Page 1 of 1

Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:45 pm
by vikkyvik
Need some help here. This was kicked back for Quality, Blurry, Oversharpened, and Grainy:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...51030_n1445403344.4634img_8980.jpg

I thought this one was the best of the 4 photos I uploaded, but it was the only one rejected!

Anyway, your thoughts are appreciated.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:05 pm
by 310815
Hi Vik,

I don't see any real quality / sharpening issues and can't see any blur.

But the sky seems a bit grainy to me.

Julien

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:00 am
by cjmoeser
Letters on the tail and on the wings look soft. Don't see blurry.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:30 am
by vikkyvik
Thank you gents. I appealed that one, we'll see what happens.

I know I was taking a chance with this one, but I'm curious if anyone thinks it stands a chance with a re-edit. Obviously fighting bad light, and rejected for Quality, Oversharpened, Overexposed, Dark.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...51030_d1445496829.0319img_8636.jpg

Thanks again.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:28 pm
by angad84
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
I know I was taking a chance with this one, but I'm curious if anyone thinks it stands a chance with a re-edit. Obviously fighting bad light, and rejected for Quality, Oversharpened, Overexposed, Dark.

I don't think that's bad at all. Really great in fact, given the conditions at Miramar.

The Fat Albert shot didn't look awful either, will wait to hear about the appeal.

A

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:20 pm
by vikkyvik
Quoting angad84 (Reply 4):
The Fat Albert shot didn't look awful either, will wait to hear about the appeal.

Mostly upheld. Blurry removed, Overexposed added. So now it's Quality, Overexposed, Oversharpened, and Grainy.

I dunno....

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:37 am
by angad84
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5):
Blurry removed, Overexposed added.

Are we looking at the same photo? I want more white in that pic!

Cheers
A

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:17 am
by 310815
Cant see any overexpose parts neither and it doesn't look particular bright to me as well.

Julien

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:29 pm
by vikkyvik
Quoting angad84 (Reply 6):
Are we looking at the same photo? I want more white in that pic!
Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 7):
Cant see any overexpose parts neither and it doesn't look particular bright to me as well.

I kept it slightly darker than a "normal" shot because I know the site tends to reject for overexposed when the sky is bright. I guess I lost that battle.  

No point in pursuing this one, though. Not only is detail preserved everywhere, there are hardly any actually blown pixels in the shot. I'm amused that the shot that was significantly worse out of the camera was accepted, though!

Thanks for your comments.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:20 pm
by vikkyvik
Also appreciate your opinions on this one. Kicked back for Quality Grainy Soft Compression Oversharpened Dark. And while I'm not necessarily disagreeing (except for Compression and Soft), it was a pretty difficult shot in very low light:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...45751398.296img_8191cc20150927.jpg

Just wondering how far off I am. Can't ever tell with these shots, and based on the rejection reasons, I'd say quite far off, but based on some previous acceptances, I'd say not very far.

Thanks.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:33 am
by Newark727
Well it's way better than what I could do in similar conditions. :P

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:43 am
by angad84
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):
Just wondering how far off I am. Can't ever tell with these shots, and based on the rejection reasons, I'd say quite far off, but based on some previous acceptances, I'd say not very far.

Doesn't look great tbh. You're right though, these shots are sometimes treated quite leniently, and sometimes not.

FWIW, I think the NR is causing blotchiness that's being mistaken for compression.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 10):
Well it's way better than what I could do in similar conditions. :P

Indeed. I usually just put the camera away when it gets like this.

Cheers
A

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:09 am
by Newark727
Quoting angad84 (Reply 11):
FWIW, I think the NR is causing blotchiness that's being mistaken for compression.

This would be my intuition as well, having recently been experimenting with some very, very dark and grainy raw files.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:44 am
by vikkyvik
Quoting angad84 (Reply 11):
Doesn't look great tbh. You're right though, these shots are sometimes treated quite leniently, and sometimes not.

Thanks. I'll give it a go at a smaller size. It's one of the best very-low-light shots I've taken, in terms of sharpness, so I'd like to get it in the DB.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 12):
Quoting angad84 (Reply 11):
FWIW, I think the NR is causing blotchiness that's being mistaken for compression.

This would be my intuition as well, having recently been experimenting with some very, very dark and grainy raw files.

Yep, that's definitely a big contributor. I think jetwash on the reg isn't helping, too.

Anyway, I'm bound and determined (for now) to get at least one F-35 shot accepted. What do you think of this one - crop is intended to show the spray being kicked up on the runway:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...869img_8745cc20151007croppedin.jpg

Thanks again.

EDIT: And here's my re-edit of the Fat Albert shot:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...6620932.4958img_8980cc20151103.jpg

[Edited 2015-11-03 23:11:04]

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:56 am
by 310815
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
Yep, that's definitely a big contributor. I think jetwash on the reg isn't helping, too.

No it is not, upon my first look at it, I thought "hmm it get's a bit blurry / soft towards the rear." Only upon reading your comment I realised that this is in fact caused by the jetwash.
I would mention the jetwash in the remark, if you decide to reupload it. Unfortunately sometimes on really grainy shots you can only decide between a grainy or a blotchy sky..I've had that problem as well when strong NR comes into play.
It is a stunning shot nevertheless!!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
EDIT: And here's my re-edit of the Fat Albert shot:

Looks pretty good to me! It can't be seen as OS anymore and it is certainly not overexposed, only the sky still looks partly slightly grainy to me. Can't tell if the grain within accetable standards or not though.

Julien

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:51 pm
by vikkyvik
Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 14):
No it is not, upon my first look at it, I thought "hmm it get's a bit blurry / soft towards the rear." Only upon reading your comment I realised that this is in fact caused by the jetwash.
I would mention the jetwash in the remark, if you decide to reupload it. Unfortunately sometimes on really grainy shots you can only decide between a grainy or a blotchy sky..I've had that problem as well when strong NR comes into play.
It is a stunning shot nevertheless!!

Thanks very much. Yes, with low-light / high-ISO shots, it's always a tradeoff. Do I leave noise in the photo and achieve sharpness without oversharpening? or do I go heavy on the NR, and oversharpen the photo to look sharp enough? I personally find A.net prefers the latter, while I prefer the former.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 14):
Looks pretty good to me! It can't be seen as OS anymore and it is certainly not overexposed, only the sky still looks partly slightly grainy to me. Can't tell if the grain within accetable standards or not though.

No idea on the grain - I don't think the shot was terribly underexposed, and it was probably shot at ISO100. Personally, I have a lot of trouble seeing grain on a bright sky anyway.

To be honest, my new edit looks slightly soft and dark to me, but oh well....

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:31 pm
by airkas1
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
What do you think of this one - crop is intended to show the spray being kicked up on the runway:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...n.jpg

I like it.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
EDIT: And here's my re-edit of the Fat Albert shot:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...3.jpg

Ok for me.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:00 am
by vikkyvik
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 16):

Thank you Kas. Out of curiosity, what did you think of the first Fat Albert edit (in my opening post)?

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 14):
Looks pretty good to me! It can't be seen as OS anymore and it is certainly not overexposed, only the sky still looks partly slightly grainy to me. Can't tell if the grain within accetable standards or not though.

I think I just must have bad luck with bright skies. This one was also knocked back for grainy and oversharpened.

Oversharpened I can deal with, but again I'm somewhat amazed that there's grain being picked up on that sky. I myself can't see any:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...51104_t1445933650.8214img_8113.jpg

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:27 am
by airkas1
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17):
what did you think of the first Fat Albert edit (in my opening post)?

I thought it was alright. On my screen it's not too oversharpen and I dont really see the grain (although I've come to notice that I don't always see the noise where others do, but I'm working on that). Difficult lighting for sure, hence perhaps the quality.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17):
Oversharpened I can deal with, but again I'm somewhat amazed that there's grain being picked up on that sky. I myself can't see any:

Difficult light again. I think I see where the rejections come from, but it's acceptable for me personally.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:49 pm
by 310815
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17):
Oversharpened I can deal with, but again I'm somewhat amazed that there's grain being picked up on that sky. I myself can't see any:

Okay, have to agree on this one. In contrast to the Fat Albert I had to look really closely to see any grain and then yes at the top half around the corner I can maybe see some. In my personal opinion that wouldn't be enough for a rejection, but maybe others will disagree.

Julien

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:09 pm
by angad84
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
Anyway, I'm bound and determined (for now) to get at least one F-35 shot accepted. What do you think of this one - crop is intended to show the spray being kicked up on the runway:

Looks a bit blotchy/grainy - around the LiftSystem aux intake doors, near the VMFA-121 lettering on the stbd intake, and toward the rear.

I like the crop and overall shot though. Very cool!

Still think the first one (taking off) was better quality overall, but if a screener (or screeners) have decided that the reflections are overexposure, there's nothing you can do, so...

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
EDIT: And here's my re-edit of the Fat Albert shot:

Looks ok. I prefer the earlier one!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17):
Oversharpened I can deal with, but again I'm somewhat amazed that there's grain being picked up on that sky. I myself can't see any:

As Kas said, you're fighting tough light. Also, there's blotchiness in the sky, which might be what the grain rejection is (inaccurately) referring to.

Cheers
A

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:48 am
by vikkyvik
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 18):
although I've come to notice that I don't always see the noise where others do, but I'm working on that

Please don't - we need more grain being acceptable, not less!  
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 18):
Difficult light again. I think I see where the rejections come from, but it's acceptable for me personally.

Difficult light, sure. But I'm not generally getting rejections for the light.

A dark or gray sky tends to show grain a lot more readily than a bright one, at least to my eyes, so that's why I'm surprised.

Thanks for your comments, anyway.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 19):

Thanks much.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 20):
Looks a bit blotchy/grainy - around the LiftSystem aux intake doors, near the VMFA-121 lettering on the stbd intake, and toward the rear.

It was a pretty sizeable crop, so not too surprising. And I don't think I did any general NR on this one.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 20):
Looks ok. I prefer the earlier one!

Me too, though I think the color is a bit better on the re-edit.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 20):
As Kas said, you're fighting tough light. Also, there's blotchiness in the sky, which might be what the grain rejection is (inaccurately) referring to.

Hmmm. I can't see the blotchiness; is it definitely separate from the natural variations in cloud brightness? Not sure where it would come from.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:58 pm
by angad84
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 21):
Hmmm. I can't see the blotchiness; is it definitely separate from the natural variations in cloud brightness? Not sure where it would come from.

There's definitely something going on in the sky above the aircraft. The sky below looks cleaner.

Cheers
A

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:57 pm
by vikkyvik
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
EDIT: And here's my re-edit of the Fat Albert shot:
Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 14):
Looks pretty good to me! It can't be seen as OS anymore and it is certainly not overexposed, only the sky still looks partly slightly grainy to me. Can't tell if the grain within accetable standards or not though.
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 16):
Ok for me.
Quoting angad84 (Reply 20):
Looks ok.

Apparently we all need to recalibrate our eyes....

Reject reason: quality blurry soft oversharpened overexposed dark.

  

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:17 am
by angad84
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 23):
Reject reason: quality blurry soft oversharpened overexposed dark.

Oh dear.

Maybe, um, appeal? I just had one come back with a laundry list of rejection reasons, and I appealed and it was accepted. Just shows that sometimes kicking it up to the heads can help!

Cheers
A

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:45 am
by vikkyvik
Quoting angad84 (Reply 24):
Maybe, um, appeal? I just had one come back with a laundry list of rejection reasons, and I appealed and it was accepted. Just shows that sometimes kicking it up to the heads can help!


Well, I submitted an appeal. I just hate to appeal a shot twice. Thanks.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:21 am
by clickhappy
It's a very low quality shot IMO. I agree with the rejection.

Good luck with your appeal.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:58 am
by vikkyvik
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 26):
It's a very low quality shot IMO. I agree with the rejection.

Fair enough - it would be boring in here if we all had the same opinion.  

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 9:40 pm
by vikkyvik
Just to update on the appeal:

Quality, blurry, oversharpened, and dark were removed. Common was added. So it is Overexposed, Soft, Common.

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:18 pm
by angad84
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
Quality, blurry, oversharpened, and dark were removed. Common was added. So it is Overexposed, Soft, Common.

It's a nice shot and everything, but I think I would give up at this point. Moving targets etc.

Cheers
Angad

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:30 pm
by clickhappy
You can't fix a blurry photo. The frame is common and the light was poor.

The good news is it flys all the time so I'm sure you'll have another shot

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:51 pm
by angad84
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 30):
You can't fix a blurry photo.

Blurry was removed on appeal.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
Quality, blurry, oversharpened, and dark were removed. Common was added. So it is Overexposed, Soft, Common.

Cheers
A

RE: Screening - Vik

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:35 am
by vikkyvik
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 30):
You can't fix a blurry photo. The frame is common and the light was poor.

I'm well aware, Royal, and that might apply if I was trying to fix a blurry photo.

I agree about common and while I don't find the light awful, it's certainly not great.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 29):

Yeah, I'm happy enough with the latest rejection. Makes the most sense to me (though I still can't see overexposed).