gocaps16
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 9:14 am

Critique This Photo

Sun Feb 03, 2002 8:56 am

I just scanned a picture and uploaded to this site and would like a feedback on it.

I scanned it at approx 1203 DPI, resized it to 1024, messed around with the color balance and unsharp masked it. What do you think? Kind soft? lots of jpeg compression?

Here it is:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/us319.jpg

Thanks

Kevin/DCA
 
ILS
Posts: 2291
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2001 2:34 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Sun Feb 03, 2002 9:31 am

Blury, Reg. is obstructed, the sharpening tool didn't work too well near the front nose gear, it looks like it got "granier" towards the front nose gear.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Sun Feb 03, 2002 9:51 am

If there is something wrong with it, what are you going to do about it now?
It's better to put it on another server and ask for advice BEFORE you add it to the ever growing queue on a.net.

I don't think it will pass the screeners, the quality just isn't there, looks like a slightly blurry photo that has taken too much sharpening, or sharpening after it was saved as a jpg, and there are signs of jpg compression showing up around most of the fuselage. Also, removing black spots from the scan using the clonetool in photoshop or psp will add to the overall impression.

Staffan
 
ILS
Posts: 2291
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2001 2:34 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Sun Feb 03, 2002 9:55 am

Are all of those black marks just there? I thought that they were just dirt flying up.  Big thumbs up
 
gocaps16
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 9:14 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Sun Feb 03, 2002 11:13 am

Those blackmarks are probably dust from the slide or the scanner. I did my best of getting rid of them. However, in the picture, I did use the clone tool on Photoshop 5.0LE, got rid most of them. I also saved it to jpg at the highest quality with no jpg compression.


Kevin/DCA
 
gocaps16
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 9:14 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Sun Feb 03, 2002 11:16 am

oh yea BTW, I have upload several of my pictures with about the same quality and have passed the first screening, but was rejected by Mr. Lundgren.
I guess it depends on who is screening them.
Thanks

Kevin/DCA
 
fuairliner
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:23 pm

RE: Critique This Photo

Sun Feb 03, 2002 6:34 pm

Kevin,

I personally cannot imagine that any of the screeners has passed a photo with the same quality on to Johan. They must have been of a better quality. Just look at the reg. It is just a white stripe. Nowadays, if the reg is visible, but not readable, the photo is most likely to be rejected.

I did my best of getting rid of them.

A good way to remove the dust marks is to view the image at 300% and check every part of it. If you discover anything blackish you can use the clone tool and remove it.

I also saved it to jpg at the highest quality with no jpg compression.

Are you sure you saved it as a .jpg with none compression? As Staffan said the photo looks as if there is quite a lot of compression. Also make sure that you save the image as a .jpg with the very last step. Never edit anything in a .jpg image.

Can you post a picture that was passed on to Johan by the screeners?


Kind regards,

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy FUAirliner
(Frank Unterspann)
Frank Unterspann - Hamburg, Germany
 
gocaps16
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 9:14 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Mon Feb 04, 2002 2:07 am

What that "white" blocking the reg. number is the sun's reflection on the fuselage.

When I edit the photo on Photoshop, the picture looks relly great and once I upload it to the database, it lowers the quality big time.

I'll find an another server and post the original photo and maybe you can see the difference.

The ones that Johan rejected were couple months ago and I do not know the filenames.

Thanks again

Kevin/DCA
 
USAir_757
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 12:30 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Wed Feb 06, 2002 12:39 am

The quality is definitely not there. Looks like it was scanned on a flatbed with a slide adapter which generally provide unacceptable results.

rgds,
C. Wassell
-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
 
gocaps16
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 9:14 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Wed Feb 06, 2002 6:15 am

Wassell,

It was scanned on a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II slide scanner. I don't scan my slides/negs on a flatbed anymore.

Kevin/DCA

I think its the a.net database since it does lower the quality a bit.
 
gocaps16
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 9:14 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Wed Feb 06, 2002 6:22 am

BTW, if you want to see the picture file, send me your email addres and I'll send you the scan. The raw scan with a tad editing looks 1000000% better then uploaing on a.net.

I checked everything, on photoshop, my internet photo preferences for no jpg compression. So I can't explain why it has jpg compression. Perhaps, it's the "grain" on the fuselage becuase I didn't remove the "dirt and scratches." just the sky. I will keep uploading and my pictures will be on top of the 5000+ in the queue.


Like that helps so much, Cullen.
Kevin/DCA
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Critique This Photo

Wed Feb 06, 2002 7:12 am

Kevin,

There's something wacky going on here...

If it was scanned on a Minolta D-S II (I'm not doubting that it was) at the highest resolution, the resulting JPEG should be around 700-800k - I use this scanner too so I should know. Your image is 300,000 odd bytes, so is somewhat compressed. I believe that airliners.net only compresses the image at the same time as the footer with the logo and photographer name is added, so I think it your image is either scanned at a lower resolution than the maximum your scanner will delivery, or has been significantly compressed post scan.

So, a few observations:

* There are some noticeable dirt marks on the image, particularly above the fuselage and APU, and beneath the fuselage just rear of the main gear. A few months ago, you might have gotten away with these but not now - they need to be removed

* Scan at the very highest resolution the Dual Scan II will scan at - 2880dpi. This will produce a huge file which you will need to play with. Reduce the image size to 1024 by whatever using Photoshop after you've cleaned it up after the scan.

* The image link you've posted above shows very noticable JPEG artifacts, especially around the tail. As I said I don;t think airliners.net has introduced these so all I can advise is lay off the sharpen filter.


In terms of scanning, I would recommend you try VueSCan rather than the Minolta software. Out of the box, VueScan has delivered me consistant results without much pain, and I consider the $40 it cost money well spent. Download the trial version and try it yourself.

In the cold light of day, my off-the-cuff thoughts are that the original is probably a bit soft and has been over-sharpened and then saved with some significant JPEG compression. You may regard this as an unfair analysis but I hope I have explained what I think are the problems and why I have arrived at this conclusion.

Despite the glare, if this image is really (honestly) sharp - and you need a loupe to tell, don't just hold the neg/slide up to the light - it might just be salvageable. Good luck.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
gocaps16
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 9:14 am

RE: Critique This Photo

Wed Feb 06, 2002 12:59 pm

Andy, thanks for your input. Yea, I scan that approx. 1200 DPI, I tried scanning at max. DPI but it freezes up my computer. I will rescan it again at max. DPI and see how the result will be.

About the dirt spots, Staffan gave me a nice summary on how to get rid of them.

Thanks again.

Kevin/DCA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests