Hi all
It has been a while since I posted in here because my confidence in my ability to edit photographs up to the required standard has diminished somewhat. I think something has happened in my Photoshop and no matter what I do the quality is affected, even shooting in RAW.
The reason I am trying again is because this particular image of QF11 has my Best Man on board, and I'd like to have it in the database. I'm pessimistic.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...vh-oqf_yssy_qf11_5-6-13_clifty.jpg
Here are two recent rejections:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...3451roulettesillawarra2013_cwc.jpg
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...127.9559p51_a68-118_cwc_5-5-13.jpg
Something must be happening in photoshop because they are so grainy.
Anyway, your help is appreciated as always.
Charlie.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Thread starter): this particular image of QF11 has my Best Man on board |
A little dark, but as you remarked, quite noisy. I'm assuming you either shot at a higher ISO, or had to boost the exposure in post, which would account for the noise.
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Thread starter): Here are two recent rejections: Something must be happening in photoshop because they are so grainy. |
First one is not that bad, other than the dust spot and being a bit soft, it should be fixable. Second one is dark, noisy, and soft/blurry, so don't think you'll be fixing that one.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1): A little dark, but as you remarked, quite noisy. I'm assuming you either shot at a higher ISO, or had to boost the exposure in post, which would account for the noise. |
ISO was 200... I think my automatic settings in Photoshop must be banjaxed, because this appears to be a common occurrence. As for the exposure boost, not a lot at all really!
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
OK had another go at the QF A380.
A whole boost of Noise reduction, brightened up a bit and hopefully sharpened correctly.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...h-oqf_yssy_qf11_5-6-13_clifty2.jpg
Thoughts?
A whole boost of Noise reduction, brightened up a bit and hopefully sharpened correctly.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...h-oqf_yssy_qf11_5-6-13_clifty2.jpg
Thoughts?
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
First thing that hits me is the feeling of being unlevel, with several background references support this theory. Surprised no-one has commented but would benefit from a bit of CW rotation.
Karl
Karl
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 3): A whole boost of Noise reduction, brightened up a bit and hopefully sharpened correctly. |
Looks much better. This one at least would have a decent chance, though I would give it a little more contrast to help those chances.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting dlowwa (Reply 6): Looks much better. This one at least would have a decent chance, though I would give it a little more contrast to help those chances. |
| Quoting JakTrax (Reply 4): First thing that hits me is the feeling of being unlevel, with several background references support this theory. |
OK this is my latest go... Contrast boosted, CW rotation, and hopefully sharpened correctly.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...h-oqf_yssy_qf11_5-6-13_clifty3.jpg
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
Levelling looks much better.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
Cool, thank you. I've actually given it one last re-edit because it appeared just as dark as the first attempt, so using the 3rd image I have lightened it up a bit.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...h-oqf_yssy_qf11_5-6-13_clifty4.jpg
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...h-oqf_yssy_qf11_5-6-13_clifty4.jpg
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
Got a couple of older ones in the queue that I've had another go at since I've discovered how to reduce noise considerably.
1) British Airways 747 - Sydney - https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...47g-civj_yssy_cwc_23-10-2012x3.jpg
2) Air Caraibes A330 - Exeter - https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b....911f-ofdf_egte_cwc_15-09-2011.jpg
As well as the final working of the Qantas A380, can I get your thoughts on these please?
Cheers
Charlie.
1) British Airways 747 - Sydney - https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...47g-civj_yssy_cwc_23-10-2012x3.jpg
2) Air Caraibes A330 - Exeter - https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b....911f-ofdf_egte_cwc_15-09-2011.jpg
As well as the final working of the Qantas A380, can I get your thoughts on these please?
Cheers
Charlie.
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 10): 1) British Airways 747 - Sydney |
Pretty bad editing halos around it, would lead to a definite rejection.
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 10): 2) Air Caraibes A330 - Exeter |
A little soft, but might be fixable.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting dlowwa (Reply 11): Pretty bad editing halos around it, would lead to a definite rejection. |
Editing halos? What are they and where? I've reworked it from scratch anyway (See below)
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...83g-civj_yssy_cwc_23-10-2012x5.jpg
| Quoting dlowwa (Reply 11): A little soft, but might be fixable. |
How's this?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...4277f-ofdf_egte_cwc_15-09-2011.jpg
Also had a go at the Roulettes shot again.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...8653roulettesillawarra2013_cwc.jpg
Cheers
Charlie.
[Edited 2013-06-10 01:59:49]
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 12): Editing halos? What are they and where? |
The area immediately adjacent to the fuselage has pretty bad color bleed. Almost certainly from poorly done noise reduction.
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 12): I've reworked it from scratch anyway (See below) |
Still there, and pretty bad banding in the sky as well. Whatever you're doing for noise reduction, it's not working very well.
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 12): How's this? |
Maybe a bit flat, but should have a decent chance as is.
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 12): Also had a go at the Roulettes shot again. |
They look a bit blurry and oversharpened to compensate.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting dlowwa (Reply 13): The area immediately adjacent to the fuselage has pretty bad color bleed. Almost certainly from poorly done noise reduction. |
I'm thinking that it's a reflection of something because it's on every shot in the sequence before editing...
| Quoting dlowwa (Reply 13): Whatever you're doing for noise reduction, it's not working very well. |
And that's the reason my confidence in my editing is shot.
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 14): I'm thinking that it's a reflection of something because it's on every shot in the sequence before editing... |
No, I guarantee it's from noise reduction in editing. It's actually a lot less strong in the second version, so it's something within your control. If you want to send me the RAW file, I can try an edit.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
I've done an edit, but I see you've removed the first two versions you did. If you could put one (or both) of them back up so we could compare, that would be good.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
My edit:
You'll notice I toned down the color a bit, and there are no halos, which are really visible in your version #2
So, a couple of things - a) the original is quite soft, almost to the point of blurriness around the nose, and b) there is quite a lot of noise visible, far more than I would expect to see at only ISO100. The former is likely related to the lens and the slower shutter speed, but the latter I can't explain. It could simply be that the base ISO for your camera is much noisier than others (perhaps because of the pixel density), though I've seen cameras with higher density pixels with less noise. The saving grace is that a large crop wasn't required, so it wasn't too hard to hide those flaws at 1024 pixels. Compare a 100% crop of your image converted from RAW with no other editing done to a similar crop from one of my images, also with no other editing:
With this one you should easily be able to see yours is much softer (almost blurry, as I said), and there is a lot more noise visible, though both were at ISO100.
You'll notice I toned down the color a bit, and there are no halos, which are really visible in your version #2
So, a couple of things - a) the original is quite soft, almost to the point of blurriness around the nose, and b) there is quite a lot of noise visible, far more than I would expect to see at only ISO100. The former is likely related to the lens and the slower shutter speed, but the latter I can't explain. It could simply be that the base ISO for your camera is much noisier than others (perhaps because of the pixel density), though I've seen cameras with higher density pixels with less noise. The saving grace is that a large crop wasn't required, so it wasn't too hard to hide those flaws at 1024 pixels. Compare a 100% crop of your image converted from RAW with no other editing done to a similar crop from one of my images, also with no other editing:
With this one you should easily be able to see yours is much softer (almost blurry, as I said), and there is a lot more noise visible, though both were at ISO100.
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
Interesting comparison. The OP's left-hand image certainly looks a touch blurry, but I have to say Dana that your original looks way sharper (i.e. over-processed) than it should be at a default setting. Is that a RAW?
Karl
Karl
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 21): What settings do you have in-camera? |
1/500
f/5.0
200mm
ISO100
I wouldn't really recommend f/5 unless you really trust your lens, but mine's pretty sharp even when relatively wide open, so I almost always have it around at f/5.0 or f/5.6.
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 21): Or maybe my hands aren't steady enough. |
For anything over 200mm, I typically use a monopod or tripod with swivel head. I can't remember if I did for this shot, but it's quite possible I had it on something. It doesn't make a huge difference, but the ratio of good shots to blurry ones does go up.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
I'm using the standard 75-300mm lens, I really want to upgrade to an 'L' lens when I can afford it. But I was more meaning the in camera settings relating to sharpness, etc. I have a feeling I have changed those and maybe that's affecting things before I edit. But I like the monopod/tripod idea.
-
- Tonyholt777
- Posts: 186
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 23): I was more meaning the in camera settings relating to sharpness, etc. |
With RAW files, in-camera settings are meaningless, as you control everything when converting the RAW to jpeg. Did you mean to ask what the conversion settings were?
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 23): But I like the monopod/tripod idea. |
Like I said, not totally necessary, but I find you tend to get more keepers when using one than not.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
RE: Pre-Screening - Confidence Dropping
My default sharpening/nr settings for ACR are 50/1.0/30/0 and 25/0/0/0. Both of the images in the comparison above were processed with those settings.
Probably the second.
| Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 26): before I get a Double rejection for those QF A380 shots, which do you recommend I leave in there? |
Probably the second.
-
- EGTESkyGod
- Posts: 1531
- Joined:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests