Aurora photo |
Cheers,
Thierry
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 1): I'd say the main issue you have is noise reduction. Whatever you've done in processing gives a result that looks a lot like jpeg compression; particularly apparent across the upper surface of the wing. |
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 6): To be honest I think it suffers the same issues as the first shot (whilst sharing the same beauty!). It's hard to tell whether the NR you've run it through is causing not problems than it's trying to solve; any chance of seeing the original / pre NR edit? |
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 6): any chance of seeing the original / pre NR edit? |
Photo © Xiang Ren | Photo © Ben Cooper |
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 8): Hi Tom, Vik, here's a version without any NR, all I did was crop and resize: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...t.jpg |
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 13): https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...03149.1257lxvciinflight190915y.jpg Somewhat harshly rejected now for quality, blurry, grainy, soft, compression, oversharpened, dark. Thanks for your inputs though. |
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14): Sorry Thierry, but I don't find that a harsh rejection at all. Unfortunately the photo just doesn't have the technical quality for A.net, though it's still a beautiful photo. |
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 15): I think it is a nice touch to leave a personal comment in such a case. |
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 15): I did not mean the "technical" aspect of the rejection but rather the way it was brought across. During my time as a screener, when I screened a photo which I thought was taken at a unique occasion for the photographer and I had to reject it for some reason I always made sure to leave a personal comment instead of just throwing a ton of rejection reasons at the uploader as I know from personal experience that it is frustrating if such a photo is rejected. I think it is a nice touch to leave a personal comment in such a case. So the 'harsh' comes from the 'how' and not from the 'why' of the rejection. |