JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:26 am

I received these comments from a screener.

Jay,

Its been well documented on the forums that the file system will only store one
file with the same name at the same time. Someone else uploaded a pic which was
also named N801FR.jpg and that has overwritten yours. Nothing to be done now -
yours is gone. Use a more unique file name next time.

Andy (screening team)



Where is this documented on the site? Also, this now means I have to upload the photo again. I would think a file name such as N801FR.jpg would be a pretty common thing to call that photo. Does this make sense to anyone else? It also sounds like Andy just doesn't give a shit about my photo being dropped out of the database? Is this the attitude of the entire site now? No wonder so many people are not uploading here anymore.


Jay
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:35 am

Now hang on there Jay. Whatever you think about me, or a system that allows files to be overwritten, the file almost certainly has been overwritten and no one can do anything about getting it back. The boss is aware of this issue, but sorting it requires a significant re-write of the queue processing which there is not time for at present. I responded to your question to give you a steer that might mean you avoid this situation next time round. And lets be realistic about the specific picture in question anyway - it has already been rejected, so the loss of the large version is hardly a huge problem.

It seems that the forum search function is temporarily out of action so I can't refer you to a topic to illustrate that it has been discussed before, but this "feature" HAS been discussed before when people have commented that their picture has appeared to "change" to one they didn't take. But you're quite right, N801FR.jpg is a fairly logical name for a file, which means that several people might use it - all the more reason, given the problem that exists, to pick something other than that.

So, I say again, I would strongly recommend that you choose more unique file names for your uploads - I personally use a file name RRRRRR-AAA-MMDDYY.jpg where RRRRRR is the registration, AAA is the airport and MMDDYY is self explanitory. By using a file name like this, the only risk of a conflict is if someone else uses the same file name format, and shot the same aircraft at the same airport on the same date as me.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 17:39:58]
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:44 am

Andy,

I appreciate your reply.

What I also don't understand is why the photo was rejected. Give me some feedback on the shot. It seems like I am damned if I do or damned if I don't in terms of that photo.

If I sharpening it too much, it will be rejected, yet if I don't sharpen it at all, it will be rejected as blurry.

Here is the photo in question.

http://www.jaydavisphoto.com/airliners/N801FR.jpg

I don't think it is a bad photo at all but if you tell me what is wrong with it and how to improve it, I'll be more than happy to fix it and re-upload it. Some of us need a little bit more instruction on what needs to change in the photo to get it accepted.

Jay


 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:47 am

Jay, can't really comment on the lap-top - it doesn't show enough definition. But I'll happily look at it in detail when I get home tonight.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 17:51:12]
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Guest

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:50 am

Jay,
Its happened to all of us before, tough luck... Just appreciate that the screener took time to write a message to you, which he wasn't obliged to do in any way. You even admit your sense of creativeness in filenames is limited beneath...

Where is this documented on the site? Also, this now means I have to upload the photo again. I would think a file name such as N801FR.jpg would be a pretty common thing to call that photo. Does this make sense to anyone else? It also sounds like Andy just doesn't give a shit about my photo being dropped out of the database? Is this the attitude of the entire site now? No wonder so many people are not uploading here anymore.

I find that paragraph ridiculous. Andy tried to help you for the next time, instead of creating a message on the forum you could have sent him a kind email asking for more details. If people stop to upload here its their choice, people do mainly so because their material just isn't good enough to fit in here. Remember that airliners.net is the best place to show case your pictures to as many people as you want.

Andy, just a question, you say his picture had already been rejected by someone else yet how do you know that if his picture was replaced by someone else's?? Planes do come to airports many times and people can modify pictures slightly from upload to upload.

Just my 2 cents,
Tim
 
Guest

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:54 am

Looks like I replied a bit too late...

Your picture has a lot of small imperfections:
-Badhorizon (buildings)
-A tad soft
-upper part of the plane looks kind of overexposed
-slightly grainy

There's some margin though on the picture, by playing with it you can get it better.
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:59 am

Tim,

Just to clarify... Jay had a picture of N801FR which was screened and rejected badsoft - he copied us with the rejection e-mail. When I went to the appeal page for Jay's picture and clicked on the thumbnail, a large version of a totally different picture of N801FR was displayed. Jay's picture is taken at Denver I believe, whereas the other picture was a ramp shot from (I think) Phoenix.

As far as I recall, there can only be one picture in any queue with the same name at a time. It is highly likely that Jay's picture was rejected, then the other picture rejected, and the second picture has overwritten Jay's in the rejection queue. If when we screened the picture Jay's had already been overwritten by the other picture, the thumbnail and the large version would not have matched in the screening script and the picture would have been rejected baderror - its the appropriate reason to use when the thumb and the large version don't match. Unless the screener involved wasn't being very dillegent (possible but very unlikely given the magnitude of the problem), I suspect that Jay's picture was overwritten after it was screened - that would mean that the rejection reason would relate to Jay's picture which the screener would have seen, but that after screening the picture was overwritten.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 18:02:55]
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Dazed767
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:01 am

Jay, you could probably still just use the N801FR.jpg....but put your initials after the reg#.....N801FRjd.jpg.

Just don't go shooting with Jonathan Derden  Wink/being sarcastic

JC
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:06 am

Another thing about file names... Like I said, I tend to use RRRRRR-AAA-MMDDYY.jpg (see above for decoding!). I often process pics and then don't upload them for weeks on end. By using a file name like that, I can do the upload without having to check back to find out where and when I took the shot, the date part of which I can rarely remember by the time I finally get around to uploading. If you're picking fancy file names though, just make sure your file name IS NOT LONGER than 30 characters, including the .jpg - anything more than 30 characters is another thing that will cause problems.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 18:07:30]
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Guest

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:13 am

Thanks for your clarification Andy. Sorry to both of you if what I wrote sounded insulting, it wasn't meant to be in anyway.

Your filenaming system sounds pretty good, however on a personal note I'll stick to my famous "ok"s.

Tim
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

Comments To Tim

Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:15 am

About your criticism,

How can you get rid of the background? That won't work.
How can it be too soft and then yet too grainy at the same time?
To me, that doesn't make sense.


How would you get rid of the overexposure on the top of the plane?


Thanks for the feedback!

Jay
 
Guest

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:32 am

First of all not criticism but input,

It can perfectly be soft and grainy at the same time, if you shoot using a higher iso. I find the building & sky are a little grainy, theres a little grain (insignificant) under the area under the wing. The grain is there in the first place the sharpening just makes it more visible...

How would you get rid of the overexposure on the top of the plane?

Send an email to Gary Watt.  Big grin He's a very talented guy in Photoshop, I mean an Air Holland 767 in Aberdeen.  Smile

I've played around with your picture a bit, by sharpening it up, playing with levels,etc... turns out the picture wouldn't match the quality required.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:12 am

Well, yes i'd say its a bit soft and a bit dark, but its not grainy, definetely underexposed. I'm not sure how well you'll be able to fix that in photoshop, as when you brighten it up the upper half of the fuselage will look a bit blown out. Also if you rotate if 0.5 degrees anti-clockwise and sharpen it up (maybe 80-100% USM at 0.5 radius).

Cheers

Dan
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:19 am

Tim,

If you are saying my slide is a poor shot, can you tell me why?
I'm shooting with the best equipment out there.
Canon EOS 1VHS, with a Canon 70-200mm, F-2.8 lens and using Photoshop to work the image. Is my scanner that bad?

I've had plenty of shots accepted before, but for about the past 8 months, I can't get one into this database. It almost isn't even worth trying to upload here anymore.

Can't imagine what else it would be.

Jay
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:24 am

Also, to anyone out there. I've got about 6 shots of this plane. I am going to re-scan all 6 shots in tif format. If you want to "try" and make any of them better, let me know and I'll send them to you. Surely all 6 shots can't be that bad that one won't get accepted to this database.

Jay
 
RayPettit
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 9:04 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:54 am

Can I comment on the filename issue?
I think its quite sensible for people to create a filename that is more likely to be unique than just plain old N801FR.jpg and my system would never have that - instead N801FR_cleananet.jpg indicating that it was the cleaned up version suitable for upload to this site. But there are hundreds of ways to do this - as most of my photos were taken a few years ago the chances are that I'd be OK anyway, but there.

However, I don't think its really reasonable to expect every photographer to delve into this forum for advice on this issue.

As a quick fix, would it be possible to put some advice on the upload page. There are a number of rookie or occassional photographers who upload to this site (often with excellent pictures). All we need is a Help button to say something like "Try to make your file name unique to avoid your image being overwritten in the screening process"

Ray
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:03 am

Ray,

We screeners have just passed a list of fix requests to the boss... I'll ask for a change of that nature to be done too. No promises when, but I'll ask for it to be added to the list.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
boeingholiday
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:59 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:20 am

I've asked this several times in the forum Big grin

done the same mistake as well
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:40 am

"I'm shooting with the best equipment out there.
Canon EOS 1VHS, with a Canon 70-200mm, F-2.8 lens and using Photoshop to work the image. Is my scanner that bad?"


Ah come on... I am really sorry, but having all that flashy stuff doesnt guarentee that you get top quality slides. Exposing is just as tough as framing it, if not tougher. If the word out here is that it is underexposed, why not accept that and try to avoid that in the future. And the PS done on this one is not sufficient at all. Its not sharp, it is soft.

"How can you get rid of the background? That won't work."

He didnt mean that. What he was doing was refering to the background to show his point about it not being level.


How can it be too soft and then yet too grainy at the same time?

Softness and grain are not related. Often a picture that is sharpened up may appear grainy, but a picture can easily be soft while grainy. And a sharp shot can be without grain too.

To wrap things up, don't hide behing your equipment, saying that it is superb, and therefore your pictures are topquality too. Accept the critisism and input and work from there.

Respectfully,
Wietse

Wietse de Graaf
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:01 am

Wietse,

I'm not hiding behind my equipment. I've had a lot of slides accepted in the past, but now I never get anything accepted. I almost did not upload these shots as I get so tired of the frustration of "trying" to get something accepted to this database anymore.

Why do you think so many have chosen to go elsewhere with their photos? To me, it almost seems somewhat impossible to get anything accepted these days. My shot is pretty special, since it is a fairly new aircraft. I could see why it might not be accepted if there are a ton of other shots out there just like it.

So how would you "sharpen" a photo without adding grain? I'm all for learning about other Photoshop techniques.

As for being under-exposed, Mark Abbott, who lives in Denver told me to try and over-expose everything I shot that weekend due to the weather and I did. I still also feel that the shot is/was level from the photo I loaded onto my web site. I pulled out the ruler/grid on Photoshop and it looked level to me.

I am all about learning Wietse, because I want my shots to get accepted. What I don't like is someone telling me it is a bad shot, yet not telling me how to improve it.

If you think you can make the shot look better, have at it. If you don't want to do it, tell me how to make it better, please.


Jay
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:15 am

Looks as if it was shot in pretty odd lighting... I don't think much can be done to save the blown highlights on the aircraft's fueselage. I'd move on and wait for days with some sun and blue skies.

Staffan
 
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 4935
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:20 am

I learned that lesson a long time ago. Registrations are bad file names to have because someone else could easily upload the same plane. so I have a very simple, stress-free system for mine. I combine the registration with the serial number of the photo as shot from my camera.

for example, an aircraft with a reg# of N721UW was shot as picture # 5558 on my camera (img_5558.jpg) so the uploaded version becomes N721UW_5558.jpg and that way I know right off which photo it is, especially if I shot 4 pics of the plane. Now the chances of someone else would have the exact same numbering system and end up with the same exact upload are pretty much nil. Makes my life easier!  Big grin


bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
 
Guest

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:35 am



Jay I never said your shot was bad. I simply said it had its problems which could if done well be dealt with. I just pointed out the stuff that looked wrong, there are people on here which are very good with Photoshop they can give better advice than me. Please take what I wrote as input and not personal attacks against your pictures.

Tim
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:15 am

Tim,

No problem, I did not take your comments towards the photo as a personal attack. Don't worry about that.

If someone who is very good in Photoshop can give me some hints on at least trying to make this photo better, I'm open to suggestions.

As for waiting for another day to shoot that plane, I live in Dallas, not DEN.

Jay
 
timdegroot
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:00 pm

Jay, like you say with your equipment and some experience that I think you have, you should get top notch results.
I essentially use the same equipment as you, so you should get the same results.

I think the problem would be your photoshop work. Techniques like masking which I used on your Peter Max once are essential to getting top results from slides.

I would love to see an original TIFF scan of yours, which maybe I could work on. My mailbox is too small to handle anything like that but maybe there's another way of sending it?

Having said that, I also have to agree with others that this shot is maybe not the shot under the most ideal conditions, therefore making it harder to accept.

Cheers,
Tim
Alderman Exit
 
N178UA
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 9:56 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:53 pm

Jay

In Photoshop

Try use Unsharp Mask

Set
Radius at 0.2
Threshold at 0

Sharpen amount up to 500% at once, see how it goes, if it still look soft repeat above steps again. I believe with your top notch equipment and skillls, you will get all the shots accepted here. Give it a try, at least it work on me.

Sam
For more of myself and my flight reviews visit http://www.SamChui.com
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:22 pm

Hi Sam and Tim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Stuff like this REALLy frustrates me to no end. Tim, if you have another e-mail account, such as a Yahoo or Hotmail, could I send it there? It would be a large file because I scanned it at 2400dpi

Just let me know.

Also, can you explain how masking would help it? I've never done any masking with photoshop. Teach me, please !!



Thanks!
 
paulinbna
Posts: 1046
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:18 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:32 pm

I have said this before and I don't mean any disrespect to you Jay but every since I bought a D-SLR I have had close to 100% acceptance. Now before I start a digital versus slide argument hear me out please.

If the screeners see say 200 pictures in a row at D-SLR quality super sharp pictures then see a picture that has been taken with a film camera on slides that are still great pictures but after looking at all the D-SLR pictures yours might look a little (well with out sounding bad) not up to par.

I have seen some stunning results in quality with D-SLR's what does every one thing about my theory
Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
 
timdegroot
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:50 pm

Paulinbna:

Also close to 100% acceptance, all shot on slides


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Groot




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim de Groot



I know Mr. Ljungdahl also has almost 100% acceptance, also with slides. Same goes others.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Ljungdahl



I'd say a good slidescan is very much up to par with a DSLR image.

Tim

Jay, I only have hotmail currently, it only accepts 1mb attachments so no good. You have some webspace where you can put it up maybe?
Alderman Exit
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13477
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:27 pm

I agree with the comments that say it's possible to produce results with slides that are as good as digital. In fact, a high-end slide scanner can produce significantly higher resolution files than the best digital cameras. This situation will change eventually, but it's going to take a few years yet!

I have recently started scanning some of my old slides, and so far I've had 100% acceptance (OK, only out of 27 so far!) Now, I have to say, the quality of some of my accepted shots are probably below a.net current standards, but they are either unique or vary rare shots. If they were of BA A320s I'm sure some would have been rejected. On the other hand, I'm pretty damned pleased with the quality of some of the scans.

