Hi all,
Lately I have been struggling with a lot of rejections for 'compression' and 'blurry' (often with soft added). What's got me puzzled is that the original raw files appear sharp (or at least as sharp as other shots I have edited and had accepted). It has also been my experience that 'compression and blur' seem to be 'favoured' rejection reasons in the last 12 months. I rarely encountered these problems a few years ago but lately, despite improved equipment and editing experience, a very high percentage of my rejections seem to suffer from these issues.

Examples
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4497237
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4496025
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4496023
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4485033
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4483339

So after scratching my head and trying a few different editing workflows, I can't seem to shake this this issue. Nor it seems can I spot the issue before submitting for screening.

My questions therefore are;
Where is the compression most evident in the above examples?
How is compression added? (I save my files at the highest quality level and resize using bicubic sharper)
When might blur be added during the editing process?

Would love to get on top of these issues and work towards an acceptance ratio of something close to 50%!

Cheers

Steve

Hi Steve,

I'd love to help, but all the links bring me to my own photo corner. When you view the photos in your queue, you need to right-click them and get the URL that way. You can them paste them in a post for us to see

Thanks Kas,
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ed609a6a6e
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f9a60a0a3b
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 408d7a4713
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 59a1f23b8f
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 54d3825cb7

Let's hope that does it.
Steve

Hi , Steve
Yes, these links work now.
Well, i am not sure for the first one. But others , i can't see obvious Compression issue from them. And the sharpness of them look not bad.

Cheers,
Harry

The Asiana is a bit blurry, most evident in the airline titles and windowline from the wing root forward.
The BA looks a bit more doubtful, as it looks somewhat soft instead of blurry (except for the titles, if you sharpen those more, they'll become oversharpened).
The Sikorsky just looks a bit blurry in general. Was that perhaps a larger crop/longer distance where the air in between was a bit hazy?
The Virgin Australia also looks blurry/soft in general
The Harrier seems a bit oversharpened to compensate slight blur.

All of the above blur doesn't seem to be caused by post-processing, but rather a mediocre original. I don't see that much compression and the way you say you save the photos should be alright.

Thanks for the input guys.

So in terms of compression (which was listed as a rejection reason all all of these shots), where is it evident? What does the screener see that I don't?

airkas1 wrote:

All of the above blur doesn't seem to be caused by post-processing, but rather a mediocre original. I don't see that much compression and the way you say you save the photos should be alright.

Good to know its not post processing. but I would not describe the originals as mediocre in quality. After years uploading here, I have certainly had worse raw files edited to an acceptable standard in the past.

Here's one more for consideration.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 802e99431e
I can't see blur or compression. Looks the same as...
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australi ... nWdQNjSirX
Can't shake this compression issue.

Cheers
Steve

sausten wrote:

Here's one more for consideration.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 802e99431e
I can't see blur or compression. Looks the same as...
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australi ... nWdQNjSirX
Can't shake this compression issue.

Cheers
Steve

This one is a tricky one. To me it seems marginally passable. Seeing as you have the other shot accepted, it might be worth an appeal.

Cheers,
Yang

I agree with Yang regarding the last photo.

So I decided not to appeal the F-18 shot and chose to edit the next shot in the sequence instead. Just rejected for ... you guessed it ''Blurry Compression Overexposed Noise''.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fc4cfb268a
Again, here is the similar accepted shot for comparison.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Australi ... nWdQNjSirX
Can someone please let me know where the compression is? And blur... and noise.... (not worried about exposure, any darker and I get a 'dark' rejection).
Steve

Still looks passable to me.

Agree with Kas on this one. Maybe a little grainy in the shadows, but that would be nitpicking.

Cheers,
Yang

Thanks guys. I have appealed the second shot. Will wait and see I guess.

Meanwhile, the search for compression continues......
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1f60d8f9e7

Rejected for 'Compression Common Soft CCW Rotation'
Where should I be looking to identify compression?
Steve

That A380 looks fine to me. CCW seems ok and any sharpen will result in jaggies :/

Thanks Kas. Both the F-18 and A380 were accepted after appeal.

Staying with the F-18 shots... this one was done for 'overexposed, quality, low contrast noise'
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 081fe7edc8

It was taken on teh same day as previously discussed hornet shots. The sun was playing hide and seek behind the clouds all morning. This shot was taken while the sun was 'hiding'. I felt the 'brightness' was OK for a.net. Contrast perhaps could be higher but I didn't think it was a killer issue. Can't see any noise that would warrant a rejection.
Would appreciate some advice on where the noise is most noticeable (and general quality of the shot).
Thanks
Steve

Hi Steve, like you I can't see any noise that would warrant a rejection. Lighting is a bit tricky as you say, but brightness looks still okay for me personally. For me contrast seems okay as well.

Julien

Hello Steve,
I can't see obvious noise from this one actually. The exposure also looks ok to me. But the contrast could be added more i think and it should be easy to fixed.
Cheers,
Harry

Also passable for me.

Thanks again guys. The Hornet shot was also accepted on appeal. That's three in a row!

This one was also done for 'Blurry Compression Soft Underexposed'
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 54d3825cb7

This edit seemed comparable to
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mari ... nWdQNjSirX
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mari ... nWdQNjSirX

Exposure seems OK as this Harrier is painted in the lighter grey, similar to
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mari ... nWdQNjSirX

Any advice on compression would be appreciated!

Cheers
Steve

sausten wrote:

This one was also done for 'Blurry Compression Soft Underexposed'
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 54d3825cb7

This edit seemed comparable to
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mari ... II/4446743
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mari ... II/4441135

Exposure seems OK as this Harrier is painted in the lighter grey, similar to
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mari ... II/4492397

Hi Steve,

I agree on underexposed and that it's a bit blurry. Not sure where the compression is. Quality in general is marginal.

The 2 links you compare it with are actually the same (a bit blurry, underexposed and marginal)
The last link is actually very blurry and should not have been accepted (sorry).

No worries Kas. Will try another edit later. I remain hopeful in thinking I can get it accepted.

Here's another featuring compression.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bef712fd5e
Rejected for 'Blurry Compression Soft Low Contrast High Contrast Noise'
Blurry - I don't see any blur
Compression - I don't see it
Soft - Very subjective
Low contrast AND high contrast - huh???
Noise - I don't see it.
Any help identifying these issues would be appreciated,

Thanks
Steve

sausten wrote:

No worries Kas. Will try another edit later. I remain hopeful in thinking I can get it accepted.

Here's another featuring compression.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bef712fd5e
Rejected for 'Blurry Compression Soft Low Contrast High Contrast Noise'
Blurry - I don't see any blur
Compression - I don't see it
Soft - Very subjective
Low contrast AND high contrast - huh???
Noise - I don't see it.
Any help identifying these issues would be appreciated,

Thanks
Steve

I would say this one has some softness on the wing pods towards the right side of the photo, as well as some oversharpening on the nose that may mislead the screeners into thinking the shot was blurry and hence overcompensated for by the sharpening. Otherwise, I don't really see any of the other issues in this shot.

Cheers,
Yang

Thanks Yang. I'm convinced it is not blurry, nor does it suffer the reasons given by the screener. Perhaps the wing pods are a little soft but I do not see any jaggies around the nose. Where do you see oversharpening?

Steve

Hi again,
Well I haven't had a compression rejection in over a week ( i think). I don't know if this is the solution but I have been erasing the sharpening applied to land backgrounds. This makes a difference to my eye and seems to help. Still getting blurry rejections on shots that I think are acceptable.
I would appreciate any thoughts on these rejections.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 57d010fb00
(rejected for Oversharpened Motive High Contrast Underexposed) Is this motive cause for rejection?
Similar motive accepted
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Air ... nWdQNjSirX
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-A ... w0vg%3D%3D

and this one
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 881e5b157f
(rejected for Oversharpened Motive Quality Noise CW Rotation)
Similar motive accepted
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... nWdQNjSirX
Thanks
Steve

EY B777: looks fine to me and I would suggest an appeal.
P51: Motive is fine, sharpening and quality are passable, it does look like it needs CW rotation.

Thanks Kas

sausten wrote:

Well I haven't had a compression rejection in over a week ( i think).

Spoke too soon. Just had these two rejected, both featuring blurry and compression.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b7b574b540

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9e4c79efaf

Again, I can't see where the compression issue is visible.
Thanks
Steve

airkas1 wrote:

EY B777: looks fine to me and I would suggest an appeal.
P51: Motive is fine, sharpening and quality are passable, it does look like it needs CW rotation.

Thanks Kas. EY777 just accepted.
Can I ask what it is you are using to judge unlevel on the P51 shot?
Thanks.
Steve

The UA 787 does look blurry here as well. The F-16 seems passable, although it's a bit soft on the left side.
For the level of the P-51, I have no real reference, but it just looks like it needs CW.

Still hoping to get som einsight into how screeners determine a shot is blurry. This one was done for noise with a personal message '' noise in shadows''
I appealled and it was rejected for BlurryCommonPersonal MessageQuality with personal message ''noise removed''
Where is the blur?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dece2dd1a5
Seems a lot harder (inconsistent and higher standards) to get shots in lately... or is it just me.
Thanks
Steve

And another one for your consideration gents,
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 108665d916
Rejected for 'Blurry Category Dark Info Quality Soft Noise.'
Seems I did not select 'military' category after completing auto complete with aircraft rego. So that explains category and info.
Very surprised with 'dark'. Quality and editing seem consistent with my other accepted hornet shots from this day.
Thanks
Steve

A380: I guess the nose & nose gear is a bit blurry.
F/A-18: The tail is a bit blurry. Dark should've been underexposed and was likely ticked for the aircraft being backlit. 'Military' only fixes category, not info. So there would have been another thing. The quality seems the same as the other photos you linked in this thread, so I won't advise anything since we both know how that ended up.

Another two featuring compression today.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 93dce5f9e1
Rejected for compression oversharpened
Where is the compression noticeable?
Thanks
Steve

Hello Steve,
After using Equalize function to view your photo ( after downloading ), i can see some obvious pixel squares in the sky. So ... agree with this reason.

Cheers,
Harry

It's sharp, but passable for me. Don't see compression.

HarryLi wrote:

Hello Steve,
After using Equalize function to view your photo ( after downloading ), i can see some obvious pixel squares in the sky. So ... agree with this reason.

Cheers,
Harry

I didn't think screeners equalised photos during the screening process. Do they? I don't believe the sky looks obviously pixilated or compressed.

Steve

sausten wrote:

HarryLi wrote:

Hello Steve,
After using Equalize function to view your photo ( after downloading ), i can see some obvious pixel squares in the sky. So ... agree with this reason.

Cheers,
Harry

I didn't think screeners equalised photos during the screening process. Do they? I don't believe the sky looks obviously pixilated or compressed.

Steve

Hi Steve,
Well , I am not a screener but I think sometime they will use this function to check the Dirt Spots so maybe they could see some other problems from this. I guess.
Regarding to this one , actually , not bad. Without equalizing it I can't see very obvious. And just slight. So I think it just depends on personal opinion.

Cheers,
Harry

We don't equalize when screening and we don't put photos through Photoshop to scrutinize them.

Thanks Harry and Kas,
I appealed and it was rejected for Blurry Oversharpened Common Quality.
Blurry seems to be the 'go to' rejection reason lately... so subjective and easy to apply even without evidence.
How do screeners judge blurriness? What is the process? Despite experience and improved equipment, I've had more photos considered bury in the last year, than ever in the years before.

Steve

Sorry it got rejected on appeal as well.

sausten wrote:

Blurry seems to be the 'go to' rejection reason lately... so subjective and easy to apply even without evidence.

I judge blurry by the eye and based on experience. I can't really explain it any better than that, as it's a relatively simple process. I agree that it can be subjective (especially in borderline cases).

Another batch of rejections featuring compression. Can I get a thought on this one.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 567de99862
Rejected for CompressionOversharpenedQualityNoise.
Comparable to this one
https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Ea ... nWdQNjSirX
Appreciate advice on where the compression is.
Thanks
Steve

And another two if I may. Both featuring compression and blur.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cbf14f0769 (rejected for BlurryCompressionSoftLow ContrastNoise)
For this one I tried to match Mark's shot accpeted from same day (slightly different location)
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Korean-A ... 2w%2BIfjO8
And this one
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0a9755adde (rejected for BlurryOversharpenedCommonHigh Contrast)
Seems a good match with this one
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Air ... nWdQNjSirX

Where is this compression? ... and blur... and oversharpening... and ....

Steve

The OZ 777 does seem oversharpened, especially towards the rear where there are jaggies appearing on the fuselage outline. However, I don't see any noise or compression.

Regarding the KE 748, I think it is fine. I'm surprised it got rejected for soft, because I thought it looked more on the sharp side.

For the QF 747, the top deck windows seem a little oversharpened, otherwise the rest seem fine. Contrast seems good, and I don't see blurriness when I compare it to the TG 747 shot.

Cheers,
Yang

Thanks Yang. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
I have just appealed the QF and I think I will also appeal the KE. Fingers crossed...

Steve

QF rejection was upheld but the list of offences changed to Blurry Common Personal Message Quality.
Personal message "sorry Steven but it's blurry". Not sure what ' means... should I fill in the blanks?
Here's the link
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0a9755adde
It would be nice if the head screener shared his wisdom and told me where the apparent blur is. I would also like clarification of how this shot is any blurrier than this image
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Air ... nWdQNjSirX
and many others like it.
Any thoughts on pin pointing blur?
And another sad tale...
This one was originally done for oversharpened
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 07a0682ec9
I appealed and cited this accepted shot by Mark H ( I try to match standards the screeners are submitting themselves)
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... %2BgHxCDFI
Rejection was upheld for Blurry Oversharpened Personal Message Quality.
Would love some further 'feedback' from the head screener as to the differences between these two edits.

Steve

The weird symbols mean " ' ". The screener wrote " it's ". Somehow the backend doesn't translate that well in rejection messages.

I'm unable to comment for the rest, as I'm not on my screening computer.

Would love feedback from those in the know regarding the shots mentioned in post #43.

Meanwhile here's another one (of many) rejected for blurry.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 972d8bfdfc

Similar accepted shots of mine.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... EyfQ%3D%3D
https://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... EyfQ%3D%3D

What am I missing here... so many of my shots are being rejected for 'blurry' despite sharp original raw files. The edits are comparable to other accepted shots of mine and others, yet the rejection for blurry stands. Have the standards for 'blurry' been raised significantly recently? Even if so, I'm having a hard time seeing it on my end.

Look forward to thoughts and comments.
Steve

I should mention, the American 777 was rejected for Blurry Soft Underexposed\

Cheers
Steve

Hello,
Regarding to the AA B77W. I don't see very obvious blurry from this one.But i agree with the "underexposed" reason. The another two photos that you showed here is much brighter than this one.

Cheers,
Harry

The AA is not soft and not that blurry, but it is definitely underexposed.

Thanks Harry and Kas, I do appreciate you taking the time to look at my shots.

Any comment on this one? I am looking to identify the blurry sections.

sausten wrote:

This one was originally done for oversharpened
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 07a0682ec9
I appealed and cited this accepted shot by Mark H ( I try to match standards the screeners are submitting themselves)
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... %2BgHxCDFI
Rejection was upheld for Blurry Oversharpened Personal Message Quality.
Would love some further 'feedback' from the head screener as to the differences between these two edits.

Steve

Thanks
Steve

It's a bit too sharp in general (especially the tail), but other than that I'd say the images are quite equal in terms of quality.