Pre-Screen KPDX

KPDX · Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:48 pm

Hello all.

While it's already been screened, I'll start with the following image that was rejected.

Reasons:

- Blurry
- Category
- CW Rotation
- Oversharpened

Some insight about the settings I used:

1/1000
f/7.1
450mm focal length
ISO 125

I can't seem to get a proper reference to rotate it clockwise, otherwise it feels even more uneven to me. Lastly, I'm looking at resizing the photo down to 1200 px, but I feel it makes the details look even more blurry. Is this photo a lost cause?

Thanks,

Dylan

airkas1 · Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:10 pm

Hi Dylan,

I screened this photo. Took the liberty to check it in Photoshop just now; it needs about 1.0 CW rotation. At 1200px, it still looks a bit marginal. Perhaps sharpening it less may make it look a bit better, but it could also show the blurryness more. I can't check that, since I can't unsharpened your edit.

KPDX · Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:38 pm

Kas,

Thank you very much for your response. I've resized the photo, gone a little easier on the sharpening, and rotated it.

It was shot at a fairly large difference (from the parking garage) so I guess the details can only be so good.

Thanks!

wiggy · Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:00 pm

i still think it looks a little oversharpened in my opinion

jelpee · Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:04 am

Sharpening is passable for me. Still needs CW rotation...the building appear to be leaning to the left.Some noise visible in the sky as well.

Jehan

KPDX · Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:16 pm

Hello, I am going to submit the below shot. Just curious if you think there are any glaring issues prior to submitting.. The watermark will be gone, of course. Thanks!

DSC_5597 copy by Dylan Phelps, on Flickr

jelpee · Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:37 pm

Looks over sharpened: jaggies visible in many places such as the cockpit windows, the red band across the fuselage, landing gear,etc Although not a show stopper, the image is somewhat right in the frame and high in the frame.

Jehan

KPDX · Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:01 pm

jelpee wrote:
Looks over sharpened: jaggies visible in many places such as the cockpit windows, the red band across the fuselage, landing gear,etc Although not a show stopper, the image is somewhat right in the frame and high in the frame.

Jehan

Thank you much, Jehan. I appreciate the info. Here's another crack at it:

p3 by Dylan Phelps, on Flickr

310815 · Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:13 am

Still a bit OS maybe, but would be passable for me. Nice shot!

Julien

KPDX · Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:04 pm

JKPhotos wrote:
Still a bit OS maybe, but would be passable for me. Nice shot!

Julien

Thanks, Julien!

I have uploaded it so fingers crossed.

Thanks for all of your help.

310815 · Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:57 pm

You are welcome. Would be a worthy addition IMO.

airkas1 · Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:29 pm

The last version is fine in terms of centering and I love the composition. But I can't shake the feeling that it looks a bit oversharpened to compensate blur. I'm 50/50 on the probability of asking for another opinion if I came across it during screening. However, I would leave it in the queue and see what happens.

KPDX · Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:23 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The last version is fine in terms of centering and I love the composition. But I can't shake the feeling that it looks a bit oversharpened to compensate blur. I'm 50/50 on the probability of asking for another opinion if I came across it during screening. However, I would leave it in the queue and see what happens.

Thanks Kas. I'll leave it in. I actually didn't add very much sharpening, so I suppose next time I'll just resize it down to 1250px and not sharpen and see how it turns out. I definitely understand what you mean, though!

Here's another one I'm going to resubmit. It has been rejected 3 or 4 times. Mostly for contrast, and then finally that it too was too sharp as a result of increasing the contrast repeatedly. This is with VERY little sharpening added. Please let me know if there are any glaring issues or if it's worth resubmitting. I really like this perspective so I've really wanted this photo added!

S80 by Dylan Phelps, on Flickr

Just for comparison, here is the same photo with zero sharpening.

DSC_0032 by Dylan Phelps, on Flickr

Even Flickr degrades the quality a bit so let me know if any of you want the original JPG or if there's a better website to share the full resolution.

jelpee · Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:27 pm

The Mad Dog looks over-sharpened to me. Does your camera applying sharpening? if yes, perhaps set it to "Neutral" and add sharpening as part of your post processing.

Jehan

KPDX · Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:37 pm

No sir. No sharpening added automatically.. . I do my post-editing through Photoshop CC. I have been using the texture slider in the raw filter... here it is without the texture slider applied (and without sharpening). Any better?

S80 Test by Dylan Phelps, on Flickr

jelpee · Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:26 pm

Hmm..still has a raspy look to it...especially visible on the insignia on the tail. Perhaps it is the harsh lighting. If it has been screened multiple times and declined, tis one may be best for your personal album,

Jehan

KPDX · Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:06 pm

Woohoo! Thank you all for your pointers and help. I'm learning a lot as I go.

KPDX · Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:20 pm

Hello all,

This was rejected for oversharpened and because of the glare on the canopy. Ironically, I chose this photo because I think "eclipse" effect on the canopy is exactly what makes this photo artistic and a little bit unique (considering it's the world's only flying civillian F-4). I love how it silhouettes the pilots and displays the scuff marks on the canopy. Before I reupload this photo without so much sharpening, is the flare on the canopy really that much of a deal breaker? I'm actually really surprised by this decision.

Thanks as always!

KPDX · Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:57 pm

Here is the next photo in the sequence. Is this preferable?

jelpee · Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:06 pm

I like # 2 better. It silhouettes the pilots very clearly. Comparing the two, the sun glare is distracting for me. I see some noise on the aircraft though. Otherwise, looks good.

Jehan

KPDX · Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:11 pm

jelpee wrote:
I like # 2 better. It silhouettes the pilots very clearly. Comparing the two, the sun glare is distracting for me. I see some noise on the aircraft though. Otherwise, looks good.

Jehan

Roger that. Thanks for the advice Jehan!

Dylan

airkas1 · Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:35 am

I was the one who initially rejected the first photo and still stand by that, sorry. I agree #2 looks nicer. I see some light colored halos around the aircraft in #2 though?

KPDX · Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:07 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I was the one who initially rejected the first photo and still stand by that, sorry. I agree #2 looks nicer. I see some light colored halos around the aircraft in #2 though?

The sun is directly behind the aircraft, so I believe that is what is causing that effect around the aircraft, sorta like an eclipse. There actually wasn't too much editing done to the photo. I can submit the original if it helps. Thanks!

airkas1 · Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:11 pm

Yeah, that was my thought as well (sun directly behind). Makes the most sense.

KPDX · Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:29 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I was the one who initially rejected the first photo and still stand by that, sorry. I agree #2 looks nicer.

No need to be sorry. We all have different perspectives and standards. It would be boring if we all thought exactly the same all the time.

KPDX · Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:58 pm

Well... it was rejected (partially) for having halos, when in reality, it was in the original photo. The sun is directly behind the aircraft.

Here is the unedited photo. The only thing I've done is equlized it. This is a natural phenomenon. Nothing editing-induced.

And to go over it even more, here's the next photo in the sequence, only equalized.

I have appealed in the mean time.. Thank you as always!

KPDX · Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:27 pm

Hello.

I received a rejection for the following photo for blurry. Full disclosure, I don't use a great monitor for editing photos, but I'm having trouble seeing the blurriness. Is there anything that can be done?

Here is a screenshot of the original RAW file:

Thank you as always!

Crosswindphoto · Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:29 am

TO me it starts to get blurry around the tail. However, i'm not a fan of the crop, very loose.
Tim

jelpee · Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:04 am

Tail is blurry for me. I would crop closer to the engines and avoid the premature clipping of the horizontal stabilizer on the left side.

Jehan

KPDX · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:19 pm

Hello.

I am in need of assistance editing this photo of the E4B departing KFTW. I feel the rejection reasons I'm getting are a bit much considering it's overcast.. Can't always have those beautiful blue skies. Also, I'm noticing a trend that when I fix a photo per a specific set of rejection reasons (or in this case, underexposed), I will get what I'm fairly sure is the same screener rejecting it for 10 more reasons.

Rejected for:
- Underexposed

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 3630055bb7

I was on my PC so I ended up getting the rejection and throwing together the updated edit with more exposure. 9 minutes later, I got a rejection from (I'm fairly sure) the same screener for:

- Personal Message (which is VERY POOR LIGHTS..... There are some great shots of this exact take off in the database now, mind you.)
- Quality
- Soft
- Low Contrast

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 1dc58af01a

Maybe I'm just having a bad streak (12 rejections straight - heck yeah!

) and am frustrated, but I'm starting to feel like this is getting a little silly.

KPDX · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:24 pm

And here's the other photo that is giving me grief.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 6068e90edb

Rejected for:
Oversharpened (There is no sharpening added on this photo whatsoever....)
Low Contrast
Underexposed

Well, I tried again shortly after with the added exposure and contrast (which I truthfully blows the sky out big time, but I could be wrong.)

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e29359ce8b

And now it's rejected for:

- Oversharpened (again there is no sharpening added on this photo. Not through the camera itself and not through post. Nada.)
- Quality (Newly added since I added exposure)
- Low Contrast
- Underexposed (more exposure to me just seems insane, but maybe it may just be my monitor)

Awaiting to hear your thoughts of the E4B and 787 photos. I'm fairly disheartened at this point to be honest!

Thank you in advance!

Dylan

KPDX · Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:52 pm

I gotta run, but here's another stab at the E4B.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... df5ff84ccf

KPDX · Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:44 pm

Well guys, I gave up with the E-4B. My very good friend was 2 feet away from me so we did get similiar angles. Mine now has a "red cast" and is not passable.

Accepted (and rightfully so):

Rejected:

Still wondering about the Norwegian if anyone has the time.. Thank you!

jspurg15 · Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:56 pm

I am not a screener but you have amazing pictures bro! I planespot at PDX too!

Runway28L · Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:36 am

I can't get the Norwegian to load (site issues apparently present yet again). Not seeing any red cast whatsoever on the E-4B.

KPDX · Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:20 pm

jspurg15 wrote:
I am not a screener but you have amazing pictures bro! I planespot at PDX too!

Thanks buddy! I grew up in Oregon and used to spot there from roughly 2004-2011. Have lived in Texas since.

Runway28L wrote:
can't get the Norwegian to load (site issues apparently present yet again). Not seeing any red cast whatsoever on the E-4B.

I'll post Norwegian again below. I'm glad you aren't seeing anything either. The screening lately has been interesting to say the least. Seems unless your shot is in ideal sunny conditions, it's a no go from this particular screener. From what I understand, priority screening is supposed to be more lenient.

Norwegian shot below with the latest rejection reasons. :fight:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8f518cf1c1

Here's why your photo was rejected:

- Editing
- Oversharpened
- Personal Message
- Quality
- Soft
- Underexposed

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Both of jagged and soft, with some overediting. Not working, 6th rejection, please forget it."

I'll just accept that shooting for Anet when cloudy is no longer as viable, but I'd like to understand where I'm going wrong with my editing process. The shot was fairly sharp out of the D850 and I haven't added a single bit of sharpening in post. I used the auto raw filter on Photoshop with some slight adjustments, and then resized the photo to 1200px. Again, no sharpening.

Curious to hear thoughts from the resident pros here.

Thanks!

Runway28L · Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:40 am

Norwegian doesn't look jaggy, but I definitely agree that it looks soft/blurry. If it was sharp straight out of the camera, then I think it's probably just one of those weird instances where the image won't downsize properly no matter what is done to try and fix it (the tough light surely doesn't help either). I've had this happen to me a handful of times.

Crosswindphoto · Fri Mar 13, 2020 6:26 pm

The clouds aren't the issue, the whole A/C looks a touch soft, and OS.
Also some weird halos around the main gear.

Cloudy shots are fine (I get them added all the time), this one jsut doesnt seem to work.

Tim

KPDX · Sun May 24, 2020 12:33 pm

Sorry for the last response guys, but thanks for your thoughts from before. I appreciate it!

A couple of rejections that I'd like your thoughts on!

Rejected for oversharpened, common, and high contrast. I don't see it on either account but I'm not using the best monitor for editing so I'm interested in your thoughts.

Same for this one:

Rejected for blurry. The numbers near the nose and roundel seem sharp to me.

Thanks for your time!

dutchspotter1 · Sun May 24, 2020 12:46 pm

Virgin 747: contrast looks OK, but indeed oversharped
USAF F-22: looks blurry indeed (e.g. area around the pitot tube and main belly) and then oversharped to compensate

Crosswindphoto · Sun May 24, 2020 12:52 pm

Agree with dutchspotter1.

KPDX · Sun May 24, 2020 12:55 pm

Roger that. I'll make some changes and give the VS 744 a spin again!
Thank you!

KPDX · Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:42 pm

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... fbe60ceeb8

Hello,

I'm facing another rejection.

Here's why your photo was rejected:

- Contrast
- Personal Message
- Soft
- Underexposed

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Backlit. Despite the spikes on both sides of the histogram which is a sign of high contrast, the photo is flat, showing a lack of contrast."

I agree with underexposed, but I totally disagree with the aircraft being backlit. The lighting wasn't the greatest that day but the sun was actually on my side still. Is this photo seriously grounds for rejection on the basis of the Starship being backlit? It just feels like we are picking nits here..

JakTrax · Wed Jun 03, 2020 9:42 pm

Top-lit if anything, but not back-lit. It could do with a boost in both brightness and contrast. Not a lost cause, although the light's not the best.

jelpee · Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:38 pm

Even if you disagree with the "Backlit" descriptor in the comment from the screener, all of the reasons listed are valid. I agree that it is does not fit the description of being backlit. But for me, all of the other reasons indicate a No-Go for me.

To answer your question above, No it is not "serious grounds for rejection", on the basis of being backlit. However with the other reasons being valid, the rejection is justified. Doesn't sound like "picking nits" at all.

Regards,

Jehan

KPDX · Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:03 am

Jehan,

Thanks for your response. I too agree with the reasons for rejection. I should have clarified. My main concern was that if it was backlit, which I did not believe it to be, that it wasn't even fixable in the first place.

Dylan

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net