Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Thu May 12, 2011 7:42 am

Hi - just a few questions on three rejections:

1.) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...10429_r1303529184.2295img_0400.jpg
Reject reason: motiv dark

I hadn't submitted a tail view before, and I figured I may as well give that one a shot. I framed the shot like that purposely (tail in between the tower and theme building). Obviously the light is not conducive, but do you think it has any shot with a tighter crop and some careful brightening of the tail? Something like this:

https://www.airliners.net/uf/5788/phpoOE9lD.jpeg

2.) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...10505_u1304068080.0651img_7944.jpg
Reject reason: needs CCW rotation, but tail blurry, so not fixable blurry level personal

I find it difficult to determine blurriness (especially versus softness). Is it mostly the tip of the tail that is blurry?

3.) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...10511_d1304658805.7739img_0491.jpg
Reject reason: backlit dark personal

Again, obviously the light is not great. I thought I did a reasonable job of brightening the airplane without blowing out the background highlights, but it certainly could just be an unworkable shot for here. I took a shot at a new edit of that one:

https://www.airliners.net/uf/5788/phpwwvTVa.jpeg

I also have another shot from the same takeoff that might fare better in the brightness category, but I don't know if the heat haze on the wing is too great:

https://www.airliners.net/uf/5788/phpSbGKCq.jpeg

Thanks much for any and all input!
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Thu May 12, 2011 8:08 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Thread starter):
ut do you think it has any shot with a tighter crop and some careful brightening of the tail? Something like this:

Looks better, but I might still go tighter, and it's still backlit, so too dark imho.

Quoting vikkyvik (Thread starter):
Is it mostly the tip of the tail that is blurry?

Whole tail area looks blurry, but yes, especially top of the fin.

Quoting vikkyvik (Thread starter):
I took a shot at a new edit of that one:

I also have another shot from the same takeoff that might fare better in the brightness category

Both are still backlit, which no amount of post-processing is really going to be able to fix.
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Thu May 12, 2011 9:11 am

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):

Cool, pretty much as I expected. Thanks Dana!
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed May 18, 2011 1:05 am

Well, #100 is proving elusive!  

Some more post-screening help would be appreciated (note that I'm not doubting the screeners - just trying to improve my editing for A.net):

1.) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...10517_i1305089897.1163img_0902.jpg
Reject reason: blurry colour

Color is (I assume) a reddish/pinkish tint?
I'm having trouble seeing the blur (as usual); I know the image is certainly quite soft (which I realized a day or two before it was screened).

2.) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...517_g1305091083.6347img_0958_1.jpg
Reject reason: soft

This one looks pretty sharp to my eyes - I'd appreciate someone helping me identify what areas are soft. I also debated the contrast on this one - it was originally too low, and I upped it a bit and submitted; I'm wondering if it's still a bit low.

3.) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...10517_e1305091391.4208img_0101.jpg
Reject reason: soft

Same as above. Looks sharp to me.

EDIT: While I'm at it, this one was also rejected for soft last week:

4.) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...10502_p1303796539.1577img_7874.jpg

Again, would appreciate help diagnosing the softness (I seem to have an issue with 777s and softness  Smile ).

I'm wondering if the sharpness meter in my eyes has somehow gone out of calibration. I look at a fair number of photo feedback threads, and I feel like the images that are acceptable sharpness all look oversharpened to me, and those that are soft look about right.

Could also be that I just started using CS5 for RAW editing (I used to use Canon's software), so everything is looking a bit different right now. But I don't think these photos were edited in CS5 (the Skyteam one might have been).

Thanks very much!

[Edited 2011-05-17 18:08:20]
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed May 18, 2011 2:31 am

Ah crap, forget the contrast part of the question on #2. I had a color space issue when I first started using CS5, where a couple uploads were clearly different (Adobe RGB vs sRGB). This one slipped through.

Funny, though, because after I uploaded it, I looked at it a few times and thought, "geez, I swear I added more contrast...oh well."

Didn't think to check.
 
zbot69
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 10:29 am

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed May 18, 2011 9:10 am

Hey Vik...

