User avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:02 am

Normally I don't have a problem seeing what the screeners meant when I get photos rejected (doesn't mean I necessarily agree though!) and I have a good idea what to do to fix it - badgrainy, badlevel or whatever. Recently I have had a spate of "badquality" and I'm stuck really. I don't know why the photo was rejected and therefore don't know what to do to fix it.

Here are the offending "badquality" rejects.

1. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/Img0116zz.JPG

2. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/2002413_10.jpg

3. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/2001392_14.jpg

2. was also rejected for badlevel.

While I'm here, contrary to what I said above, the following was rejected for badjagged but I don't see where.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/2004513_34.jpg

The badquality rejection is not hugely helpful I don't think and maybe it should be associated with a badpersonal message to help pin-point the problem otherwise we all end up wasting each other's time. Any thoughts?

Derek.
Whatever.......
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:11 am

1) Wrong side of the sun, oversharpened.

2) Bad angle, too much contrast.

3) Blurry (too soft to be saved with USM).

The Ryanair shot is badquality, also very soft, and was tried to be made better by USM, but it is too soft to be saved.

Obviously you feel strongly enough about these to start a "Why?" thread, I would suggest borrowing a friend computer to have a better look, it should be clear.
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:45 am

Hi Derek

Another screener chips in:

1. Badquality. Dirty, oversharpened (too much radius) and jagged.
2. Soft and definitely angle problem.
3. Soft and possible angle problem but not too much.
4. Slightly jagged but not a problem for me. Sharpening problem, too much radius selected I think.

Never go above 0.2 of a radius setting.

A badquality rejection emcompasses quite a few things. A rejection reason like this should prompt the photographer to look at the processing again and start afresh.

Regards

Gary
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:05 am

Thanks for the replies.
If the reason though is against the sun or contrast isn't that a badcontrast rejection? If it is dirty then isn't that baddirty and if it is soft is it not badsoft?.
This is the point I'm making. If I knew it was soft or dirty I would know what to look for rather just "badquality" which gives me no clues.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
I would suggest borrowing a friend computer to have a better look, it should be clear.

Do you mean one with a CRT monitor? - if so I don't know anyone that still has a CRT monitor anymore - gone the way of floppy drives and 486 processors round here Big grin

Derek
Whatever.......
 
sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:22 am

Derek,

Actually, that point about a CRT monitor is very valid. I expect these images look great on a TFT, where oversharpened images don't seem to be particularly conspicuous.


James
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:25 am

Derek

The screeners use CRT monitors.....well I do.

I had quite a bit of money to spend on a monitor last year so opted for a new 22" IIyama Vision Master Pro. A big beast but beautiful for processing and screening images.

Regards

Gary
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:28 am

I'm afraid that size, weight, cost and power consumption outweighs any potential airliners.net rejections. For the future though, an increasing number of visitors to the site will be viewing on a laptop or TFT monitor. In fact I noticed in the most recent Dabs catalogue I got in the post had no CRT monitors in it at all.
I probably tend to oversharpen as before I had lots of "badsoft" rejections. Doesn't always work though.

Derek
Whatever.......
 
fergulmcc
Posts: 1877
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 pm

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:40 am

Derek

Send me an e-mail, I have word document that might help you with your processing, some other photographers have used it and found it helpfull. I can't contact you as you e-mail is withheld.

Take care

Fergul Big grin
Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:10 am

Fergul

Thanks for that, I've sent an e-mail.

Derek
Whatever.......
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Badquality? - Again

Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:33 am

I think they all have some issues with processing, so I agree with Gary, "look at the processing again and start afresh". It's not a problem with the monitor.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests