Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

Post Screening - Sausten

Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:17 am

Hi all,
Just had this one done for ''Grainy''.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1364766043.9143sausten25261280.jpg
I've spent a while looking for the offending grain but still am unsure. Is it the sky?
Thanks for any help.
Steve
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:35 am

Quoting sausten (Thread starter):
I've spent a while looking for the offending grain but still am unsure. Is it the sky?

If you look really carefully, there's a small amount of grain in the sky. Given the lighting and how subtle it is, I think I would be appealing that one as I don't see that as significant enough to warrent a rejection. A little harsh in my opinion bearing in mind noise / grain is a natural part of photography. There are photos on the database with much more noticable grain than that.

Darren
 
JakTrax
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:13 pm

Jesus, I need a magnifying glass to see any grain in that!!!

Karl
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:16 pm

As noted, the grain looks quite minor to me.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:08 pm

Thanks guys. I have appealed and we'll se how it goes.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:41 am

Rejected on appeal for ''soft''. No further comment from me.

This one was also done for grain at the same time, I appealed and it got done for ''colour soft''.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...364766192.8934sausten25251280b.jpg

It was taken just before sunset and I was very conscious not to overdo the red/orange cast. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

Steve
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:14 am

Quoting sausten (Reply 5):
Rejected on appeal for ''soft''. No further comment from me.

It is a bit soft, and I apologize for not noticing that before. I was just looking for grain.

Quoting sausten (Reply 5):
I appealed and it got done for ''colour soft''.

Certainly soft. I'm OK with the color, though to me it almost looks like it could use a bit more red to go along with the existing yellow.
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:39 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 6):
Certainly soft. I'm OK with the color, though to me it almost looks like it could use a bit more red to go along with the existing yellow.

I would say more slightly blurry than soft, but certainly a rejection reason either way on that one. Colour wise, I'm always baffled as to why photos taken early morning and late at night that are in obvious lighting conditions are given rejections for colour? This looks perfectly natural to me. While this site is a database rather than a photography site (aparantly), photographers can't be expected to edit out natural colours.

Darren
 
PHX787
Posts: 7892
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:36 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 5):
It was taken just before sunset and I was very conscious not to overdo the red/orange cast. Any ideas?

It is slightly soft/blurry and the color contrast may have something to do with it. I'd first try sharpening it as much as you can but be careful for the grain. Next time, during this light, tinker with your ISO and see what you come up with.

To everyone else- the top of the AR fuselage is what gets me for being too soft....is that what everyone else sees here? It kinda stands out over the rest of the airplane.
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 6:07 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8):
To everyone else- the top of the AR fuselage is what gets me for being too soft....is that what everyone else sees here? It kinda stands out over the rest of the airplane.

I see it as an overall softness, for example the lettering, emblems, windows...
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:55 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8):
To everyone else- the top of the AR fuselage is what gets me for being too soft....is that what everyone else sees here? It kinda stands out over the rest of the airplane.

Overall softness, as mjgbtv stated.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:12 pm

Thanks guys for the extra eyes.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 10):
Overall softness, as mjgbtv stated.

I can see the softness, which should be an easy fix, however I'm still a bit baffled by the colour rejection. Not sure what I'll do with that. To me it looks perfectly natural for that time of day. Anyway, I'll have to work on that one some more later.
If the original screener had included these issues, I would not have appealed.

I have added one more USM pass 55% 0.2 pixels to the emirates 380. How's it look now?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...365886252.0243sausten25261280b.jpg

Thanks
Steve
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:44 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 11):

Doesn't look much different (I wouldn't expect it to at 55% at 0.2).
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:54 pm

OK, how's this, 155% .02.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...365889857.4849sausten25261280c.jpg

It's been my experience that there is a very fine line between soft, aceptable and oversharpened. On many occasions I have applied one more USM pass at 55% .02 to a soft rejection, and the result has been successful. I'm paranoid of going too far the other way!

[Edited 2013-04-13 15:27:33]
 
aussie18
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:31 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:47 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 13):
OK, how's this, 155% .02.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...365889857.4849sausten25261280c.jpg

It's been my experience that there is a very fine line between soft, aceptable and oversharpened. On many occasions I have applied one more USM pass at 55% .02 to a soft rejection, and the result has been successful. I'm paranoid of going too far the other way!

Its still soft around the titles and front part of the fuselage, Also overall it would stand a better chance being edited at 1024x

Cheers Mark
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:53 pm

This shot was rejected for ''some cw needed oversharpened level personal''

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...365886773.3264sausten25511280b.jpg

I've checked and rechecked and am convinced this shot is perfectly level. The vertical lines of the control tower are spot on. My only guess is that the slight dip in the taxiway has caught the screeners eye. If I apply more CW rotation it will result in the leaning tower of Sydney!

As for oversharpened, I was actually pretty confident I got this one right. Everyone knows the BA titles are tricky to get right, but I thought this edit would certainly have been within the acceptable limits. I can't see any jaggies that would be a problem.

Anyway, what should I do regarding the level?

[Edited 2013-04-21 14:56:30]
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:23 am

Quoting sausten (Reply 15):
Anyway, what should I do regarding the level?

I would appeal this one.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:28 am

Accepted on appeal. Thanks Dana.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:10 pm

After years shooting from this location my latest batch of uploads from here have struggled to be accepted. The issue is contrast. This one was rejected for ''low contrast contrast personal''

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...366058865.6303sausten25151280b.jpg

The edit was based on these accepted shots from the same day.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Korea...d=8da7a0287b65aa351f230b4a51770327
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Unite...d=8da7a0287b65aa351f230b4a51770327
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Briti...d=8da7a0287b65aa351f230b4a51770327

To me the contrast on the Qantas looks somewhere in between the Korean and BA 74's. Am I right? Happy to be told I'm seeing it wrong.

I just need some clarification. Does 'low contrast' mean the screener thinks more contrast must be applied (ie darker darks and lighter lights)?

As always, thanks for the help.
Steve
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:39 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 18):

I just need some clarification. Does 'low contrast' mean the screener thinks more contrast must be applied (ie darker darks and lighter lights)?

It's marginal, but I'd just about agree with the screeners on this one. A slight increase in contrast, ie darker bits as you say, would probably look better, but I've seen many accepted with lower contrast than yours.

Darren
 
JakTrax
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:59 pm

Looks like a slight flattening of the light rather than a true contrast issue here, but since the differences are at best minimal it's probably recommendable to increase the contrast slightly.

Karl
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:47 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 18):
I just need some clarification. Does 'low contrast' mean the screener thinks more contrast must be applied (ie darker darks and lighter lights)?

Yes, that is correct.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 03, 2013 9:29 pm

Similar issues as my opening post. This shot rejected for 'grainy/ common'

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1366749276.9997sausten25801280.jpg

I honestly can't see any noticeable grain that would cause a rejection (however I may be slightly biased!) Shot was taken in full sun, with a D7000 at ISO 100.
Is the mysterious grain everywhere in the shot or limited to certain sections (just the aircraft or the sky)? If it is the sky, is it the whole sky or only parts of the sky?

Really appreciate your help.

Steve
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 03, 2013 10:28 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 22):
I honestly can't see any noticeable grain that would cause a rejection (however I may be slightly biased!) Shot was taken in full sun, with a D7000 at ISO 100.
Is the mysterious grain everywhere in the shot or limited to certain sections (just the aircraft or the sky)? If it is the sky, is it the whole sky or only parts of the sky?

There is a minor amount of noise in the shadows, but I would actually hazard a guess that this was a 'typo' as it were - on the screening interface, the rejection box for grainy is next to the box for soft, and the major flaw for me with this image is softness/quality, rather than noise. The screener likely meant to select 'soft' rather than 'grainy'.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 03, 2013 11:31 pm

Thanks Dana. Is there any way (bar appealing) to find out for sure? I did not receive a rejection email.
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat May 04, 2013 1:54 am

Quoting sausten (Reply 24):
Thanks Dana. Is there any way (bar appealing) to find out for sure? I did not receive a rejection email.

Well, given that there is a good chance the appeal would be handled by me, you can assume the end result would be a soft/quality rejection, whether that was intended by the original screener or not.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sat May 04, 2013 9:02 pm

I'm 'retiring' this shot and won't be trying to work on it anymore, but can someone please point out to me the blurry parts?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...366836608.6323sausten24421080b.jpg
I'd just like to know where as I missed them.

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

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sun May 05, 2013 2:45 am

Quoting sausten (Reply 26):
I'm 'retiring' this shot and won't be trying to work on it anymore, but can someone please point out to me the blurry parts?

Actually not too bad for the conditions, but there is some blur towards the front.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sun May 05, 2013 8:45 pm

Thanks for letting me know Dana. It must be my eyes playing up again!

I'm still struggling with this one...
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...366925403.8275sausten25151280c.jpg

Quoting sausten (Reply 18):

After years shooting from this location my latest batch of uploads from here have struggled to be accepted. The issue is contrast. This one was rejected for ''low contrast contrast personal''

After two rejects for contrast and taking on board the advice offered here I resubmitted the shot... only to have it rejected for ''sky is noisy/blotchy,soft front quality soft common''

Firslty, is it? The sky looks the same as these accepted shots from the same day taken with same camera settings.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-...d=8da7a0287b65aa351f230b4a51770327
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Korea...d=8da7a0287b65aa351f230b4a51770327

Secondly, why can't screeners mention this in the previous two screens? or is it so slight, that some would have accepted while this particular screener would not? I'd love some input from the screeners who rejected this during all three attempts... but I won't hold my breath.
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sun May 05, 2013 10:23 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 28):
The sky looks the same as these accepted shots from the same day taken with same camera settings.

I think that the sky on the rejected shot does indeed look grainier than the other two.

Quoting sausten (Reply 28):
why can't screeners mention this in the previous two screens? or is it so slight, that some would have accepted while this particular screener would not?

I have had several re-submissions rejected for reasons that were not mentioned the first time. It is certainly possible that one or more screeners will consider something acceptable that another screener will not, especially with a somewhat subjective criteria like grain. Also, while I believe that screeners try to note all valid rejection reasons, that might not always happen.
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon May 06, 2013 1:04 am

Quoting sausten (Reply 28):
I'm still struggling with this one...

I think you'd have a case to appeal that one.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon May 06, 2013 8:39 pm

Similar story to above. Rejected twice for contrast (needs more - first time also included cyan colour cast /second time also included soft).
Rejected today for' still soft, more contrast needed grainy soft overexposed contrast'

I'm curious if by adding more contrast to the whole image i am inadvertently making the sky appear grainy? Should I deselect the sky and only apply contrast to the aircraft in shots like these?

Any comment on the other 'issues'' is also welcome.
Thanks
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon May 06, 2013 8:58 pm



Quoting sausten (Reply 31):
I'm curious if by adding more contrast to the whole image i am inadvertently making the sky appear grainy? Should I deselect the sky and only apply contrast to the aircraft in shots like these?

I definitely wouldn't do that. The sky and subject should be treated uniformly. How are you applying a contrast change now?

[Edited 2013-05-06 14:35:49]
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon May 06, 2013 9:08 pm

At the moment I increase the contrast to the whole image. I just wonder if by doing that I exaggerate any grain in the sky.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon May 06, 2013 9:29 pm

If you're using photoshop, try adding a Levels adjustment layer. This will give you much finer control, change nothing in the underlying image in material terms, and allow you to adjust as needed.
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon May 06, 2013 10:01 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 33):
At the moment I increase the contrast to the whole image. I just wonder if by doing that I exaggerate any grain in the sky.

Absolutely yes, just as increasing the brightness can.

Quoting sausten (Reply 31):
Should I deselect the sky and only apply contrast to the aircraft in shots like these?

Absolutely not. If caught, it will be seen as prohibited editing and can lead to a warning/ban.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Thu May 09, 2013 9:05 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 28):
I'm still struggling with this one...

Rejected on appeal for soft. So I assume the sky is OK then and a little more sharpening may do the trick.


Can I get a view on this one. Rejected for dark.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1367180661.8198sausten25911200.jpg

Gloomy day yes, but the shot certainly doesn't feel dark to me.Also worth noting that this shot, taken same day/time was accepted a few days ago. Is there much difference?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lockh...d=8da7a0287b65aa351f230b4a51770327

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

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 10, 2013 1:03 am

Quoting sausten (Reply 36):
Can I get a view on this one. Rejected for dark.

Yes, seems a bit dark.

Quoting sausten (Reply 36):
Also worth noting that this shot, taken same day/time was accepted a few days ago. Is there much difference?

I probably would have rejected that for dark/harsh contrast had it been me.

Quoting sausten (Reply 36):
Rejected on appeal for soft.

I saw that. Just for future reference, please try to avoid appeal comments such as "Dana told me to appeal" or "A head screener in xx thread said..." Best to keep it to your own reasons for appealing.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 10, 2013 9:02 pm

Sorry mate. I thought you were allowed to refer to the feedback forum when appealing. I think I said " after seeking advice in the feedback forum" and put a link to here. I'll make sure I don't do that in the future.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 10, 2013 9:29 pm

Quoting sausten (Reply 38):
I think I said " after seeking advice in the feedback forum"

Nothing wrong with that comment surely?

Karl
 
User avatar
alevik
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:50 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Mon May 13, 2013 10:57 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 39):
Nothing wrong with that comment surely?

That's not the comment Dana requested to avoid using. He said: "please try to avoid appeal comments such as "Dana told me to appeal" or "A head screener in xx thread said..."' He did not say "don't refer to the feedback forum".

So yes, surely nothing wrong with that comment.
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Tue May 14, 2013 12:46 am

Indeed, my request was simply to avoid the "Well, Dana said.." comment that sometimes appears in the appeals. There are three other head screeners who are equally capable of coming to a sound decision without being reminded of what I said in the forum. My opinion here is just that, opinion, and not the final word, though it gets presented as such in appeal comments from time to time.

Steven, there was no need to aplogize, I was just making a general reminder/observation to anyone who might put such commments in their appeal.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Thu May 16, 2013 3:14 am

No worries Dana.

This one was just rejected again (see reply 22 - the typo reject!) This time for ''titled jagged now,also white spec in sky right side of tail,Unmotivated crop on left engine aswell. motiv oversharpened dirty personal''

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...367700776.4765sausten25801280b.jpg

In hindsight I was probably a little too enthusiastic with the extra sharpenning. Thats no biggie, I can fix that. The white spot I didn't even see before. Having looked back at the original raw file, it appears to be a brighter section of paint on the leading edge of the tail. It isn't as noticable at a much larger size and appears to have been exaggerated during the editing process. Should it be cloned out if it is part of the aircraft?

My other question is about the motive rejection. If it stands then I guess its a terminal flaw for this particular shot, but I'm just curious because it wasn't mentioned before. Is any part of the engine allowed to be included in the shot from this angle? Or should I aim to include all or none of the engine?

Thanks again guys.
Steve
 
aussie18
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:31 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Thu May 16, 2013 9:09 am

Hi Steven,

I screened your images today and rejected the EK380,Regarding the crop it does look unbalanced especially with a half cropped engine and one fully in view, Would look better with left engine fully included or cropped close to tail but that is not possible from angle. The titles are quite jagged now and seems to be a bit jet wash affecting the shot
The white spec has been circled


Cheers Mark
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 17, 2013 8:13 am

Thanks Mark for the constructive feedback. I've had a play and come up with this.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...368778211.863sausten25801280d2.jpg
Hows this one look?
Steve
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Fri May 17, 2013 9:36 am

With reference to the rejection due to the crop, is this a change as crops like this have been accepted recently?
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sun May 19, 2013 1:38 am

Quoting derekf (Reply 45):
With reference to the rejection due to the crop, is this a change as crops like this have been accepted recently?

I thought the crop was OK considering the angle as well. Can we get a confirmation of this. Does the engine have to be fully in or fully out of any shot?

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 43):
seems to be a bit jet wash affecting the shot

Yeah, but I have had similar shots accepted here. Personally I think the jet wash adds to the authenticity of the shot. You can't shoot an active aircraft from this angle without including some jet wash. On a side note, can blur/haze from jet wash be a rejection reason? or does that full under the 'quality' umbrella?

Steve
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Sun May 19, 2013 6:08 am

Quoting sausten (Reply 46):
Can we get a confirmation of this. Does the engine have to be fully in or fully out of any shot?

As this related to motive, it will be a judgement call for each individual image. As this angle is from behind, it doesn't bother me as much as it would had it been from the front, where cutting the engines is generally a killer.

Quoting sausten (Reply 46):
On a side note, can blur/haze from jet wash be a rejection reason?

Yes, if it's affecting or obscuring enough of the aircraft, it would be considered a quality rejection.
 
sausten
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:22 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Thu May 23, 2013 10:34 am

This one was done for ''Darkish. Noisy. Should be better at smaller size grainy dark personal''

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...368307709.6749sausten25681280b.jpg

I honestly thought I may have overdone the brightness on this one. It was taken after sunset with only the glow from the horizon providing light. This shot now looks brighter than the scene in real life. For the conditions in which the shot was taken, I honestly believe this level of lightness/darkness is appropriate. However, before I consider appealing, can I get some other opinions on the lightness/darkness of this shot?

As to the noise... can anyone let me know where in particular, or is it the whole thing? Again, looked acceptable to me before uploading.

Finally I acknowledge the shot was taken in challenging light conditions and would indeed stand a better chance at 1080pxls, however, on my screen the quality is there at 1280pxls.

Thanks as always
Steve
 
JakTrax
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Post Screening - Sausten

Thu May 23, 2013 1:52 pm

Steve,

There is a touch (and I mean only a touch) of grain visible to me in the sky and the aircraft belly but given the light I'd expect it. As for dark, I really don't know what you were supposed to do with that. Speaking of dark, this one - on the front page a couple of days ago - surprised me:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Juan Carlos Guerra



Given the available light I feel yours is no darker.

Karl

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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