Mind you... my opinions aren't formed on the basis of my few accepted shots, but on the basis of my many rejected shots... I normally refrain from commenting in the Feedback forum, but it seems that everyone has taken a summer leave-of-absence and I know it sucks to check the forum back for feedback for days with nairy-a-reply, so take this as you please. But fwiw... the China Southern seemed blurred around the leading edge of the wing and the titles under the nose;

2d shot: really nitpicking here... but if I had to guess I'd think the tail rudder area, the rear of the aircraft? Honestly... no clue... I think even money it could have been either accepted / rejected and no one would have been the wiser if it had been accepted.

3rd shot... don't see it. Same as 2d.

4th shot: at first glance looks awesome, then noticed the fleet number at the tip on the top of the tail shows uneven sharpening? Don't know.

This is above my pay grade. Ask me if commodities are going lower (they are). Just curious. Because I'm trying to improve my own shots. Do you know what your aperture settings were for these shots? I'm wondering if you were shooting wide open when you took these? Because some of the soft issues look like they could be DOF issues. But again, I'm still plodding through this myself.

Good luck getting that 100th shot! Only a matter of time now!

Cheers!
 
je89_w
Posts: 2070
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 1:29 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed May 18, 2011 10:54 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Color is (I assume) a reddish/pinkish tint?
I'm having trouble seeing the blur (as usual); I know the image is certainly quite soft (which I realized a day or two before it was screened).

Yes there is a reddish cast. In addition to the overall softness, there is also some motion blur, which is evident in the titles/wing.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
This one looks pretty sharp to my eyes - I'd appreciate someone helping me identify what areas are soft. I also debated the contrast on this one - it was originally too low, and I upped it a bit and submitted; I'm wondering if it's still a bit low.

With the exception of the titles/front edge of aircraft, the entire aircraft is quite soft.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Same as above. Looks sharp to me.

Better, though the windows/wing is soft.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
While I'm at it, this one was also rejected for soft last week:

Windows, doors, and wing are quite soft. Otherwise, quite okay.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
I'm wondering if the sharpness meter in my eyes has somehow gone out of calibration.

It appears so!  

Good luck on your 100th!
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed May 18, 2011 4:50 pm

Quoting je89_w (Reply 7):
It appears so!

Heh, oh well, it happens now and then. Thanks for your help.

Quoting zbot69 (Reply 6):

Thank you as well!

Quoting zbot69 (Reply 6):
Do you know what your aperture settings were for these shots? I'm wondering if you were shooting wide open when you took these? Because some of the soft issues look like they could be DOF issues. But again, I'm still plodding through this myself.

All were probably F7.1 except for #2 (the first DL shot). That was at F6.3 due to low light; shutter speed was 1/20s, and I didn't want to go even slower.
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:07 pm

Another for post-screening:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...01_o1306314867.1407img_1363cs5.jpg

Reject reason: Too much space on left centered personal

The motivation for centering is the ANA in the background, along with the tug that's towing it. I tried to leave equal space on the right of the TACA and on the left of the tug.

I suppose I could cut out the tug and crop to the nose of the ANA. Cropping out any of the actual aircraft would be very distracting, I think. Suggestions would be appreciated.

If it would be rejected for other reasons, no worries, but I'm still interested in the crop for future reference.

Thanks much!
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:23 pm

You're right, cropping the nose wouldn't be too appealing, but cropping the tug would be fine. Light's pretty marginal as well...
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:54 am

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 9):
You're right, cropping the nose wouldn't be too appealing, but cropping the tug would be fine. Light's pretty marginal as well...

Yeah I figured about the light - we'll see what happens.  

Thanks for the comments - will rework when I get a chance.
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:00 am

Another for post....

I've been working on a bunch of low-light shots, mostly for the challenge (both shooting and editing). This one was rejected for SOFT and GRAINY.

Grainy I can understand. Soft I'm having trouble locating.

Thanks again.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...10607_t1306824054.4473img_9671.jpg
 
darreno1
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:58 am

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:03 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11):
Grainy I can understand. Soft I'm having trouble locating.

It looks like a heavy crop that was sharpened. Not bad but the edges does seem a little soft. If you look at the trailing edge of the rudder you can see it better.
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:17 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11):
Grainy I can understand. Soft I'm having trouble locating.

