JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Pre Screen JK

Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:34 pm

Hi

Haven't been lucky with screening lately , nevertheless I've tried a few more diffcult ones  .
But instead of waiting 8 days just to see them in my rejected box I thought I might get a few opinions beforehand.

I am not so sure on these:

Not a difficult shot, but somehow I do have problems on sharpening China Southern planes, they tend to immediately look oversharpenend.
So how is it (CZ 330) sharpening-wise?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...431036.9607img_0957ac-rop_anet.jpg

I took this (EK Cargo) well after sunset, could I get an general prescreen on it:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/r1407446160.1336img_1047anet.jpg

I took this one (LH320) with a high ISO and had to use a fair amount of NR, as well I have doubts if it is still too dark.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...1407446248.5984img_1065a1_anet.jpg

Thanks a lot,

Julien
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:42 pm

The cheat lines and a few other diagonal edges look oversharpened on the CZ.

EK Cargo looks blurry to me, as does the LH320. On both of them, it could be the effects of too much NR, though. Tough to tell. I personally feel the LH could use a bit more brightness - the EK looks good in that regard.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:46 am

Hi Vik,

as always thanks for your answer.

As for the CZ.
Did a new edit with even less sharpening, how does it look now? Still oversharpened or already a bit too soft?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...97929.9824img_0957ac-rop_anet2.jpg

Had a similar problem with this Air China 77W: How does she look?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...97973.4159img_0932a_crop_anet2.jpg

EK Cargo:
Rather strangely the original looks sharper than the resized edited version. Perhaps it is due to the NR. Will do a new edit, unfortunately I am not so experienced with high ISO shot and RAW editing. To me the original looks sharp enough.

I will dump the LH for now, increasing the brightness further would mean increasing my grain-problems as well.

Julien

[Edited 2014-08-08 04:49:22]
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:05 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 2):
Rather strangely the original looks sharper than the resized edited version.

I am not an expert with RAW processing either, but... Is your camera capturing a JPEG along with the RAW file? If so, are you able to edit that to an acceptable sharpness? Maybe your camera does a fair amount of sharpening when it does the JPEG processing so you just need to do more in your RAW processing than you think.

Also, if the EK was shot well after sunset, it seems to me that the image is overly bright. I know that this site does not like dark images, but it's hard to fight with your editing against what the scene really looked like... Personally I think a darker aircraft and more contrast with the lights would make for a more interesting image.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:05 pm

Quoting mjgbtv (Reply 3):
Also, if the EK was shot well after sunset, it seems to me that the image is overly bright. I know that this site does not like dark images, but it's hard to fight with your editing against what the scene really looked like... Personally I think a darker aircraft and more contrast with the lights would make for a more interesting image.

Marty, I do agree with you. Unfortunately the site thinks otherwise, so I am trying to make it acceptable.

Quoting mjgbtv (Reply 3):
I am not an expert with RAW processing either, but... Is your camera capturing a JPEG along with the RAW file? If so, are you able to edit that to an acceptable sharpness?

Yes, I was shooting in a RAW JPEG mode.

Please have a look of what my mate Hendra came up with (thanks for your quick edit, mate!!), just concerning sharpness (as it is a bit too bright).
I think it shows that the quality is there (let's say for 1024 certainly not larger), or does it still look soft /blurry?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...7516831.6001img_1047edithendra.jpg

Would be nice to have some opinions on the new CZ-edit, too.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:11 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 4):
Please have a look of what my mate Hendra came up with (thanks for your quick edit, mate!!), just concerning sharpness (as it is a bit too bright).
I think it shows that the quality is there (let's say for 1024 certainly not larger), or does it still look soft /blurry?

Looks quite a bit better than your first edit.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 2):
unfortunately I am not so experienced with high ISO shot and RAW editing

It takes a fair amount of playing around with NR and sharpness settings to get comfortable with them for high ISO or noisy shots. Once I found baseline settings that worked for the most part, I saved presets for different ISOs so I can just select which preset I need for a given image (of course, since noise is dependent on exposure and other factors too, there's usually some fine-tuning).
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
mjgbtv
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:18 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:49 pm

The new CZ looks pretty good to me.

Sharpness also looks good to me on the Hendra edit. I think I like the light better as well. The aircraft is brighter (even though that goes against what I said before) but the extra contrast also brings out the lights so it actually looks more like a night/evening scene than the first edit.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Sat Aug 09, 2014 11:25 am

Quoting mjgbtv (Reply 6):

The new CZ looks pretty good to me.

Thanks.

Quoting mjgbtv (Reply 6):
Sharpness also looks good to me on the Hendra edit. I think I like the light better as well. The aircraft is brighter (even though that goes against what I said before) but the extra contrast also brings out the lights so it actually looks more like a night/evening scene than the first edit.

After looking at it on another screen I can understand what you mean and I tend to agree with you...somehow it brings out the "night-effect" more. Maybe I'll leave it that way.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5):
It takes a fair amount of playing around with NR and sharpness settings to get comfortable with them for high ISO or noisy shots. Once I found baseline settings that worked for the most part, I saved presets for different ISOs so I can just select which preset I need for a given image (of course, since noise is dependent on exposure and other factors too, there's usually some fine-tuning).

I think I need to start playing around with it..
After all it was more or less my first try and there is quite some room for improvement    
Do you work with an RAW-Editor in PS? I do use Canons Digital Photo Proffesional for the RAW Conversion..perhaps that is not the best way to do it?

Thanks for all your help.
Appreciate it.

Julien
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:50 pm

Hi,

so here are the results.

This one was done for "soft, blurry", unfortunately no further comment..
Perhaps it is a bit soft in certain areas, but I don't see it as being blurry
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1407690695.5592img_1047edithb2.jpg

I alomst did not sharpen this at all, still it was rejected for being oversharpened
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...64090.2784img_0932a_crop_anet2.jpg

What do you think?

Julien
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:14 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 7):
Do you work with an RAW-Editor in PS? I do use Canons Digital Photo Proffesional for the RAW Conversion..perhaps that is not the best way to do it?

It's kinda funny - I use Canon DPP for shots that don't need general noise reduction (so for the most part, shots taken at low ISO). But for shots that do need general noise reduction, I use Adobe Camera Raw in PS5.

My reasoning: I like the way images look out of DPP much better than ACR. I think DPP looks much more realistic, and better depicts what I was seeing when I took the photo. ACR always looks slightly cartoony to me, and I have a difficult time getting the white balance and colors to look good to my eye.

HOWEVER, ACR has much, much better noise reduction capabilities than DPP. So I use ACR for shots that need general NR.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 8):
CTED TEXT _
User currently offlineJKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0

Not on a good monitor to judge either of them right now. But if you want to send me the RAW for the EK, I can try an edit.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
ghajdufi
Crew
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:18 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:50 pm

The EK cargo looks more like a tad too much NR had been used. I wouldn't call it blurry.
The Air China is sharpish but would have been within my limit, it's almost perfect   The edges are contrasty that's why it looks too sharp, I guess.
Your photos are like your children, you will always find them perfect.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:40 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):
HOWEVER, ACR has much, much better noise reduction capabilities than DPP. So I use ACR for shots that need general NR.

Interesting, whenever I tried NR with DPP it was either not helping much or badly affecting the quality of my images..

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):
Not on a good monitor to judge either of them right now. But if you want to send me the RAW for the EK, I can try an edit.

Thanks, send you a mail..

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 10):
The Air China is sharpish but would have been within my limit, it's almost perfect   The edges are contrasty that's why it looks too sharp, I guess.

Thanks.. Well I don't know what do with it, like I said, I applied less sharpening than I usually do and worked very selectively, for example I did not sharpen the cheatline at all..
In the end I worked a lot more on a rather common shot than I usually would and it still got the boot....

I guess that's life somtimes  
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:01 pm

I have one other shot for pre-screening.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...1408136847.6379img_1215b1_anet.jpg

Yes on a quick look you might immediately say: level, needs CW rotation.
But the problem is: the aircraft is rolling down from a bridge at this point, it is really going downhill. If you take a look at the lampost under the nose and at the trees (draw a line from one side to the other) and you will see that it is level, at least in my opinion.

Will I get problems with it (concerning level) or do you agree with me?

Julien
 
User avatar
ghajdufi
Crew
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:18 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:37 pm

It needs CCW, it's dark and soft too. Sorry.
Your photos are like your children, you will always find them perfect.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:37 am

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 13):

It needs CCW, it's dark and soft too. Sorry.

Thanks for pointing that out. Don't worry I can sort "dark" and "soft" out pretty easily.
But how much CCW-rotation (that's what I meant in the previous post as well) would it need in your opinion?
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:25 pm

Hi guys,

had the following shot rejected for level (needs a little CCW) and for being soft in parts and I certainly can't blame the screening team for that.  
Actually after having another look I can fully agree with both reasons  https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...224084.6313img_1060a_crop_anet.jpg


My question would rather be if I am on the right track sharpening-wise with my new edit here:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...69103.3143img_1060a_crop_anet2.jpg
Is it still soft in parts?

Thanks a lot for a short reply

Julien
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:54 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 15):
had the following shot rejected for level (needs a little CCW) and for being soft in parts and I certainly can't blame the screening team for that.

I'd blame them. That's a pretty nitpicky level rejection - looks fine to me.  

I'm not on a good monitor to check sharpness, but I'd consider cropping a bit closer on the left as well.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
len90
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:50 pm

Really Vik? It looked immediately like it needed a CCW to me. The control tower in the background gives the level away pretty easily.
Len90
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:14 pm

Quoting len90 (Reply 17):
Really Vik? It looked immediately like it needed a CCW to me. The control tower in the background gives the level away pretty easily.

Yes, really. Prior to posting, I even zoomed in, and "measured" the edges of the control tower against the edge of the window, because I'm not always the best judge of level by eye, but it looks fine to me.

But anyway, obviously the screeners saw differently, so that's that.

The new edit looks slightly more off-level to me. But I'm just one set of eyes.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:32 pm

Hey Vik & Len,

thanks for your response..

I mean I am generally not a fan of level rejections that would need a correction of as little as 0,2 degrees or something, I think a bit more leniency could be applied, but thats my personal opinion.

But rules are as they are and after having another look I have to say that my original looked slightly off-level to me as well. But I did not measure it, it was just my feeling..

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 18):
The new edit looks slightly more off-level to me. But I'm just one set of eyes.

I just gave it 0,22 degrees CCW-rotation. Was that already too much??
In this case I really don't know what to do with it..

So any more opinions?
As no one mentions the sharpening on the new edit, I assume it is fine?!

[Edited 2014-08-25 13:33:26]
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:47 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 19):
But I did not measure it, it was just my feeling..

And that's fine, and probably what the screener did too.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 19):
I just gave it 0,22 degrees CCW-rotation. Was that already too much??

You may as well give it a shot. But personally, I think 0.22 degrees is too nitpicky of a level rejection, in a shot where any verticals are rather short, and therefore unreliable. But if it feels unlevel, then it feels unlevel. Just doesn't happen to do so for me.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:28 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20):
I think 0.22 degrees is too nitpicky of a level rejection, in a shot where any verticals are rather short, and therefore unreliable.

I could not agree more, as I had quite a few shots in the past few months that required between 0,15 and 0,3 degrees rotation to make them acceptable...

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20):
But if it feels unlevel, then it feels unlevel. Just doesn't happen to do so for me.

The strange thing for me ist that my first edit does feel to slightly unlevel to me, but actually If I measure verticals it is levelled, you're right in this point...

Well I really don't know what to do...probably I have to wait those 8 days or so and then see what happens..which is a pretty unsatisfying situation..
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:44 pm

Hi,

I have one for pre-screening
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/b1409945996.0114img_1427anet.jpg
Under the wing you can see an overview of DUS. Is the airport large enough in the shot to qualify for the "airport overview" category?
How is it sharpening-wise?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Julien
 
User avatar
ghajdufi
Crew
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:18 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:36 am

looks OK, I'd just select window_view, leave airport overview unchecked. This isn't an airport overview either:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © HGabor

Your photos are like your children, you will always find them perfect.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:34 am

Thanks for your response.

As your shot is comparable to mine (concerning the airport) I'll just select "window view".

Great shot from LAX, by the way!!
 
User avatar
ghajdufi
Crew
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:18 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:32 pm

Thanks, photos wouldn't get rejected for category only. If a category is missing or the selected category is incorrect we fix them.
Your photos are like your children, you will always find them perfect.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:33 pm

Hi,

I have two for postscreening.

this was instantly rejected for "dark" and "low contrast"

For me it is neither dark nor is the contrast low?
It was taken early in the morning when the first sunrays made their way through the dust, it is not brighter in thos kind of situations?!
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...e=z1409949813.0346img_1553anet.jpg

This was done for quality, soft & grainy.
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...=u1409950047.278img_1566a1anet.jpg
Okay I do see some grain in the sky, yes.
But where is it soft? I think the quality is okay for that size.

What do you think? Am I wrong?

I appreciate any help.

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

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:23 am

Quoting JKphotos (Reply 26):
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...e=z1409949813.0346img_1553anet.jpg

The tarmac is a little gray/milky.

Quoting JKphotos (Reply 26):
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...=u1409950047.278img_1566a1anet.jpg

It is a bit soft, around the engine and tail - the quality rejection may have been added to distinguish heat haze softness. A bit of a harsh soft rejection I would say. I don't see any grain I would reject for.

Pete
Improvise, adapt, overcome.
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:47 am

Quoting JKphotos (Reply 26):
For me it is neither dark nor is the contrast low?
It was taken early in the morning when the first sunrays made their way through the dust, it is not brighter in thos kind of situations?!

I surreder to post such kind of photos here - screeners insist to add contrast, so this nice misty morning look will be competly lost  
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:34 am

Quoting alevik (Reply 27):
It is a bit soft, around the engine and tail - the quality rejection may have been added to distinguish heat haze softness. A bit of a harsh soft rejection I would say. I don't see any grain I would reject for.

Pete

Thanks for your input, Pete. Would it be worth an appeal?
I am asking because I don't want to waste anyones time.

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 28):
I surreder to post such kind of photos here - screeners insist to add contrast, so this nice misty morning look will be competly lost

I fully agree with you.. after all I selected the darkest points of the shot which are the wheels and they are totally black, so for me it looks fine as it is and reflects the reality of that morning. Still it is as it is., so I'll add some contrast and it will hopefully be accepted.
But i do agree with you If I add contrast and brighten it further the scene will be kind of lost...

Julien
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:59 am

Hi,

so this was rejected for the CI Tail being soft and "could do with some more contrast"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...7_t1410123166.7547img_1547anet.jpg

I tried to work on it by carefully adding some sharpening to the CI747 and by adding a a bit of contrast
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../k1411033848.7934img_1547anet2.jpg
How does it look now?

As well as I worked on the Air Dolomiti ERJ (was previously done for dark and low contrast)
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/j1411033775.3314img_1553anet.jpg


Additonally as I haven't been lucky with early morning shots from that position (just 1 out of 4 made it so far) I have two for pre screening:
AA777
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...982677.2034img_1777a_crop_anez.jpg

BMI EMB
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/u1410983097.3929img_1785anet.jpg

It would be nice If I could get further opinions on these shots.

Thanks.

Julien
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:42 am

I am not giving up, although no-one responds to my thread anymore..

I don't know what happened, but my acceptance ratio dropped dramitcally the last few weeks..
but neither my editing nor my shooting changed.

Even shots where I was pretty confindent that they would make it get the boot?!

This was rejected for soft:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...644108.7398img_1684a_crop_anet.jpg
Any particular parts that are affected?

I knew I as not going to make friends by uploading such a large shot (1500px).
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...644398.7517img_1728a_crop_anet.jpg
It was rejected only for low contrast. Is it really that low? After all it was shot in the last light of the day?!
Than there is the comment "better smaller"?
Why that? If the quality is there why would it be better to go smaller. After all monitors are getting larger and resolutions are getting higher and higher. Isn't it nice to have a large shot?

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

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:22 am

Quoting JKphotos (Reply 31):
I am not giving up, although no-one responds to my thread anymore..

Me too  
Quoting JKphotos (Reply 31):
Any particular parts that are affected?

Nose and nose gear, port side engine, logo on tail are less sharp than other parts.

Quoting JKphotos (Reply 31):
It was rejected only for low contrast.

A I mentiones before... Try move right side of histogramm to the right border, it will satisfy them I think.

Quoting JKphotos (Reply 31):
If the quality is there why would it be better to go smaller.

I see a large gap between quality of 1200 and 1400+ size photos. At 1200 you just lose any details which can be reffered as reason for reject  
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:52 pm

Hi guys,

2 of my shots have been rejected, I reworked those and I am looking forward to some different opinions.
It would be really nice if I could get some input this time.

Fanhansa A320 was rejected for "soft"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6_x1412018768.6627img_1986anet.jpg
I gave it an extra pass of USM but left out the titles as they were already on the verge of showing jaggies:
New edit: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/q1412617320.9796img_1986anet.jpg


Fanhansa 748-double got done for "flat - low contrast, grainy & soft"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...08372.6088img_1999a_crop_anet2.jpg
I worked on contrast & brightness, sharpening & the noise and here is the result:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...8193.5045img_1999a_crop_anet23.jpg

I know that the weather conditions were not great but as it is really a rather unique motive (and will stay so, as all Fanhansa aircraft except the Siegerfliger will get a repaint soon). Therefore I'd like to see that in the db, also I am fully aware that this might be problematic. So does it stand a chance?

Julien

[Edited 2014-10-06 10:58:38]
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:15 am

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 33):
Fanhansa A320 was rejected for "soft"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6_x1412018768.6627img_1986anet.jpg
I gave it an extra pass of USM but left out the titles as they were already on the verge of showing jaggies:
New edit: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...t.jpg

Looks OK to me. I would probably bring the midtones down a bit. That would add some contrast, and make it look a bit sharper at the same time.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 33):
Fanhansa 748-double got done for "flat - low contrast, grainy & soft"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...08372.6088img_1999a_crop_anet2.jpg
I worked on contrast & brightness, sharpening & the noise and here is the result:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...3.jpg

Some places look a bit jagged now. Was there heat haze in the image?

I don't necessarily find the rejected edit soft. I think the light makes it look that way.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:30 pm

Thank you very much for your input, Vik!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
Some places look a bit jagged now. Was there heat haze in the image?

You got it! The images is actually slightly affected by heat haze, due to the fact that the aircrfat was quite distant.
That's why I uploaded it at such a small size, which I would not do otherwise.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
I don't necessarily find the rejected edit soft. I think the light makes it look that way.

Me neither, actually.

I did another edit based on the first, where I kept the sharpening as it-was-
What do you think? Better?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...6551.9096img_1999a_crop_anet24.jpg


Julien
 
User avatar
gonzalu
Screener
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:17 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:27 pm

Julien,

I see some HH on the top of the fuselage near the nose. Also looks a bit dark and it does look rather soft. Remember soft can mean many things from a screening point of view. In my opinion, the original was likely not sharp enough and less than optimal sharpening was used.

Could you post a 100% crop of the registration area and the top of the fuselage near the nose? small crops of the original file that is.
Manny Gonzalez, Thrust Images.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:28 pm

Quoting gonzalu (Reply 36):
Remember soft can mean many things from a screening point of view.

What can it mean, aside from that the image looks soft? I've never thought it to mean anything else.

  
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:54 am

Hi guys,

sorry for the late response, but I am currently without internet access at home, so I had to wait till I am back at work.
First of all thanks for your valuable input!

@Manny: Yes the image is affected by heat haze, I am not challenging this. But as I do have some images in the db that were equally affected I did not see this as a non-starter.
What else could "soft" mean? I am not a native-speaker...
I can post the 100% crops here when I will have access to my home network again.-

Julien
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:52 am

Hey,

the shot was now done, for "oversharpened" and "grainy".
Okay oversharpenend does not suprise me, Vik mentioned it before..
But where is it still grainy? Is grain-tolerance really at zero again???
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2721.4501img_1999a_crop_anet23.jpg
Can someone point out the grainy parts?




Additionally I have questions on another 2 rejections:
This was done for grainy and quality. Quality is new in my first try tp upload it, it was not even mentioned upon appeal.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...29549.1789img_1975acrop_anetz2.jpg
Is it still grainy? I already applied NR twice. I mean it would be okay for me to upload t at 1250px, if grainy would not be a problem then.


This was done for "blurry"?!
I can maybe see some soft parts, but blurry?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1_c1412443759.1212img_2080anet.jpg


Thanks a lot,

Julien

[Edited 2014-10-14 00:35:37]
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:09 am

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 39):
Is grain-tolerance really at zero again???

Seems so. Sky is noisy at this and second photos. One must edit sky separately of rest of image. Using heavy NR or gaussian blur (there is no details in the sky which worth keeping).

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 39):
I uploaded the original here

Did you shoot JGP? It's look weird.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 39):
I can maybe see some soft parts, but blurry?

As I get from screeners comments on my post-screening threads, this means that when screeners see OSness and softness at the same image, they assume that one used USM to mend blurriness.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:35 am

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 40):
Did you shoot JGP? It's look weird.

You're right! It does look totally strange which is due to the imagehoster, have to look at another option to upload ti. Thanks for pointing it out.
Should be better here:
LH748


Speaking of the AA: I only applied NR to the sky, the original is not that noisy, it was shot at ISO200 after all.


EK777: So does it mean it is oversharpened and soft? I have problems seeing these as well after all.

[Edited 2014-10-14 00:40:41]

[Edited 2014-10-14 00:43:00]
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Pre Screen JK

Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:56 am

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 41):
EK777: So does it mean it is oversharpened and soft? I have problems seeing these as well after all.

It's OS a bit and exposition makes it looks soft in parts (nose letters "b777" f.ex.)

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 41):
the original is not that noisy, it was shot at ISO200 after all

I found that on my shoots when sky is dark (comparing to other objects, i.e. when shooting in strong sun with cloudless sky in BG) it tends to be noisy when I develop RAW. Mostly it is mended automatically by my default process in LR but at last 20-30 loaded photos I get "grainy" rejections. Mostly they was accept after editing sky with NR or blur.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:53 am

Thanks, Kulverstukas..

Any thoughts about this (in my eyes very nice) shot I took 2 days a go?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/e1413280368.9498img_2177anet.jpg

1.) I am afraid the sky might be a problem. As obviously no grain is tolerated at the moment it could be problematic. I know that there is some banding visible. But the problem is further NR increases the banding?
Any solutions maybe?

2.) It was a 30 seconds exposure. As the wings are not steady after all and may move slightly they are perhaps not the sharpest. I had a shot under similar cirumstances accepted last year. But then again my acceptance ratio was way higher and a bit more leniency was applied. That is why I am not overly confident at the moment.

So any thoughts and comments would be helpful.

Julien
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:47 pm

Any opinions on the Saudi 748 night-shot?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17109
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:21 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 39):
I can maybe see some soft parts, but blurry?

It looks marginally blurry. With this type of shot, it's easy to apply too much sharpening to try and compensate, which will also lead to rejection. Sometimes you just have to accept that the 'raw materials' (no pun) are not good enough.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 44):
Any opinions on the Saudi 748 night-shot?

What's the strange white line in the sky?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:24 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 45):
It looks marginally blurry. With this type of shot, it's easy to apply too much sharpening to try and compensate, which will also lead to rejection. Sometimes you just have to accept that the 'raw materials' (no pun) are not good enough.

Thanks for your input, Steve. Well I have other shots from that sequence and might be better off by choosing another one.
Actually i did sharpen it more than I normally would, as it was somehow softer than usual (in parts). But there is not much difference between being rather soft and marginally blurry, so it might be the latter.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 45):
What's the strange white line in the sky?

I think it was the light of a helicopter moving. Of course I could have removed it, but I was not sure if this would be against the rules?!
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12451
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:18 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 46):
I think it was the light of a helicopter moving. Of course I could have removed it, but I was not sure if this would be against the rules?!

No reason to remove it. And yes, would be against the rules.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JKPhotos
Screener In Training
Topic Author
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:34 am

Hey vik,

thanks for the clarfication.

Nevertheless it was rejected, I am not even dissapointed as I was not expecting anything else these days.

It was rejected for grainy and soft:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1_e1413280368.9498img_2177anet.jpg

So my questions:
Where is it still grainy in your opinion? If I apply further NR to the sky it will increase the banding.
I really don't know what is going on with "grainy" at the moment, I already gave the sky quite some NR and still struggling to get this shot accepted. After all it was done with ISO100 and at 30seconds it was certainly not underexposed.

Where is it soft? Can someone point that out for me?

Thanks,

Julien
 
angad84
Posts: 2008
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Pre Screen JK

Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:27 am

I disagree with the grainy rejection. It's not that bad or noticeable anywhere in the frame.

FWIW though, it doesn't look like you were shooting on the clearest of nights, and haze/fog don't play nice with artificial lighting. Add post-processing (contrast adjustments in particular) to the mix, and you do get a grainy look in the sky. Minimal editing is key (ie: getting it right in camera)

It seems a touch soft overall. Was there any blur/softness on the original unedited file? Because a lot can go wrong during a 30sec exposure.

It's a nice scene but if you're struggling at 1024px it may not be worth the effort to get this one in.

Cheers
Angad

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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