Cheers
Kris
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
I had this shot rejected for oversharpened but are having problems spotting where this occurs. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
Kris
Cheers
Kris
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
Hi Kris.
I have been disappointed not to receive any feedback on my request for clarification about my oversharpening issue on the Monarch photo 15 posts above - so I will try to help out here.
On your photo I do see a couple of areas of slight oversharpening, with small jaggies on the underside of the fuselage, at the rear and front (particularly behind the nosewheel and under the tail) and also the rear edge of the horizontal stabiliser. There are slight jaggies on the tail logo where the black meets the white.
I hope this helps.
Paul
I have been disappointed not to receive any feedback on my request for clarification about my oversharpening issue on the Monarch photo 15 posts above - so I will try to help out here.
On your photo I do see a couple of areas of slight oversharpening, with small jaggies on the underside of the fuselage, at the rear and front (particularly behind the nosewheel and under the tail) and also the rear edge of the horizontal stabiliser. There are slight jaggies on the tail logo where the black meets the white.
I hope this helps.
Paul
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting MarcelSchmidt (Reply 249): I thought a screener could give some feedback as well about this rejection. Mhh..but thanks again Fergul. |
You're welcome!
With the exception of a few, there are a number of people who I have commented on their rejections and pre-screening shots who haven't bothered to even acknowledge your input or even say thanks. So unfortunately I'll be selective as to who's images I comment on or help out. Paul, you know this has nothing to do with you as we chat on an e-mail basis.
This could also be a reason why Screeners don't post too much here.
| Quoting Psych (Reply 251): On your photo I do see a couple of areas of slight oversharpening, with small jaggies on the underside of the fuselage, at the rear and front (particularly behind the nosewheel and under the tail) and also the rear edge of the horizontal stabiliser. There are slight jaggies on the tail logo where the black meets the white. |
I would agree with Paul here.
Fergul
-
- DiamondFlyer
- Posts: 3634
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
This one has been rejected a couple of times. First for grainy, soft and dark, then for just dark, and the third time was rejected for soft and dark. Is it worth continuing or just abandon the shot?
Any advise?
-DiamondFlyer
-
- TupolevTu154
- Posts: 1933
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
I cringe every time I get a rejection, and I've just had four out of 6 so far today mostly due to contrast and colour (It was hazy)
Here's one in particular I'm a little disappointed about
This was contrast (too much?) and colour (Red?). I've been having a hard time getting the colours right on all my photos from that particular trip, every time I decrease the red it goes green etc.
Any input on how I can cure it?
Thanks
Here's one in particular I'm a little disappointed about
This was contrast (too much?) and colour (Red?). I've been having a hard time getting the colours right on all my photos from that particular trip, every time I decrease the red it goes green etc.
Any input on how I can cure it?
Thanks
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
Rejected for Soft, Level and contrast
No biggie there for soft, but I would appreciate explanations on the contrast (the whites are not whites apparently, according to the rejection) and most of all the level rejection.
The references for levelling are not there, and the few that possibly could be used are perfectly level. And as I mentioned in the appeal, from this angle all shots will look this way as far as leveling goes.
Since I did not get any kind of explanation in the appeal rejection, just the same rejection reasons, I would appreciate any insight. Thanks in advance
No biggie there for soft, but I would appreciate explanations on the contrast (the whites are not whites apparently, according to the rejection) and most of all the level rejection.
The references for levelling are not there, and the few that possibly could be used are perfectly level. And as I mentioned in the appeal, from this angle all shots will look this way as far as leveling goes.
Since I did not get any kind of explanation in the appeal rejection, just the same rejection reasons, I would appreciate any insight. Thanks in advance
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting Varig767 (Reply 257): |
Looks better but it is too high in the frame!
| Quoting TupolevTu154 (Reply 258): |
In PS, click on Image-adjustments-hue/saturation, select reds from the drop down menu use your eye droper and click on a part of the image that has the most red and decrease the saturation down a bit, about -6 should do it. Personally I knda like the image the way it is.
Fergul
-
- TupolevTu154
- Posts: 1933
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 260): In PS, click on Image-adjustments-hue/saturation, select reds from the drop down menu use your eye droper and click on a part of the image that has the most red and decrease the saturation down a bit, about -6 should do it. Personally I knda like the image the way it is. |
I'm going to be totally honest and say that In the two years I have been uploading here I have never used that method before. It solves all my problems! If only I knew of that all this time, my photos wouldn't look so odd!
Thank you
-
- walter2222
- Posts: 1244
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting Psych (Reply 251): have been disappointed not to receive any feedback on my request for clarification about my oversharpening issue on the Monarch photo 15 posts above - so I will try to help out here. |
Hi Paul,
I can understand your disappointment, but maybe it has to do something with the fact that others - like me - cannot open the picture (as I pointed out in reply 243). I still cannot open it today...
If you still want a second opinion, you can always send it to me (via e-mail), I will gladly take a look at it.
Happy New Year to all!!!
Walter
-
- Plainplane
- Posts: 656
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
Here is an unusual rejection from a few months ago. First it was rejected for soft, then I reuploaded it at a later date and it was rejected for sharp and quality. I haven't even touched it.
How would I improve this if one rejection is for one reason and the other being exactly the opposite?
How would I improve this if one rejection is for one reason and the other being exactly the opposite?
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting TupolevTu154 (Reply 261): I'm going to be totally honest and say that In the two years I have been uploading here I have never used that method before. It solves all my problems! If only I knew of that all this time, my photos wouldn't look so odd! |
You're welcome, but use it lightly, You only need fine adjustments to get your photo right, the reverse can also be done in that if its lacking in color you can give the whole photo a slight punch but as always, in moderation. Instead of selecting a specific color leave it on Master and increase the saturation a small bit usually between +10 and +15 will be suffice.
Have Fun!
Fergul
-
- TupolevTu154
- Posts: 1933
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 259): Rejected for Soft, Level and contrast No biggie there for soft, but I would appreciate explanations on the contrast (the whites are not whites apparently, according to the rejection) and most of all the level rejection. The references for levelling are not there, and the few that possibly could be used are perfectly level. And as I mentioned in the appeal, from this angle all shots will look this way as far as leveling goes. Since I did not get any kind of explanation in the appeal rejection, just the same rejection reasons, I would appreciate any insight. Thanks in advance |
Ok, so I've been doing some homework on the shot, and this is what I came up with. And the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that the level rejection should not stand, nor should the contrast. Would appreciate other views though. rgds and thanks in advance
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 269): Personally i didn't think there was anything much wrong with the original, if anything, lacking a small bit in color saturation. |
Thanks Fergul
problem is, I think I'm more frustrated now than before. Three rejecjtion reasons, even after the appeal, but the pic seems fine (or at worst did not merit 3 reasons) to everyone who has seen it except for the screener. And since no personal came with the appeal, I really don't know what to do
once again, thank you very much Fergul!
-
- Plainplane
- Posts: 656
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting Plainplane (Reply 271): Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 265): Well, it didn't. Even more confusing now |
needs ccw rotation to have the thrust levers horizontal.
Thierry
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
Alright ya'll, it's been a while and I've got a few. Any advice is appreciated - I've been out of the game for about a year and am a bit rusty.
#1. Rejected for grainy & soft. Can she be saved with some sharpening, or is the grain also an issue?
#2. Rejected for quality & soft. Again, will some sharpening fix this or should I can it?
As always, thanks in advance for the advice.
Why would you reupload after a rejection without having even touched it?
#1. Rejected for grainy & soft. Can she be saved with some sharpening, or is the grain also an issue?
#2. Rejected for quality & soft. Again, will some sharpening fix this or should I can it?
As always, thanks in advance for the advice.
| Quoting Plainplane (Reply 263): Here is an unusual rejection from a few months ago. First it was rejected for soft, then I reuploaded it at a later date and it was rejected for sharp and quality. I haven't even touched it. |
Why would you reupload after a rejection without having even touched it?
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
| Quoting Plainplane (Reply 271): |
Soft it aint! Maybe your depth of field is the issue. When shooting so close you need a high Aperture to ensure most is in focus, around f16 or above would be desirable.
Fergul
-
-
moderators
Moderator
- Posts: 365
- Joined:
RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2
Part 3 is open now, can be found here:
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...tion_photography/read.main/324577/
Thanks
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...tion_photography/read.main/324577/
Thanks
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests