Post Screening- Soft

YQZ380 · Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:31 am

Hi everyone,

Just got these 2 rejections today:

Rejected for soft and dark:

Rejected for soft only:

Can anyone help with pinpointing the softness in these 2 shots? And for the first one, is "dark" fixable by raising the midtones?

Thanks for any help.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

jaspc · Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:04 pm

I've had rejections very similar to your first one. I think the screeners don't like shots where the aircraft are not in direct sunlight. The image itself is not dark IMHO, my guess is it's the lack of direct sunlight. As for softness. I think the Air Asia in the front is sharper than the THAI A340 in back and the A340 was probably seen as the main subject in the image.

As for the second image it is hard to tell for me how soft it is. One of the things I do now is once I'm finished with an image and reduced it for posting, say to 1200 pixels, I will resize it to the next size up - 1600 pixels. If it still looks reasonably sharp it should go through for sharpness, maybe not for other things....

Best,

JASPC

alevik · Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:32 pm

Quoting YQZ380 (Thread starter):
Rejected for soft and dark:

It does seem pretty soft to me. As for dark, the lighting isn't great but it does not seem to be underexposed.

Quoting YQZ380 (Thread starter):
Rejected for soft only:

Looks soft/out of focus to me.

Pete

YQZ380 · Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:16 pm

Thank you both for your valuable feedback. I guess I'll sharpen the Thai A340 in the first shot a little and find another frame to work on for the Thai 777.

Meanwhile, I got this one rejected for soft and level when it was previously only rejected for soft. Level was "CCW rotation needed".

Maybe the titles are soft in this picture or does it have anything to do with the UPS 767 parked directly behind it? And which reference do I use for levelling the photo?

Thanks for any help.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

sunandan · Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:43 pm

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 3):
which reference do I use for levelling the photo?

It does look unlevel. There are so many vertical lines in the background! Take your pick

YQZ380 · Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:37 am

Quoting sunandan (Reply 4):
It does look unlevel. There are so many vertical lines in the background! Take your pick

Thanks; I can see it needs CCW rotation indeed.

Got this one rejected for soft and motive (was dark and grainy) after passing first screening.

Can anyone point out where the soft parts are? And what's with the motive rejection?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

vikkyvik · Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:45 pm

Can't comment on soft right now, but I don't believe that should have been rejected for motive.

YQZ380 · Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:01 am

Thanks for your input.

Got these 2 rejected for soft only just now:

Can anyone point out to me where the softness is? I'm concerned about the second shot – I always tend to oversharpen the China Airlines livery, which was the reason the picture was rejected before.

Thanks for any help.

[Edited 2015-03-31 01:04:06]

kulverstukas · Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:30 am

1. Air Asia is borderline
2. Nose and windows line.

jaspc · Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:55 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 6):
Can anyone point out where the soft parts are? And what's with the motive rejection?

I think the motive might be because the nose gear is blocked by equipment. As for soft, the aircraft seems a little softer than everything behind it. What FL lens did you use? I would try to close down on the aperture to extend your depth of field. You can get away with the resulting slower shutter speeds because the airplane is not moving. It could also be the result of heat haze but I can't tell that without looking at a 100% size image.

YQZ380 · Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:28 pm

Quoting JASPC (Reply 9):
It could also be the result of heat haze but I can't tell that without looking at a 100% size image.

Okay I'll post the original here (Note I had to shoot through tinted glass, hence the ugly green tint).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgoq7q35rzni9cr/DSC_1951.JPG?dl=0

Quoting JASPC (Reply 9):
What FL lens did you use?

I was using a Nikkor 24-120 AF-S lens with a Nikon D600 body with aperture F/9 at the time.

Quoting JASPC (Reply 9):
I think the motive might be because the nose gear is blocked by equipment.

I remember the guide stating that the equipment blocking the aircraft would be acceptable if it is part of "active operations" like loading, unloading, pushback etc. Furthermore, the shot was rejected some time ago for different reasons, but not motive.

YQZ380 · Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:55 am

So this biz got rejected for soft:

Now, I'm worried about sharpening this one more. Is the photo slightly soft or very soft? I've had oversharpened rejections on this frame in the past. I may be incorrect, but I think this photo leans more towards the oversharpened side...

vikkyvik · Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:35 am

Looks soft overall to me, but does look like it would quickly get oversharpened. Maybe the original is too soft?

And getting back to the earlier shot:

Quoting JASPC (Reply 9):
I think the motive might be because the nose gear is blocked by equipment.

I think you are right, and I missed that.

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 10):
I remember the guide stating that the equipment blocking the aircraft would be acceptable if it is part of "active operations" like loading, unloading, pushback etc.

Yes, as long as the gear isn't blocked:

Ramp Vehicles (including tugs, loaders, baggage carts, etc...) are allowed to block part of the aircraft as long as they are: [1] not blocking engines or wheels (exception: tugs are allowed to block engines/wheels if towing aircraft, and ground crew are allowed to block any part if not too prominent, which is at our discretion)

YQZ380 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:55 am

But...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Wong

Note this is the exact same aircraft, taken moments apart.

But since I could only find this particular example, I won't argue.

Thanks for the help.

Moving on...

Rejected for grainy and soft:

As for soft, I'm guessing its the window line and tail. But for grainy, where is the grain? I've always been bad at spotting grain...

angad84 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:59 am

I'm horrible at judging sharpness, particularly with small uploads. There's never enough detail for me to be sure.

As for grain, definitely under the wings.

Cheers
Angad

snddim01 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:39 am

Yang,

I'm not familiar with your local airport so forgive me if this is a silly question, but is there somewhere else you could shoot from?

It seems to me that your chances of getting good pictures are badly handicapped by your location.

Most of your shots seem to be from either behind glass or directly beside / beneath the flight path. These result in all sorts of problems which then have to be edited out.

If you could find a spot with the sun at your back which gives a profile of aircraft from the side rather than below, your editing workflow would be much easier. And your acceptance ratio would increase.

YQZ380 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:40 am

Quoting angad84 (Reply 14):
As for grain, definitely under the wings.

Thanks, will do some NR on the belly and the underside of the wings.

Quoting snddim01 (Reply 15):
If you could find a spot with the sun at your back which gives a profile of aircraft from the side rather than below, your editing workflow would be much easier. And your acceptance ratio would increase.

I was limited by my lens size last time, so the best spot had to be directly underneath or I would have to crop a lot, sacrificing quality. I know many pics on the database at Changi are of side-on shots, but my lens was too small. I recently acquired an 80-400mm lens though, and getting a side-on shot for aircraft landing shouldn't be too much of an issue in the future.

Spotting in the terminal though leaves me no choice. There's tinted glass nearly everywhere and the only ways to get around it are to enter the transit area, obtain airside access (near impossible) and book a room in the nearby hotel room (which I may do so in the future when I have the time).

Thanks for the advice!

Cheers,
Yang Qize

YQZ380 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:58 pm

These two got rejected for soft and common:

(Oversharpened as well)

I don't really see any jaggies on the Qantas (maybe the place where the red paint meets the white paint near the registration of the aircraft is oversharpened?). As for the SQ, I'm guessing it's the window-line that's soft... am I missing out anything?

aussie18 · Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:27 pm

Qantas is oversharpened around wing and horizontal stabilizer edges, cockpit, Kangaroo on tail and titles.

Singapore looks soft around the first door, windows, Also some grain visible in dark area and sky

Cheers Mark

YQZ380 · Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:50 pm

Thanks Mark. I gave the Qantas and the Singapore a re-edit, are they alright now?

This one got rejected for grainy and soft:

I presume the grain is at the shadowy areas. Is the softness around the "Spirit of Australia" titles?

YQZ380 · Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:14 am

This one got rejected for soft and common:

This is one of my favourite shots, and I would love to see this one added in. Now, where is it soft? I'm thinking of sharpening the whole fuselage except for the registration but I'm scared of oversharpening the titles. Also, it seems to me that the vertical stabiliser has some jaggies already... But that may be my eyes.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Post Screening- Soft

Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

RE: Post Screening- Soft

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net