Hmmm.. I wouldn't have gone with soft. A bit blurry (especially the tail), but not really soft.

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 12):
It looks like a heavy crop that was sharpened.

No, looks like a shot with some blur and lots of noise that has only partially been removed.

You say you're up for a challenge - that's a good thing, because I think that's what it's going to be to get this to an acceptable point.
 
cpd
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:54 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11):
I've been working on a bunch of low-light shots, mostly for the challenge (both shooting and editing). This one was rejected for SOFT and GRAINY.

It does look like the original image was blurry, but it also has a really heavily sharpened look, like the halos around the TACA lettering at the front of the plane. The grain you already know about. As was mentioned above, the tail looks blurry too. Looks like it'll be a pretty tough job to get it up to the required quality.
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:16 am

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 12):
It looks like a heavy crop that was sharpened.

Could be, I honestly don't remember. I doubt it was a much heavier crop than a lot of my photos, though. Just slower shutter speed, which I'm still not great at.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 13):
Quoting cpd (Reply 14):

Gotcha, I think I see what you guys are saying. I don't know why I have such trouble determining blurriness, but hey, it is what it is.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 13):
You say you're up for a challenge - that's a good thing, because I think that's what it's going to be to get this to an acceptable point.

Ha, up for a challenge, certainly! But spending inordinate amounts of time on an image that likely won't pass anyway - not so much up for that.  

I'm still working on the slow-shutter-speed panning photography thing, so I'd rather work on that than "image rescue" editing.

Thanks all for the comments.
 
cpd
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:29 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 15):

I'm still working on the slow-shutter-speed panning photography thing, so I'd rather work on that than "image rescue" editing.

It's all in the panning action. Take a burst of 3 shots, rather than just one. One of them will usually be sharp.What shutter speed and focal length did you use here? On the panning shots with really low shutter speeds (eg, 1/15th), you can often open up the aperture all the way, provided your lens is a good quality and doesn't go soft when doing that. That's nicer than bumping up the ISO. Once the aperture is maxed out, then bump the ISO as needed.

Start off with around 1/100sec, that's a good speed to use when taking panning type photos by hand, and when you are more comfortable with it, try lower speeds like 1/50sec. Find a detail on the plane like a door, and follow it as precisely as you can.
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:47 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 16):
Take a burst of 3 shots, rather than just one. One of them will usually be sharp.

That's what I have been doing lately. Don't know if I was doing that when the shot in question was taken.

Quoting cpd (Reply 16):
What shutter speed and focal length did you use here? On the panning shots with really low shutter speeds (eg, 1/15th), you can often open up the aperture all the way, provided your lens is a good quality and doesn't go soft when doing that. That's nicer than bumping up the ISO. Once the aperture is maxed out, then bump the ISO as needed.

Image data is: 1/13s, F6.3, ISO200, focal length 235mm (with 70-300 IS USM).

I usually shoot at F7.1 or F8, so I was down one or two steps in aperture. And yeah, though I've had success with some ISO400 shots, I'll do anything I can to avoid it.  
Quoting cpd (Reply 16):
Start off with around 1/100sec, that's a good speed to use when taking panning type photos by hand, and when you are more comfortable with it, try lower speeds like 1/50sec. Find a detail on the plane like a door, and follow it as precisely as you can.

I've actually worked on 1/50 to 1/100 a fair amount, and am pretty decent at it. It was only after doing those shots for awhile that I started trying even slower speeds. I have found thusfar that I actually pan better if I don't focus on a specific part of the airplane. Rather I just sort of let my eye take in the whole scene, and for whatever reason it allows me to pan more smoothly.

Sort of like when I was learning to drive - when learning to drive in reverse, our instructor told us to focus on the rear brake light and the curb, and try to keep them aligned or whatever. That never worked for me; I was better able to do it without focusing on a particular object.

That may not apply so well to photography, though.  

Thanks again for the advice.
 
darreno1
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:58 am

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:34 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 15):
Could be, I honestly don't remember. I doubt it was a much heavier crop than a lot of my photos, though. Just slower shutter speed, which I'm still not great at.

What I was paying attention to when I made that comment was the jaggies that become very noticeable with heavily cropped images. Examples would be the under the wings, around the cockpit windows and lettering etc. That's just my opinion judging just from what I see. Obviously other factors can be a play here but that's what came to mind immediately.

Like mentioned above, you could also be pushing your lens to its limits. To test the lens, I'd practice low shutter speeds on stationary objects using something to steady your camera (mono-pod, tri-pod, car roof etc). If they still come out a little soft then you'll have to find the lens's sweetspot and work around that.

Some spotters I've talked to won't even consider a slow shutter pic without a tripod.

Good luck man. I'm still a safe shooter for now but would also love to delve into the low-light, night shots eventually.

I just noticed your comment about ISO 400. Yeah I avoid it on bright days but I've been able to take many great shots at 400. Normally, you should not have a lot of issues with grain with it.

[Edited 2011-06-07 23:41:06]
 
cpd
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:05 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17):
Image data is: 1/13s, F6.3, ISO200, focal length 235mm (with 70-300 IS USM).

Oh, that's good.   1/13th is pretty slow shutter speed.

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 18):
What I was paying attention to when I made that comment was the jaggies that become very noticeable with heavily cropped images.

That one is a good example of a very low shutter speed image that is maybe not quite sharp enough that has been edited to have a sharper appearance. That's what gives it that look. I can probably dig out a lot of images that look like that. It's a peril of very low shutter speeds. When it works out well, it's awesome, but when it doesn't, you get a throw-away image.  
Quoting darreno1 (Reply 18):

Some spotters I've talked to won't even consider a slow shutter pic without a tripod.

I do some of that with a 300mm prime non-VR lens, hand-held. It's a good way to get better at it, plus those prime lenses are super, even with the aperture wide-open.  
Quoting darreno1 (Reply 18):
I'm still a safe shooter for now but would also love to delve into the low-light, night shots eventually.

The best way to start is at sunset, instead of using ISO320, maybe stay on the lower ISO for a bit longer, and gradually start trying for lower shutter speeds. You'll get there.  
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:53 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 19):

Oh, that's good. 1/13th is pretty slow shutter speed.

Yup. The slowest shutter that I've had accepted was 1/10th (sorry for the plug in my own thread  )


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vik S



But that one was probably a fluke. I wish I had gotten a sharp image without all the crap in the foreground, but oh well.

Aside from that, I've had a few accepted between 1/20 and 1/50.

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 18):
What I was paying attention to when I made that comment was the jaggies that become very noticeable with heavily cropped images.

I hear ya. But I think Chris was probably correct here:

Quoting cpd (Reply 19):
That one is a good example of a very low shutter speed image that is maybe not quite sharp enough that has been edited to have a sharper appearance. That's what gives it that look. I can probably dig out a lot of images that look like that. It's a peril of very low shutter speeds. When it works out well, it's awesome, but when it doesn't, you get a throw-away image.

That's probably exactly what it is. Like I said, I'm really not good at differentiating blur from softness, so sometimes a rejection is a good thing  
Quoting cpd (Reply 19):

I do some of that with a 300mm prime non-VR lens, hand-held. It's a good way to get better at it, plus those prime lenses are super, even with the aperture wide-open.

I actually didn't have a tripod until I was given one literally an hour ago (by my dog for Fathers' Day....figure that one out). But I enjoy the challenge of shooting low-light handheld. I'm definitely getting better at it, but it's slow going.

EDIT: Geez, I can't even read my own photo remarks. The accepted shot I posted above was 1/10th, not 1/8th.

And also, thanks Chris, Darren, and Dana for the help.

[Edited 2011-06-08 22:12:18]
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:36 am

A consistent string of rejections shall ensure that this thread does not die  

I have to admit being slightly disappointed about this one. I was pretty happy with my editing. It certainly was fairly quick, which is usually a decent indication of if it'll be any good.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6174.3869img_0893cs56-1-11redo.jpg

Reject reason: looks like too much shadow highlight tool common oversharpened editing personal

After some recent struggles with sharpness/softness, I thought I was pretty close with this one (for reference, I sharpened it a bit more than looks good to me, as what looks good to me tends to get rejected for soft   ).

