User avatar
vishaljo
Topic Author
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:54 pm

Pre/Post Screening - Vishal Jolapara

Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:50 am

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._z1342712938.4318img_3495_edit.jpg

Rejected for:

Quality

Soft

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"Too big for quality"

I didnt quite understand the meaning of the Screener's remark  

You want the image to be toned-down to a smaller size?

And if you can pls tell me where all & what this image suffers from?

Thanks - Vishal
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Pre/Post Screening - Vishal Jolapara

Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:02 am

Quoting vishaljo (Thread starter):
I didnt quite understand the meaning of the Screener's remark

You want the image to be toned-down to a smaller size?

Yes, the image is not even close to having the quality for 1400 pix. It might be ok at 1024, but even then only maybe.

Quoting vishaljo (Thread starter):
And if you can pls tell me where all & what this image suffers from?

I would have rejected it for blurry, grainy, oversharpened, and quality.
 
User avatar
vishaljo
Topic Author
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:54 pm

RE: Pre/Post Screening - Vishal Jolapara

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:07 am

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
Yes, the image is not even close to having the quality for 1400 pix. It might be ok at 1024, but even then only maybe.

Alrright

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
I would have rejected it for blurry, grainy, oversharpened, and quality.

Dana you would've rejected it for Oversharpened when it was rejected for "Soft"¿

It was shot from close range with a 7D & 100-400L.
Its tack sharp at full-res, just for my knowledge, where does it appear blurry?

Does this re-worked image look better?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...q1343548559.5513img_3495_1200x.jpg

Thanks for the reply Dana
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Pre/Post Screening - Vishal Jolapara

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:20 am

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Dana you would've rejected it for Oversharpened when it was rejected for "Soft"¿

I think the original rejection was wrong in my opinion. There seems to be a lot of inconsistant rejections at the moment, but that's for another day. I would agree with Dana, it should have been rejected for blurry rather than soft. To me, it looks like you've had to apply quite a lot of sharpening in order to compensate for the photo being slightly blurry, hence it's oversharp and lacks quality. Soft is incorrect in my opinion.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Does this re-worked image look better?

Not really, it's still slightly blurry. There's not a lot you can do to compensate for that as it's a problem with the original photo. You can't edit it out. As Dana suggested, try 1024 pixels rather than 1200 or 1400 to see if that masks the blur. I don't think it will but it's worth a try.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
It was shot from close range with a 7D & 100-400L.
Its tack sharp at full-res, just for my knowledge, where does it appear blurry?

I'm more than happy to have a look at the original for you and give it an edit. Equipment used doesn't make much difference really, blurry is blurry. I would be surprised if it's tack sharp at full res given the blur that's visible in your edits, but by all means send me an email through my profile and I'll take a look if you like.

Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Pre/Post Screening - Vishal Jolapara

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:27 am

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Dana you would've rejected it for Oversharpened when it was rejected for "Soft"¿

Yes. Image looks like it was blurry/soft and oversharpened to compensate.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Its tack sharp at full-res

If that's really the case, you've done a poor job with the processing.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
just for my knowledge, where does it appear blurry?

The whole underside of the aircraft is quite soft, and the gear looks blurry. I said I would have rejected for blurry to avoid confusion with oversharpened being mentioned as well, but really there's a point where blurry and very soft start to overlap. Take your pick for which one applies to this image.

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 2):
Does this re-worked image look better?

Not quite as bad as the first. I would probably remove 'quality' from the rejection reasons, but I would keep the others.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest