Losing My Mind A Little

angad84 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 11:12 am

So here's a fun tale...

I uploaded this about a month ago, and it was rejected for soft and ccw.

I ignored CCW because the horizon was level (the ship was rolling, hence the unlevel deck)... we will revisit this later. Sharpening looked ok to me, but since I have had trouble with it for 3 years and 400+ photos, I upped the sharpening a bit, trying not to overcorrect.

I made a minor contrast/exposure adjustment as well, having looked at the picture with fresher eyes.

That re-edited shot came back, again with soft and CCW as reasons:

I was still completely confident on leveling, and the sharpness seemed ok (as it had done from the beginning), so I decided this time to appeal. Two days later, it came back with "Level removed, but softer than before."

Huh.

I made another edit, still conservative with adding sharpening, for fear of overcorrecting. The level was left as it was in the very first edit, as I was sure of the horizon, and the appeal result agreed as well.

That third edit looked like this:

It came back a few days ago with soft and level (!) rejections, despite putting a note to the screener(s) that the photo was leveled to the horizon, and corroborated by a headscreener.

Of course, at this point I appealed immediately, and this time the appeal came back in only a few hours... with both rejection reasons upheld, with the remark "Screener rejection correct"!

At this point I'm screwed no matter which way I move. As far as I can tell the sharpening looks ok, in fact borderline jaggy on my screen (15-inch MacBook Pro, 1680x1050). The leveling has passed muster through one appeal before, and I know for a fact it's accurate for the horizon. If I increase sharpening, it looks OS. If I rotate CCW, it becomes (objectively) unlevel. And if I send the same shot up again, I get a reupload warning. Fun times!

What would you do?

Cheers
Angad

airkas1 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 11:25 am

Hm, that's stupid. If the horizon of the sea is level (and from what I can tell it is), then the leveling is fine.

Quoting angad84 (Thread starter):
but softer than before."

I would ignore that sentence. The second version is sharper, but very very slightly (I had to look really hard for a minute).
However, I put your image through PS and increased sharpening twice (settings: 30, 0.3, gaussian blur, more accurate) and came up with a noticeably sharper image. After doing that twice, it was borderline OSish in some places , so the proper amount probably lies somewhere in between it.

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 31, 2016 11:33 am

Lol. As they constantly tell me: "better smaller, not more than 1024px"

Seriously, I'd have put aside level reason (and may be make proof with horizontal line checked sea level for screener comment) and apply local sharpening on the gear, tire, tank and tail beam.

PS: I'd certainly like to call this rejections "picky" but you know my feeling about making advices with 95% rejection rate.

angad84 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:12 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 1):
Hm, that's stupid. If the horizon of the sea is level (and from what I can tell it is), then the leveling is fine.

So what happens when it's rejected the fourth time for level?

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 1):
I would ignore that sentence. The second version is sharper, but very very slightly (I had to look really hard for a minute).

Yep, that's because I've had some trouble with overcorrecting things like sharpening, contrast, etc in the past. If a photo looks ok to me, I have no real idea what the screeners expect, so I basically kind of wing it.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 1):
However, I put your image through PS and increased sharpening twice (settings: 30, 0.3, gaussian blur, more accurate) and came up with a noticeably sharper image. After doing that twice, it was borderline OSish in some places , so the proper amount probably lies somewhere in between it.

Any idea what that translates to in Lightroom?

Or can you upload your edited version so I can have a comparison?

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 2):
PS: I'd certainly like to call this rejections "picky" but you know my feeling about making advices with 95% rejection rate.

:D

Cheers
Angad

airkas1 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:24 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 3):
So what happens when it's rejected the fourth time for level?

You throw your PC out the window

Quoting angad84 (Reply 3):
Any idea what that translates to in Lightroom?

No idea, I use CS5.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 3):
Or can you upload your edited version so I can have a comparison?

This is with the 2x sharpening (which is slightly OSish as I mentioned earlier):

[Edited 2016-03-31 07:30:14]

angad84 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:28 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 4):
You throw your PC out the window

Sounds about right

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 4):
This is with the 2x sharpening (which is slightly OSish as I mentioned earlier):

Jesus, that's my problem then. That looks waaaaaaay too crisp on my screen. Thanks though, I'll try and replicate that when I get home.

Cheers
A

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:43 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 5):
That looks waaaaaaay too crisp on my screen.

For me it looks - as we say here "rip my eyes out". Which led me into stupor how can then this be constantly rejected for OS.

airkas1 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:52 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 5):
I'll try and replicate that

But a little less or be careful with the nails in the left hand corner of the cockpit. They are marginally OS in my edit.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 6):
Which led me into stupor how can then this be constantly rejected for OS.

For me it's not OS, but the tail is blurry.

That said, I've noticed that my screen tolerates a bit more than some other screens (so what some find OS, I don't see).

[Edited 2016-03-31 10:53:58]

angad84 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:08 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 6):
For me it looks - as we say here "rip my eyes out".

I was being polite, but yeah. I'll try to find a happy medium.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 7):
But a little less or be careful with the nails in the left hand corner of the cockpit. They are marginally OS in my edit.

As Alex said, to my eye the whole edit is way too sharp, but I guess that's the subjectivity we talk about so often. I'll shoot for something in the middle.

Thanks for the replies gents.

Cheers
Angad

vikkyvik · Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:33 am

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 1):
The second version is sharper, but very very slightly (I had to look really hard for a minute).

I looked for a solid minute or two, and I still couldn't tell.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 5):
Jesus, that's my problem then. That looks waaaaaaay too crisp on my screen.

I'd be surprised if that wasn't rejected for OS.

Silver1SWA · Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:31 am

Upon first glance the shot feels unlevel which is the issue. If you try again I would definitely leave a note that the horizon is in fact level.

As for sharpness, your third edit looks passable to me. I think DoF issues might be at play here making parts look soft though.

angad84 · Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:49 am

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 10):
If you try again I would definitely leave a note that the horizon is in fact level.

I already did but it didn't seem to help...

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 10):
As for sharpness, your third edit looks passable to me. I think DoF issues might be at play here making parts look soft though.

So one might call it a picky rejection?

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):
I'd be surprised if that wasn't rejected for OS.

Well at least it's not just me that's struggling to figure out what amount of sharpening works around here. A look at any of my recent acceptances indicates any one of these edits, and certainly the latest, is close enough to acceptably sharp.

Cheers
Angad

scbriml · Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:07 am

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 10):
Upon first glance the shot feels unlevel which is the issue. If you try again I would definitely leave a note that the horizon is in fact level.

But "feel" really shouldn't come into it when there's an ocean horizon clearly visible! Wow!

angad84 · Fri Apr 01, 2016 8:11 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
But "feel" really shouldn't come into it when there's an ocean horizon clearly visible! Wow!

Indeed. That is literally the most objectively reliable reference one can ask for...

Anyway, here is what I've just uploaded. If it's still to soft, or OS, or unlevel, then to hell with it. It's already been published in a dozen places anyway, so whoever wanted to see it probably has.

Cheers
A

airkas1 · Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:55 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
But "feel" really shouldn't come into it when there's an ocean horizon clearly visible!

Quoting angad84 (Reply 13):
Anyway, here is what I've just uploaded.

Looks ok.

notaxonrotax · Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:40 am

Quoting angad84 (Reply 13):

Anyway, here is what I've just uploaded.

Fingers crossed.......

No Tax On Rotax

angad84 · Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:14 pm

Apparently it's still soft and now – after being screened FIVE times – apparently needs more contrast as well.

So I guess this one stays off a.net.

Meanwhile, this one came back with "oversharpened" and "overexposed."

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that sharpening is basically a crapshoot. I'll back off a touch on the next edit.

Is it really overexposed, or does it just need deeper blacks / more contrast? The whites are well below blown, and the aircraft reasonable well lit by a combination of late afternoon sun and lots of albedo from from the desert (this was a low flyby at a firing range).

Cheers
Angad

vikkyvik · Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:52 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 16):
Is it really overexposed, or does it just need deeper blacks / more contrast? The whites are well below blown, and the aircraft reasonable well lit by a combination of late afternoon sun and lots of albedo from from the desert (this was a low flyby at a firing range).

Up to you if you want to fight that battle, but I haven't personally had much luck there.

notaxonrotax · Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:33 am

Quoting angad84 (Reply 16):
So I guess this one stays off a.net.

Just for a giggle......appeal it!

No Tax On Rotax

airkas1 · Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:17 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 16):
Is it really overexposed, or does it just need deeper blacks / more contrast?

I'd say the latter.

kulverstukas · Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:58 pm

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 18):
Just for a giggle......appeal it!

And get level, blurry and quality added with "better smaller" PM

angad84 · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:57 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 19):
I'd say the latter.

Noted, even though it looks ok to me – I have plenty of clipped blacks in there.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 20):
And get level, blurry and quality added with "better smaller" PM

We'll see. I've decided to roll the dice and appeal both. Been a few days now, so I'm not sure what that means...

Cheers
A

airkas1 · Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:35 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 21):
so I'm not sure what that means...

Nothing. The HS haven't processed the appeals for a few days now. Yours are amongst 61 photos still waiting. So doesn't mean anything.

angad84 · Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:40 pm

The helicopter got accepted!

The MiG-27 remained off, with both rejection reasons upheld. Oh well. Should be an easy fix.

Cheers
Angad

notaxonrotax · Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:08 am

Quoting angad84 (Reply 23):
The helicopter got accepted!

Wow, there's justice after all!

Congrats!

No Tax On Rotax

airkas1 · Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Quoting angad84 (Reply 23):
The helicopter got accepted!

(One candle for each attempt

)

angad84 · Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:53 am

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 25):
(One candle for each attempt )

:D

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 24):
Congrats!

Thanks!

I've re-upped the MiG-27 as below:

Cheers
A

flleitee · Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:50 pm

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 24):

Quoting angad84 (Reply 23):
The helicopter got accepted!

Wow, there's justice after all!

Congrats!

No Tax On Rotax

Not only got accepted but went straight to the most viewed! Congrats!!

Cheers,

Fernando

Miguel1982 · Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:48 pm

After all the back-and-forth, congrats on the top shot!

Miguel

angad84 · Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:56 pm

Quoting flleitee (Reply 27):

Quoting Miguel1982 (Reply 28):

Thanks guys.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 26):
I've re-upped the MiG-27 as below:

It has now come back with "blurry, oversharpened and dark"

Should I just abandon it?

Then there's this one:

rejected for "distance, dark"

It's a backlit silhouette shot, so I'm not sure if the dark is directed at the aircraft or the overall image. Distance, I guess I can agree, but there are a few similar examples in the DB, and I thought the aircraft/background combination was sufficiently interesting to warrant this composition.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

YQZ380 · Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:07 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 29):
It has now come back with "blurry, oversharpened and dark"

Slightly blurred out at the tip of the tail, may be better at a smaller size

. For dark, it can be saved (lifting shadows + exposure, then boosting some blacks and reducing highlights). Remember the B-52 I posted a while ago in the forums? I somehow managed to get past the "dark" rejections, but now it's "overexposed" (I digress).

Quoting angad84 (Reply 29):
rejected for "distance, dark"

I'd say that it would be better if it was cropped till the bottom bomb, or in 2:3 format.

Cheers,
Yang

airkas1 · Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:18 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 29):
Should I just abandon it?

Doesn't look too bad, but perhaps the original is slightly blurryish/soft.
I disagree on dark.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 29):
rejected for "distance, dark"

I agree on both accounts. The overall image could be somewhat lighter I suppose. Not sure if the silhouet works then. Definitely agree on distance. The huge amount of air around it doesn't add anything to the photo in my opinion.

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 30):
I'd say that it would be better if it was cropped till the bottom bomb, [...] in 2:3 format.

My thoughts too.

angad84 · Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:08 pm

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 30):
Slightly blurred out at the tip of the tail, may be better at a smaller size . For dark, it can be saved (lifting shadows exposure, then boosting some blacks and reducing highlights). Remember the B-52 I posted a while ago in the forums? I somehow managed to get past the "dark" rejections, but now it's "overexposed" (I digress).

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 31):
Doesn't look too bad, but perhaps the original is slightly blurryish/soft.
I disagree on dark.

It is a fair bit softer than I like, but not blurry. I figured with a little extra sharpening it could pass muster at 1400px, but if it can't that's ok. How's this? Resharpened, resized and slightly brighter, while maintaining contrast.

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 30):
I'd say that it would be better if it was cropped till the bottom bomb, or in 2:3 format.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 31):
The overall image could be somewhat lighter I suppose

Granted, the clouds in my shot may not be as dramatic as those in the examples I posted, but I thought the rationale behind the wider crop would get some consideration.

As for dark/light, this was a 100% backlit shot, as can be seen from this suncalc screenshot.

The combination of low sun (less than an hour before sunset) and cloud cover probably contributes to the low contrast and overall darkness.

At the moment this is what I've cropped to. I'm not happy or comfortable going any tighter, so if this doesn't work, I'll leave this shot out.

Cheers
A

Losing My Mind A Little

Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

RE: Losing My Mind A Little

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net