Also regarding the editing rejection - I don't think I used any shadow/highlight tool. Here's a new edit of the same photo, in which I know no shadow/highlight was used:

https://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=5788&filename=phpPSu7iF.jpeg

Comments appreciated - thanks again for the help.

Common obviously is what it is; no big deal about that, but interested to hear about my re-edit anyway.
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:14 am

Hi Vik,

I can definitely see the oversharpening, and the other comment probably stems from the fact that there are no shadows anywhere on the aircraft. There appears to be no direct light hitting the visible side, yet it is as well exposed as the background, a dynamic range that is not typically achieved without some sort of editing. Whoever screened it was just making his best guess as to what it looked like, based on previous experience (thus the 'looks like' comment). I'd have to agree the lighting looks odd, it may not have been the s/h tool, but it does look like you put some effort into getting the overall balanced exposure in unbalanced lighting. I don't think the newer edit differs enough that a better outcome would result if you were to submit it again.
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:53 am

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 22):

Interesting; thanks Dana.

In the editing process, I think all I really did was white balance, adjust black/white points, tweak the exposure, color and contrast, sharpen, and reduce noise (some of all that was done in RAW, and some in JPEG).

Here's the original from the camera - all I did was resize to 1600 and add the watermark. For once the exposure straight out of the camera wasn't too bad.  

Also, if there was no direct light hitting the airplane, wouldn't it make sense that there wouldn't be any shadows?  

I have to admit being slightly confused about this whole thing.

https://www.airliners.net/uf/view.file?id=5788&filename=phpcHF71V.jpeg

Thanks again.
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:10 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 23):
Also, if there was no direct light hitting the airplane, wouldn't it make sense that there wouldn't be any shadows?

Actually, it would make sense that the whole aircraft be in shadow, which in yours it really isn't - thus the observation. Having seen your straight-out-of-the-camera version, I have to admit, the lighting is bit odd (besides being really low contrast). There may have been some processing done in camera (or during your conversion from RAW), but regardless, we have no idea what processing anyone has actually done, and can only go on what we see. Comparing the original to your edited versions, the edited versions look over-processed, I'm guessing due to the noise reduction, sharpening and adjusting the black/white points. It may have been one of those things, or the cumulative effect of all of them. Again, I'm not making any assumptions about what you have done, just making best guesses based on how the images look.
 
vikkyvik
Topic Author
Posts: 12683
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post-Screening (vikkyvik)

Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:31 am

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 24):
Actually, it would make sense that the whole aircraft be in shadow, which in yours it really isn't - thus the observation.

Well yeah, I just meant you wouldn't get a shadow from, say, the wings or anything.

I wasn't really serious with that comment anyway.  
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 24):
Having seen your straight-out-of-the-camera version, I have to admit, the lighting is bit odd (besides being really low contrast).
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 24):
There may have been some processing done in camera (or during your conversion from RAW), but regardless, we have no idea what processing anyone has actually done, and can only go on what we see.

In camera, I think I had the saturation dialed up a bit, because I've generally found that my RAW images are a bit flat, color-wise, especially in low light situations. The RAW sharpness was set at 3 (out of 10), which is what the camera defaults to, and I've never seen the need to change it.

I sometimes bump the contrast in-camera as well, but I hadn't that day.

With all that said, I did the RAW editing in CS5, which (unlike the Canon software I used to use) doesn't appear to capture the in-camera settings anyway.

Aside from those settings, I had +2/3 exposure compensation.

I'm wondering if part of it is the fact that I started using CS5 for RAW editing fairly recently. I'm still getting used to it. While my photos in Canon's software look like how I shot them, in CS5 they all appear dark at first. I always have to dial in a not-insignificant brightness bump to get them to look normal, exposure-wise.

Note that the unedited image I posted was from Canon's software, though, not CS5. I have 14 shots of that aircraft as it taxied past, and they all look similar in lighting and exposure.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 24):
Again, I'm not making any assumptions about what you have done, just making best guesses based on how the images look.

Understood. I'm certainly not accusing the screening team of anything. It's just a confusing rejection (the editing, not the oversharp). I'm trying to figure it out for future reference.

Thanks very much for your responses - I really appreciate you taking the time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos