fixes are so minor, there is enough threshold left for acceptance, no? I always thought the screening is done with a bias to accept not to reject. So given that, I believe these are certainly within the possibility of being acceptable.
I gave the second another pass of SS (30, 0.2) and it is very oversharpened in some areas, less so in others so I don;t think that's the case here. That's why I wanted to hear from the screener that rejected it if possible or another screener that could perhaps point at a bad spot in it. All the jaggies in the image are within the range usually acceptable for my images in the db lately.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 3, posted (6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 451 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting gonzalu (Thread starter): Again, the entire image is quite sharp. Even the original is quite sharp and it started life as a 7000+ pixel original. Is the perception that the front of the engine nacelle is soft?
I didn't screen it, but just a general observation: it is very difficult to make 1600 pix images look sharp. Easy solution is just submit at a smaller size, but if you feel like pressing ahead with this one, the whole top half looks a little soft.
gonzalu From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 194 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 451 times:
Thanks Dana. You know me and I love to press on :P
I have re-edited and reshapened and hope it looks better. I don't think the image is difficult to sharpen as it was close to full frame at 36mp there is enough data recorded. I have a few 1600px images in the db I can use for reference.