User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

Combatshadow (post-screening)

Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:42 am

I've hit a string of bad luck, and had more pictures rejected in a row then I ever have. Frustrated, as with any rejection, I gave them a day or two and looked at them again. There's a few I need some feedback on, I just can't see the problems.

On this one, rejected for soft and dark. I do not agree with the dark at all, in fact in doesn't make sense. But on the soft, is there an area that's soft that I'm not seeing?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...98_klit_2012-09-07_anet1200p_b.jpg

This one, rejected for insufficent quality and low contrast oversharpened. I guess I could add to the contrast a bit. But I don't see any oversharpened areas, and I don't think it lacks quality (assuming that was for the 1400p size).
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...85_kvps_2014-07-17_anet1400p_d.jpg

This one was a soft and overexposed rejection. If anything, I can see that it may be borderline OS, but don't see the soft.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...sw_klit_2012-10-19_anet1200p_c.jpg

As always, thanks for the feedback!
Bob
 
AMDX1325
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:41 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:34 am

Honestly, I think your pictures are better than some that were accepted...I assume the real reason was that these shots while well executed, they probably didn't grab attention of the screener as well as it should be...subjects not interesting enough to stand out.

[Edited 2014-08-06 20:49:49]

[Edited 2014-08-06 21:18:28]
 
User avatar
DL747
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:57 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:36 am

Quoting AMDX1325 (Reply 1):


Honestly, I think your pictures are better than some that were accepted...I assume the real reason was that these shots while well executed, they probably didn't grab attention of the screener as well as it should be...subjects not interesting enough to stand out.

Hi,

Not to be offensive but this is completely wrong and misguided. That has nothing to do with it. I do not, however, agree with some of these rejections. As for the C-130, I think dark might be relating to the area under the wing...that would not be the first time this has been an issue with the C-130. I disagree with that. Soft, I think, is referring to the engine nacelles, main gear fairing and the horizontal stabilizer. I somewhat agree on that point. As for the B-52, I agree that it is a bit flat, but oversharpening is pretty picky. I only see one duct behind the radome that has jaggies, along with maybe the insignia. I would appeal the WN, but the quality does look a bit marginal overall, the light is kind of harsh.

John
Hey, thanks for stopping by! My photos can be found here: https://www.airliners.net/search?user=17 ... lay=detail
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:42 am

Quoting DL747 (Reply 2):
I do not, however, agree with some of these rejections.

Likewise. I would consider appealing both the C-130 and 737. The exposure/lighting and sharpness looks okay on both.

I would probably add a bit of contrast to the B-52 and also reduce the size just to avoid the extra attention that larger images will get. Personally I feel that an extreme close-up at 1400px makes it hard to appreciate the overall image.
 
AMDX1325
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:41 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:13 pm

Quoting DL747 (Reply 2):
Not to be offensive but this is completely wrong and misguided.

I stand corrected.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12475
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:20 pm

Quoting combatshadow (Thread starter):
overexposed rejection

Whaaa?? No way that is anywhere near overexposed. There's no way the 737 can be OE, and the C-130 dark. The 737 is overall a darker photo than the C-130!

Quoting DL747 (Reply 2):
As for the C-130, I think dark might be relating to the area under the wing...that would not be the first time this has been an issue with the C-130.

That should be an over-contrasted rejection, if anything. But a wing shadow shouldn't be a problem in the first place.

The C-130 does look to have a cyan/blue cast to me.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
angad84
Posts: 2013
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:11 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5):
The C-130 does look to have a cyan/blue cast to me.

I was gonna say greenish, but yeah. There's a definite colour cast issue there.

Cheers
Angad
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:27 pm

Thanks guys, as always, the feedback helps!
Bob
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:04 pm

Here's one more, I just got this one back. Another consecutive reject, and I'm a bit angry over this one.

It's been rejected twice before, and once was because they said it needed a bit more sharpening. So I added some sharpening. The 2nd time I had missed a couple spots (dirty), so I eliminated them.

This is the 3rd rejection: "oversharpened, dark aircraft with a very bright background oversharpened dark personal"

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...11p_klit_2014-07-02_1200p_b_cd.jpg
Bob
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:58 pm

I see jaggies, also very annoying 1px wide border around any contrast element. Sorry. Also personally I'll bust shadows about +50.
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:07 pm

Kulverstukas, be specific about where you see jaggies.

I have no idea what you're talking about on a "1px wide border around contrast element." If you're talking about the top of the fuselage, that is something that happens with this color scheme occasionally. You'll see it in other AA A319s pics on here. It's nothing that happened during editing.

What shadows are you "busting"?
Bob
 
angad84
Posts: 2013
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:19 pm

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 10):
I have no idea what you're talking about on a "1px wide border around contrast element."

I think he's talking about the oversharpening halos at high-contrast edges (black-to-white transition). They're quite apparent in certain areas, for example the cockpit windows.

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 10):
What shadows are you "busting"?

Presumably means boosting shadows.

While I disagree that this image is particularly dark to begin with, boosting the shadows is the best way to fix the dark rejection without blowing the rest of the frame.

Cheers
Angad
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:00 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 11):
oversharpening halos at high-contrast edges

Also gears, registration, tail, horiz.stab.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 11):
Presumably means boosting shadows.

Right. Sorry for my English...

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 10):
be specific about where you see jaggies

Aft door, back of stabilizer, cockpit windows, some areas between red and white stripes...
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12475
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:58 pm

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 8):
This is the 3rd rejection: "oversharpened, dark aircraft with a very bright background oversharpened dark personal"

I agree with oversharpened, but disagree with dark. The aircraft vs. background is fine - the aircraft itself is quite bright. If it were against a blue sky, no one would raise an eyebrow. And the background isn't anywhere near overexposed.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 9:06 pm

Thanks everyone, what's frustrating is that it was given a "soft" reject earlier. So I gave it another shot of USM, and to me it did seem to need it. But if it's os, I don't see it, except maybe borderline if that.

[Edited 2014-08-10 14:06:57]

What about this version, I backed-up a bit on the USM.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...011p_klit_2014-07-02_1200p_b_d.jpg


[Edited 2014-08-10 14:17:02]
Bob
 
AMDX1325
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:41 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:55 pm

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 14):

The rear door is still a bit jagged to me. I personally think this picture is well taken, but A-Net standard is one of absolute perfection (or so they say). Good luck!
 
len90
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:53 am

That AA 319 will have a lot of difficulties based on the lighting. Having the sun flare along the side of the fuselage will just cause nothing but issues with areas of sharp and areas of soft. Do you have any other shots from the sequence that aren't affected as badly?
Len90
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12475
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:39 am

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 14):

Still looks a bit OS to me. I'm wondering how sharp the original was - because it looks like a lot of sharpening was applied (based on the sharpening halos, and some lingering jagginess).
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:59 pm

I have other shots from the series, but this is my favorite because of the cumulus build up in the background.

Vik, this (the last one I posted) has only two passes of usm applied at 200% and 0.2 pixels.
Bob
 
AMDX1325
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:41 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 12, 2014 12:53 am

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 18):
cumulus build

I love that cloud, so much more interesting than bland blue sky isn't it?
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:27 am

Alright, so I decided to try a different pic from the series, deciding the glare was hurting me overall. What do y'all think of this one?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...p_a319_klit_2014-07-02_1200p_b.jpg
Bob
 
angad84
Posts: 2013
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:02 am

There's something odd about this series, I think. Either a touch out of focus or with a little micr-blur, and the sharpening is doing weird things from there. The sharpening looks strange.

Cheers
Angad
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:57 am

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 18):
has only two passes of usm applied at 200% and 0.2 pixels


On which size? I use 100-50-25 at 0,5% with treshold around 1-3px at image ~1500px. Second image is much better but there are some small jaggies and faint borders still.
 
len90
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:22 pm

Lighting on this one is better, but still not the best with the sun angle. I'm going to want to have another look at this on my personal computer I do all my work on.
Len90
 
len90
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:13 pm

Finally looking on my personal computer with a decent display. It's making me wonder if this is just a bit of heat haze. Looking at the livery near the horizontal stabilizer it has that look to it.
Len90
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:13 am

Just to follow up, for those that may have been curious, I found the problem with the last photo we were discussing, the AA A319. In PS, photoshop was already giving the photo a 25% sharpening when opening in .raw editing. This caused my problems I believe, as now the latest edit was accepted.

On to a few others. It sure does feel like I keep getting the same screener when I get a string of rejections. There's always a common set of reasons given, and I believe they are kind of harsh.

For instance, on this one, I was given "nose landing gear blocked quality motiv grainy oversharpened dark personal"

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...949fr_klit_2012-10-15_1200p_bx.jpg

Not the first time I've gotten the "gear blocked" message, when I my gear clearly met the following criteria:
•Photos where the terrain is blocking more than half of the gear, as the terrain is allowed to block no more than 50% of the wheel. Regarding runway/taxiway markers, minor blockages/obstructions are acceptable, provided that the obstruction is not too distracting from the overall of the image.

Also, Grainy? Motiv? Why are these given as reasons? Dark? I don't see these.

I would like your opinions on the oversharpened.


Next, on this one I was rejected for "quality grainy oversharpened"

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...914bd_klit_2014-08-15_1200p_bx.jpg

I don't see the grain, and I don't know why there's a quality issue at 1200pix.

Opinions on oversharpened?


Next, rejected for "quality grainy dark"

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...n945wn_klit_2012-10-15_1200p_b.jpg

Is there a quality issue for this image at 1200pix? And I don't agree with the dark rejection. The aircraft is rising up out of long shadows and grabbing the sunlight. It looks sufficiently exposed to me.
Grain? I'm not seeing it.


Appreciate the opinions and help guys.
Bob
 
JKPhotos
Screener
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:45 am

Hi,

Frontier A319:
As you stated from the rejection guide this shot should not be rejected for motive as more than 50% of the front gear is visible. So your shot is according to the rules.
Still to be honest you could have probably easily avoided this distraction by choosing a shot a few moments earlier.
But according to the 'new' rules this is still acceptable.

But an appeal won't stand a chance, as it is definitely oversharpened and (although only slightly) a bit dark. I openend it in PS and increased exposure by 0,15 and it looked better.
Grainy is very harsh in my personal opinion. I don't see it as being an issue with this shot.
Quality can mean a lot in airliners language, hard to tell for me without seeing the original.

Business jet:
Just look at the registration, it is definitely oversharpened. Again can't say much about the quality, but don't see grainy being an issue.
But (although this was not mentioned) I do think it is as well a tad underexposed (dark).

Southwest:
I am really sorry, but it is definitely dark (dark for anet standards to be more precise), it is oversharpened and in this case sky is really quite grainy. At least in my personal opinion grain is more visible than in the previous shot. But with some slight NR this part should not be a hard fix.

Julien

[Edited 2014-08-25 04:55:40]
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12475
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:51 pm

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 25):


For the most part I agree with Julien.

For reference, "Quality" doesn't necessarily refer to a specific problem. It can be given if the screener feels that the overall image will not be accepted at that size, even with a new edit.

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 25):
Motiv? Why are these given as reasons?

Motive is for the gear blockage, but I agree, that shouldn't be a rejection.

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 25):
And I don't agree with the dark rejection.

Over-contrasted might be a better reason. The airplane itself looks bright enough, though a bit of brightening overall may not hurt.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:44 pm

Julien, Vik,

thanks for the feedback on those! I appreciate the help as always, and the additional set of eyes to see what I don't with my own images.

On the A319, that turned out to be the sharpest and best shot of the series.

Vik, would you say then, that the 'quality' is a bit of a judgement call?

[Edited 2014-08-26 11:53:22]
Bob
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12475
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:21 pm

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 28):
Vik, would you say then, that the 'quality' is a bit of a judgement call?

If given as a general "does not have the quality to be accepted", then yes.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JKPhotos
Screener
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:58 pm

But speaking from my own experience there can be 2 reasons for not having the quality:

1.) the image itself (not much you can do, perhaps choosing the smallest or a smaller size will help)
2.) editing. Not well-executed editing can really ruin a shot.

For example I do think that with a proper edit the Frontier shot could make it at 1200px.
 
User avatar
combatshadow
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:11 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:47 pm

Hi gents, have another here I could use some guidance with.

This one was rejected for "Dark editing halo around top fuselage grainy editing personal"

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...80qs_klit_2012-06-13_1024p_bxc.jpg

I didn't think there was a grain problem.

On the dark halo, I can't see this at all with the naked eye, and when I equalized the image, only then, just barely did I see that the sky might be a little darker over the fuselage.
I opened the original image, and when equalized, the slightly darker sky above the fuselage is in the original too, so it wasn't anything I did in editing, and I can't even see it with my naked eye without equalizing it, and even then it's faint.
Is there a way to fix this?
Bob
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

RE: Combatshadow (post-screening)

Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:49 pm

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 31):
Is there a way to fix this?

Here is my take on this - it seems from numerous examples posted over time that artifacts like noise and halos are more apparent to some people than others, perhaps due to different monitors. I have had images rejected for noise or banding in the sky that I could not see on my monitor except by equalizing. I suspect that if you took a selection of images from the db that are similar to yours you would see the same type of halo on some. It is probably just an effect of the light and the color transition.

You could appeal and explain that you did not create that halo in editing. However, to me the image looks a bit oversharpened, including some halos around the tires, so that might get picked up by the HS.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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