Immediate fixes:
-Make sure you haven’t lowered the highlights to much
- make sure the clarity isn’t too high
- don’t up the shadows to much
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Good feedabck shared by CW Photo re halos due to over use of shadow/highlight tool.
The halos I see on this image are ones that appear then there is too much sharpening applied. If you look at the image through the equalization filter, it will magnify the condition for better visibility. The image could use some added contrast as well.
Jehan
The halos I see on this image are ones that appear then there is too much sharpening applied. If you look at the image through the equalization filter, it will magnify the condition for better visibility. The image could use some added contrast as well.
Jehan
Re: Post-screening gh6912
If you submitted a correction, that's fine and no further action required. The editors usually take care of that anywhere between an hour to a day.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Hey Garrett,
Thanks for the kind words and our pleasure! The uploads have been nice and newsworthy enough, but indeed not really prio anymore (especially after 2 days).
Thanks for the kind words and our pleasure! The uploads have been nice and newsworthy enough, but indeed not really prio anymore (especially after 2 days).
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Hi
Hard to tell. Typically compression issues coming up by not saving at the highest amout possible (12 in Photoshop) or by editing on already resized finished files or generally by squeezing very large originals into tiny sizes.
In your case sky is rather blotchy. If you want, you can send me the orginal and I'll have a look and can try an edit, because like that it is hard to tell where it comes from in a specific case. JKphotos (at) airliners.net
Cheers,
Julien
Hard to tell. Typically compression issues coming up by not saving at the highest amout possible (12 in Photoshop) or by editing on already resized finished files or generally by squeezing very large originals into tiny sizes.
In your case sky is rather blotchy. If you want, you can send me the orginal and I'll have a look and can try an edit, because like that it is hard to tell where it comes from in a specific case. JKphotos (at) airliners.net
Cheers,
Julien
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Please post a copy of the image so I can confirm if I may have screened it.
Thanks
Jehan
Thanks
Jehan
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Sorry, don't recalls screening that one. Exposure is passable for me though.
Jehan
Jehan
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Versions are cumulative, not stacked.
Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: T-38C Talon
Version: T-38C Talon
is incorrect.
Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon
would be correct.
---
In this case:
Use the Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled (MFE) --> tick "no".
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon
is correct.
---
Sometimes the 'normal' way (MFE = yes) does not always display the entry correctly. Most of the times this is due to an incorrectly added entry by a photographer who does not know what he/she is doing. When you keep the cumulative part in mind; if the 'normal' way doesn't get you the desired result, tick the MFE "no" box and 99^% of the cases you will find a proper entry.
Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: T-38C Talon
Version: T-38C Talon
is incorrect.
Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon
would be correct.
---
In this case:
Use the Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled (MFE) --> tick "no".
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon
is correct.
---
Sometimes the 'normal' way (MFE = yes) does not always display the entry correctly. Most of the times this is due to an incorrectly added entry by a photographer who does not know what he/she is doing. When you keep the cumulative part in mind; if the 'normal' way doesn't get you the desired result, tick the MFE "no" box and 99^% of the cases you will find a proper entry.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
I think it could use a bit more sharpening.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
The elements to the rear (vertical and horizontal stabilizers and engines) noticeable less sharp, most likely due to depth of field. As Kas suggests, a round of sharpening should work.
Jehan
Jehan
Re: Post-screening gh6912
gh6912 wrote:Hi there, as I've said before I really hate having to appeal because I don't want to waste any screener's time so I am back looking for some feedback on this image. Was rejected for being "Soft" just want to know where the softness is in your eyes before I go back and edit or if I should consider an appeal. Thanks so much!
Hi There,
I would agree with this screener's rejection. Basically, the whole aircraft looks very soft at this size.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
gh6912 wrote:One more I'd like a little feedback on. The first submission of this F-15K was at 1400x898 size wise and was rejected for simply being "soft"
I resubmitted after adding sharpening slightly and reduced the size a bit to 1250x802 and it was rejected for "Overexposed, soft, low contrast, noise, heathaze" and was called unfixable.
I know that screening is subject to opinion of the individual but I'm just curious how when I added only sharpening to the 1st edit it caused so many additional rejection reasons? This has happened a few times to me in the past so I just want to be sure when resubmitting in the future. Appreciate all the help - Garrett
For me, I don't see obvious heat haze, overexposed,and contrast issue from it. Sharpness looks not bad at 1250px for me.
Regards,
Harry
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Hi Garrett,
let me say that I first screend your F-15 and gave it a Second Opinion as it was still soft for me and it does look overexposed IMO. I did ask for another opinion as overexposed wasn't mentioned before, so to stay fair I tend to ask further. Obviously the next screener shared my opinion.
For what's its worth I don't see heat haze being an issue and contrast is okay. "Unfixable" is usually written when the light is very tricky and it will be hard to get it right. I would tend to think yours is salvageable though. Try to bring the exposure down (background is very bright) and sharpen it more. I wouldn't appeal in that case, but of course your choice.
Julien
let me say that I first screend your F-15 and gave it a Second Opinion as it was still soft for me and it does look overexposed IMO. I did ask for another opinion as overexposed wasn't mentioned before, so to stay fair I tend to ask further. Obviously the next screener shared my opinion.
For what's its worth I don't see heat haze being an issue and contrast is okay. "Unfixable" is usually written when the light is very tricky and it will be hard to get it right. I would tend to think yours is salvageable though. Try to bring the exposure down (background is very bright) and sharpen it more. I wouldn't appeal in that case, but of course your choice.
Julien
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Hi Garrett,
It usually means that the screener saw a relatively minor or subjective flaw. When HQ’d, the photo leaves the main queue and needs to be screened by someone else. This often takes a bit longer than a direct add.
It usually means that the screener saw a relatively minor or subjective flaw. When HQ’d, the photo leaves the main queue and needs to be screened by someone else. This often takes a bit longer than a direct add.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Am not seeing blurry, soft or quality issues that would be show stoppers. People are OK since they are not blocking the aircraft nor posing in front of it. Not seeing color or aberration issues either. Overall it sounds harsh to me. If anything, the image could use some CW rotation judging by the vertical alignment of the pole in the foreground.
Jehan
Jehan
-
-
Crosswindphoto
Screener
- Posts: 379
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Agree with Jehan, however, i'm seeing a little bit of chromatic abberation around all of the letters (more so towards the rear of the A/C.)
However, like Jehan said, not a show stopper, personally I would re-upload at a smaller size (1400ish), but thats up to you.
Tim
However, like Jehan said, not a show stopper, personally I would re-upload at a smaller size (1400ish), but thats up to you.
Tim
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Looks blurry/OOF, but otherwise fine. Not sure if a smaller size will be better.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
RE: correct info for the MC-12.
Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled? --> No
Generic Type --> Hawker Beechcraft 350 King Air (C-12)
Version --> Hawker Beechcraft MC-12W Huron (350ER)
However quality is too poor and not fixable.
Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled? --> No
Generic Type --> Hawker Beechcraft 350 King Air (C-12)
Version --> Hawker Beechcraft MC-12W Huron (350ER)
However quality is too poor and not fixable.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
I think that was my doing and seem to remember that it’s increasingly blurry/OOF towards the left of the frame (so indeed towards the tail).
-
-
Crosswindphoto
Screener
- Posts: 379
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Indeed, blurry/OOF around the rear, and Chromatic Aberration around the entire plane. you can try a much smaller size, but no guarantees..
Tim
Tim
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Same day, same location and same side will typically draw a "Double" rejection unless it is a different sequence of flight. e.g. landing, take off, taxiing, or parked at gate. Unless there is strong motivation for it, what you have described, will most likely be considered a double.
Jehan
Jehan
-
-
Crosswindphoto
Screener
- Posts: 379
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Not soft to me.
However, it looks very flat (low contrast) & theres chromatic abberation around some of the edges, particularly the nose wheel areas.
Tim
However, it looks very flat (low contrast) & theres chromatic abberation around some of the edges, particularly the nose wheel areas.
Tim
Re: Post-screening gh6912
I screened this image. Overall it could be sharper. Soft areas are visible at the engine openings, tail cone. As I take a second look, I agree with Tim that it is also flat, and should have mentioned it. I would increase the contrast and see if it adds some sharpness to the image first. Nice lighting. I caught the El Al on the morning of Jan 19th at The Holes as well...it was a LA special paint. I need to edit it and send it in for screening.
Jehan
Jehan
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Hello Garrett,
While there is nothing specific to this subject in the Acceptance Guide, the guideline has always been that the registration for aircraft closest to the photographer is what should be listed. Typically, this is also the most prominent subject. However, there are circumstances when the aircraft closest to the lens would not be the registration that is listed. E.g. it is an out of focus foreground element that is not the main subject, or it is a minor part of the overall composition (e.g. a Cessna 172 in front of a Airbus A380). In the case of your last rejected image, the C5A is both the most prominent and closest which is why it was declined for the reasons indicated.
Re. the Blue Angels F/A 18B, it should not be viewed as anything other than an oversight in screening. I am often puzzled by the expectation from the uploading community that screening should be 100% accurate, 100% of the time. For a service that is provided by a.net at no charge to uploaders, and for no compensation to the screeners, perhaps some latitude in this area would be nice.
Cheers,
Jehan
While there is nothing specific to this subject in the Acceptance Guide, the guideline has always been that the registration for aircraft closest to the photographer is what should be listed. Typically, this is also the most prominent subject. However, there are circumstances when the aircraft closest to the lens would not be the registration that is listed. E.g. it is an out of focus foreground element that is not the main subject, or it is a minor part of the overall composition (e.g. a Cessna 172 in front of a Airbus A380). In the case of your last rejected image, the C5A is both the most prominent and closest which is why it was declined for the reasons indicated.
Re. the Blue Angels F/A 18B, it should not be viewed as anything other than an oversight in screening. I am often puzzled by the expectation from the uploading community that screening should be 100% accurate, 100% of the time. For a service that is provided by a.net at no charge to uploaders, and for no compensation to the screeners, perhaps some latitude in this area would be nice.
Cheers,
Jehan
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Don’t forget Jehan that the very reason for the existence for A.net, the photographs, are supplied to the site at no charge also.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
gh6912 wrote:And here we have yet ANOTHER example! Pretty sure the airframe closest to the lens is a Southwest bird, not Oman Air. All I’m asking for is consistency. If this is accepted there’s no reason why the F-14 shot would not be
Thanks for pointing out yet another example. As a rule yes, it has to be closest plane in the frame. At times the registration is not possible to see or obtain. We have allowed airport overviews when the reg. is not visible. We are making changes to the Acceptance Guide, we will address this with the new Guide. To help out the screeners in the future, we would like to ask the uploader to put a comment in the "comment to screeners" box specifying why the reg. of the closest aircraft is not entered.
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 512
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Since there is not one obvious subject aircraft in these overview photos, wouldn't it make more sense to leave out the reg/aircraft type/airline entirely? Perhaps it's better to mention this in the comments section where you could include multiple (visible/known) regs and other details. That would avoid discussions about which aircraft is the closest/biggest/etc.
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Garrett,
In looking at this shot there is a registration number identified (N858V). Let me know if I'm missing something in your inquiry.
As for it not being designated an Airport Overview, we usually do not reject for a "Category" issues only, since it is something that the screener can adjust before accepting it. If there are other issues, then "Category" may be listed as well.
Cheers,
Jehan
In looking at this shot there is a registration number identified (N858V). Let me know if I'm missing something in your inquiry.
As for it not being designated an Airport Overview, we usually do not reject for a "Category" issues only, since it is something that the screener can adjust before accepting it. If there are other issues, then "Category" may be listed as well.
Cheers,
Jehan
Re: Post-screening gh6912
Based on the available acceptance rules, we need to clear up the registration info issues.
The current guide says "If there are more than one aircraft in the photo, type the registration of the most visible aircraft (the registration(s) of the other(s) can be mentioned in the caption field)."
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwe ... /2688295/L
In this Case it should be the Lufthansa A380
Going forward we will use this as a guide when screening. We know that there will be gray areas. Please use the appeal process if you think a photo got rejected for bad registration.
The current guide says "If there are more than one aircraft in the photo, type the registration of the most visible aircraft (the registration(s) of the other(s) can be mentioned in the caption field)."
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwe ... /2688295/L
In this Case it should be the Lufthansa A380
Going forward we will use this as a guide when screening. We know that there will be gray areas. Please use the appeal process if you think a photo got rejected for bad registration.
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 512
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening gh6912
dgorun wrote:The current guide says "If there are more than one aircraft in the photo, type the registration of the most visible aircraft (the registration(s) of the other(s) can be mentioned in the caption field)."
.....We know that there will be gray areas.
Exactly, this will leave too much room for interpretation. It will be easier not to list a registration at all (except in the caption) if there is more than one obvious subject aircraft in the photo.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: bigbird and 14 guests