For example, this shot is not great quality, but it's the only shot of this plane in the db, so I was reasonably confident it would be accepted.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley



This shot is pretty good quality, and although there were 10 other shots in the db, only one of those was in original EgyptAir c/s (so again rarity value)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley



I spent quite a time 'monitoring' this forum before I even tried uploading my first shots. I took notice of all the 'why was this shot rejected' threads (that's not a criticism) and tried hard to look at my shots very critically before uploading them. Unless I have a stunning shot of a particular plane, I won't bother uploading it if there are already 10 others in the db.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:54 am

Well my next question would be is my scanner bad? I am using the HP photo smart slide/negative/print scanner. Would an upgrade to a better scanner help me that much?

I just don't understand that I used to get slides accepted to the database pretty regularly, now, forget it. All I get is rejects and I'm not going to upload anything else on this site. It isn't worth the time, effort and hassles.


Jay
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:12 am

Jay,

The HP photosmart is used by many, some get good results from it, but I dont think too highly of it. Dont know you budget, but a Nikon Coolscan IV ED would seriously improve the quality of your scans.

Wietse
Wietse de Graaf
 
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 4935
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:25 am

What about scanning prints???? I see you guys talk about slides and many of you have success with slides - but is it possible to get decent print scans that meet the standards here???


bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:37 am

Bruce, You have no Idea how tempted I am to try that out... Smile I'll let you all know when I do it.

Wietse
Wietse de Graaf
 
planeboy
Posts: 752
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 2:56 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:56 am

Well, looks kinda good Jay - but I think it is a case of "bad bear"...
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:52 am

Bruce/Wietse -

I would suggest scanning the neg if you stil have it instead of the print.

I have done that with some success in the past.

Bill

 
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 4935
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:55 am

I tried a transparency adapter for a scanner one time; it said that you can put a negative in it, and the result looked absolutely horrible. Not only not up to a.net standards but I wouldnt even want it for my own collection.


bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
 
N178UA
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 9:56 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 3:11 am

Jay

If youre using HP S20 that's the same as I use.

I scan the slide at 1500 dpi, save them into MAX quality, no compression. and open Photoshop to sharpen, resize, clown the dust away. Give it a try (use the setting I told you earlier) Do not do any postprocessing in scanning menu, leave it to Photoshop.

I too getting close to 100% on slide acceptance, which is HIGHER than my digicam.

Sam
For more of myself and my flight reviews visit http://www.SamChui.com
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 3:50 am

Bill,

I am not going to try and get old prints into the database as I dont have an analog collection. I see this as an experiment and I will try and shoot the best possible print (quality wise) and try and get it accepte here.

Digital is really nice and all, but it does make you lazy... no more cloning, color correcting etc etc etc... Smile

Wietse
Wietse de Graaf
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:19 am

Bruce,
Are you using a flatbed transparency scanner? If so, don't. The results are usually as you described them. I use a Canoscan film scanner. The results were better than I expected.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Anthony
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Anthony



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Anthony


The above images were shot on color negative film and scanned with the Canoscan. Forgive the grain. My re-touching skills have improved remarkably since these uploads. I may re-upload someday.

With the proper tools and adequate time retouching, scanning color negatives to A.net standards is possible.

regards,

Bill
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:55 am

Thanks for the advice Sam!
I sent you a private e-mail. I tried the unsharp mask again. Can your e-mail accept large file sizes? If so, I'd like to send you the RAW tiff file scan and see how you do with it.

Thanks!


Jay
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:02 am

Jay, just a thought, when scanning, make sure you have the white point set correctly, otherwise the scanner might over expose the slide when scanning, so a shot that isn't necessarily over exposed, will be so after scanning.

Staffan
 
JayDavis
Topic Author
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

RE: Comment From A Screener

Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:21 am

Staffn,

How do I set the white point correctly? I've never even heard of this.

Thank you!

Jay

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jay124, ORDSpotter7 and 1 guest