Post-screening

YQZ380 · Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Hi all,

I recently have a few shots that got rejected, and I feel that some are questionable:

These 3 were all rejected for "blurry" and "soft":

I can't really see where are the blurry parts; I've taken a look at the originals and I could've swore they weren't blurry.

Any thoughts?

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:42 pm

JetStar feels overall softish for me.
Quantas - can't see any flaws in it at all
Air Asia - tail seems very soft and at the same time rest feels at the edge of OS.

All three feels bit darkish in midtones and shadows for me.

YQZ380 · Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:01 am

Thanks Alex. I'll try to appeal the Qantas.

Hot off the rejection line for "colour":

Shouldn't the sunset lighting be a little reddish, especially in the later stages? At least that's what the conditions were when I shot this picture.

notaxonrotax · Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:53 am

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 2):
Shouldn't the sunset lighting be a little reddish, especially in the later stages? At least that's what the conditions were when I shot this picture.

I see your point, but I still think that the yellow cast caused the rejection.

No Tax On Rotax

YQZ380 · Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:12 am

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 3):

My bad, should have mentioned that it came with a PM stating "reddish cast". I was half-expecting a yellow cast rejection as well, but the reddish rejection really surprised me...

[Edited 2016-03-26 01:18:10]

kulverstukas · Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:45 am

I recently appealed "color cast" rejection (Reply #61) with explanation about light conditions. Color cast reason was removed (needles to mention that bunch of others was added).

notaxonrotax · Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:13 am

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 4):

My bad, should have mentioned that it came with a PM stating "reddish cast". I was half-expecting a yellow cast rejection as well, but the reddish rejection really surprised me...

Shows you what I know.......

No Tax On Rotax

alevik · Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:20 pm

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 2):
Shouldn't the sunset lighting be a little reddish, especially in the later stages? At least that's what the conditions were when I shot this picture.

Your appeal was processed - images closer to sunset should have some colour cast so it was accepted.

Pete

vikkyvik · Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:13 pm

Quoting YQZ380 (Thread starter):
These 3 were all rejected for "blurry" and "soft":

Jetstar looks soft but not blurry, and maybe a bit dark.
Qantas looks maybe a bit soft.
Air Asia does look blurry.

len90 · Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:53 am

Jetstar soft and dark. I've had brighter images rejected for being dark.
Qantas: Level. CW rotation needed. Look at that sign for 303 and the verticals on the building in the background.
Air Asia: slight blur... probably will be okay at 1024.

Congrats on the Singapore picture. Looks like it is in the top 5.

airkas1 · Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:12 pm

Jetstar: Does look soft and blurryish. The blurryish shows most at the front half of the plane & titles
Qantas: Softish windowline/titles
AirAsia: Agree on blurry

YQZ380 · Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:10 am

Thanks all! Upon taking a closer look at the JQ 787 original, I realized the front was a little heat hazed. I still can't really see the blur on the Airasia, but I guess I'll drop it due to the consensus here.

More rejections, this one for motive only with no PM:

Not too sure where's the motive issue?

Rejected for "grainy", taken on the same day as the SQ A350 above:

I don't see much grain...

[Edited 2016-03-30 01:03:13]

airkas1 · Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:11 pm

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 11):
Not too sure where's the motive issue?

The only thing I can think of is lensflare (between nose and main gear there are some spots, plus the length of the 'normal' flares), but other than that I don't know. You can always appeal if you want to know. Perhaps it was a wrongly ticked box. It's a little sharp though.

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 11):
I don't see much grain...

Grain not so much. But it does have a 'blurry and oversharpened to compensate' feel to it.

YQZ380 · Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:19 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 12):
lensflare (between nose and main gear there are some spots, plus the length of the 'normal' flares)

Are you talking about those red and white streaks of light from the beacon and gear light? If that's so, I never really had a problem with them around a month ago:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yang Qize

I guess I'll wait for more input; hopefully the screener who rejected this shot can provide some insight.

vikkyvik · Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:29 pm

I would call the CX photo overexposed. The nose gear light is just so bright with such large lens flare over the nose of the aircraft, that it is really distracting.

len90 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:37 am

KLM not grainy.
Cathay: Agree with Vik verbatim on that. Cool shot, but that nose light really drowns it out.

YQZ380 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:21 am

Thanks guys for the input!

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 12):
lensflare (between nose and main gear there are some spots, plus the length of the 'normal' flares)

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14):
The nose gear light is just so bright with such large lens flare over the nose of the aircraft, that it is really distracting.

Quoting len90 (Reply 15):
nose light really drowns it out.

I guess I'll drop the CX shot. A pity, my first time trying out f/1.8 night photography instead of the usual panning at the spot.

A little off topic here, but are these similar shots acceptable? I took these as the pilots were in the process of turning off the gear lights, thus the lights were dimmer.

[Edited 2016-03-31 02:31:44]

Post-screening

Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

RE: Post-screening

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net