Yeah but theres always a possibility.. Thats what the rejection is about.. Maybe NickV or Manny might be able to see what the problem is..
Printable View
Yeah but theres always a possibility.. Thats what the rejection is about.. Maybe NickV or Manny might be able to see what the problem is..
Not seeing the grain on my laptop. But then again this monitor is :rolleyes:
From JFK I assume?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Yes this was at JFK.. But still I don't see how they are very grainy..
Not seeing much grain but all are very soft and I don't like te contrast on the DL747. What settings you using?
then why is it im being said that they were very grainy?
Sergio, sadly, yes, there is a lot of noise in these images and it is visible. I believe you overcompensated for underexposure :-( I am more than happy to help if you allow me... feel free to post an original here or send me one via E-mail and I will edit for you to A.net standards...
I blew up two of the ones above to show the noise and also equalized to show the amplification effect of compensating for underexposure.
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689289_bpdRs-O.jpg
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689293_zkqZy-O.jpg
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689331_NAGeb-O.jpg
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689358_uStJo-O.jpg
Nick is also right about the softness...
My E-mail if you want to let me give it a shot, is in my profile... or manny (at) manny (dot) org :-)
I tried to salvage the first image to my taste color balance wise and contrast wise... and also reduce noise to a more tolerable level.. note the difference in the equalized image.
First, your original above for comparison
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...99img_5548.jpg
and a simple color balance using levels in Photoshop.
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185700372_7M5CE-O.jpg
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185700403_C9beQ-O.jpg
Thanks for the help Manny!! PM me your email when you can.. I still got some originals..
Sergio check your settings because you can save a ton of time editing by just getting better captures with the right settings. It looks like you have your ISO high and your shutter fast which will give you these grainy, noisy, flat shots. On days with good light your caqptures should only need a level, crop, clean the dust spots and maybe a slight boost of color before USM.
I kept the ISO on 640 .9 I dont see what mistake this was thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
If it's a typical sunny day, I always use ISO 100. With the aperture around f/7.1, that will give me shutter speeds in the 1/400 - 1/800 range, more than enough for capturing airliners. At worst, I'll bump it to ISO 200. You don't need to be at ISO 640. And I don't like to use intermediate ISO values either - I still with "standard" values (100, 200, 400, 800, etc.) From what I've read, using values between those, the camera has to extrapolate the value, and can result in more noise than a higher, standard value.
Moose is right about the intermediate ISO settings... but only on SOME cameras... not all use the same technology for boosting ISO. Some cameras do amplification post ADC and some do it in the actual sensor itself. This needs lots of research from you in terms of your camera and how it does the amplification. In the end, the camera is simply mathematically amplifying the signal readout of the sensor... the sensor's NATIVE sensitivity is base ISO. For most cameras today it is either ISO 100 or ISO 200. Same with WB... if you much outside of Daylight too much, you;re compensating by boosting the BLUE or RED channel signal data which will increase noise etc. etc.
If you can shoot at base ISO, always do so... never let the camera amplify anything mathematically LOL. It is a great computer but it can't yet invent photons :tongue:
Summer days will be worse as the noise in the wells will be already amplified by heat. COLD days will be better for high ISO shots but likely indiscernable by eyesight alone and usually only measurable in a lab.
Bottom line, stick to base ISO. On a fully sunny day, I get 1/1000 to 1/1250 sec at ISO 200, f/7.1 which is good enough to handhold my very heavy lens with VR off... on my 70-200m f/2.8, I can get sharp shots all the way down to 1/250sec with VR on.
Also, don;t use post processing or "D-Lighting" to compensate for harsh contrast. A harsh contrast day is actually natural and bellies are expected to be underexposed... unless the planes are very close to the ground or there is a lot of snow on the ground, this is inevitable especially in NY ... in Las Vegas and LA, they enjoy natural bounce cards! Al lthat sand laying around is great for bounce light :cool:
thanks for all the help guys..
Sergio... my E-mail is posted at the end of the my first response... but here you go again (it is also on my profile I think)
manny (at) manny (dot) org
I just had these rejected on JP.net:
This one they said was blurry:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335404
Is there anyway I can fix these for "backlit"? I'm thinking that maybe being backlit I never should have tried to submit them.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335396
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335393
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335383
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Steve, just give up on the backlit images on the DBs... keep em for your collection as they are nice images. Backlit is backlit, can;t be "fixed" ... it can be made to look good but never like a front lit image unless you properly expose for the unlit side of the image which is typically 2 to 3 stops over the normal exposre for the other side.
In the case of the Habitat, it is very soft :-( here is my take on it from your JPG. Of course the original would look much better. Let me know if you want me to help edit it.
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1198642233_cMjmQ-O.jpg
and your version for comparison
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/3/3/9...1297652933.jpg
Hi Steve,
I am no pro like Manny but from my first look at your images, the first one to me looks soft and slightly underexposed. There is no way I have found to fix a backlit photo. The fact that the sun is behind and thats the light source then there is no magic way to turn the sun to where you need it. My two cents.
Matt
Matt, I am more of a wannabe hack :tongue: lol ... I am humbled by your kind words ... thank you sir :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by mattdueck
Thanks Manny. I appreciate your compliment on the images that are backlit. I didn't think there would be any way to correct for backlit. So from now on any backlit shots I take I will keep them only for my private collection. As for the Habitat, I would definitely appreciate your help editing that one if you think it does have a chance of getting accepted with a little work. Your take on it looks much better.
Steve, no problem. Send me an original RAW if you have it or a JPG. I will do my best on it and send it back for your perusal.
manny (at) manny (dot) org
Yes Steve, your backlit images are actually fantastic... they're just backlit :frown:
Besides that, they look awesome! Keep up the good work :cool:
Manny - Thanks, I will send you the original jpeg when I get home from work this afternoon. Damn OT. Well, at least I can get the battery grip I've been after and a new set of ink ($100) for my photo printer with the OT pay!
Rom - Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm starting to get the hang of it. Just need good light next time. Wish I could get non-backlit shots from the mounds of 22L arrivals in the morning/early afternoon. Oh well, guess when they are using the 22's at that time of the day I will have to just settle for keeping those pics for my self.
I submitted these two photo's and they got rejected because of back lite issues (what do you expect the sun was just rising, but I thought they would work well).
http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Av...40_SuJDW-L.jpg
http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Av...04_TMEio-L.jpg
Steve the Habitat IMO can't be saved. Manny did an great job but it's got slight blur all over. As for the backlit shots, not much you can do.
Mark, the first one COULD work depending on the screener you draw. The second one, IMO just won't make it in ...
Hi guys, joined this forum after getting multiple rejections from that other website. Thought I'd share.
All images shot using a Canon XSi and a Sigma 150-500 OS.
340mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 400
Reject reason: quality soft contrast editing.
I admit it's a bit noisy around the wings, but that's all I can see wrong with it. Won't appeal, but might re-edit a little more carefully.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ers747-8f2.jpg
164mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200
Reject reason: distance
I see nothing wrong with this one at all. Might appeal, but I'm getting tired of being rejected.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...swedgetail.jpg
370mm, F/11, 1/200, ISO 200
Reject reason: quality. And a personal note, "Heat haze kills quality".
I appealed because the heat haze from a fighter jet is kind of the point. Especially in this shot! Got this from the head screener.
Reject reason: quality bad personal centered soft
Whatever.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...37img_9001.jpg
500mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 200
Reject reason: heat haze kills quality quality
What heat haze? I decided to not appeal this one because it's fairly clear that it's pretty soft.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r....7946final.jpg
Welcome, Nathan!
There is quite a bit of artifacting in the first picture, which is mostly apparent around the landing gear. What quality are you saving your JPG as? If you re-edit, I'd suggest resizing to smaller photo dimensions, and sharpening a tad more.
The second picture is nice. Distance just means to crop more closely.
Third picture is a tiny bit soft (try a little more sharpening). I suspect their problem with the heat haze is how it's distorting the intakes and wings a bit. If you get a different screener the next time around, they might take it...who knows.
Fourth picture is slightly soft/out of focus and possibly unsalvageable. It don't think it's necessarily the heat haze that's causing it, though.
Don't get discouraged by the rejections...A.net is pretty picky, and sometimes a little inconsistent depending on who screens your photo. For any of the reject reasons you don't understand, just go to A.net's guide and you should be able to figure out how to fix the problem (if it's fixable): http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php Good luck!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan McGrew
Hello Guys,
I uploaded my first shot to Airliners.net and of course it got rejected. Here is a ink to the shot:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...eogden4969.jpg
Reasons for rejection were grainy and soft. They also said my registration info was incorrect plus the fact that I put Quonset instead of Westfield.
I'll try again another day.
Joe
Joe, NICE SHOT... I must have been a few feet away from you ;-) I got about 100 shots just like it from that show last year.
OK, so unfortunately, this is a private regi. The military markings are fake (well, sort of) it is in private ownership and the real regi is "N2011V" .. as for the airport, it should have been Barnes/Westfield (KBAF), NOT Quonset Point which is actually in Rhode Island... what were you thinking :confused: :cool:
The image looks sharp on first glance but if you look closely, it is a bit soft by A.net standards and they are SUPER HIGH... don;t worry, with a little tweak to your workflow, she should be able to make it in as it is a great shot.
Adding to what Manny has already pointed out, when sharpening, use your select tools and only sharpen the plane! The effort taken in that alone will spare you from the extra noise generated throughout the whole frame. Also, sharpen in layers. That way you can erase and smooth out any jaggies created. It is a cracking shot Joe, and with a retweeking, is sure to make it in.
Good point Kenny... DO NOT SHARPEN THE WHOLE IMAGE ever is my rule. However, some technical knowledge of how sharpening algorithms work, can lead to better technical results. For example, when you USM, there is no need for masking. All other sharpening tools may be brute force but not un-sharp mask.
While I would definitely do it on a separate layer, I do not mask the sky for instance. USM has a slider called a Threshold... this is the mask portion of the name. It allows you to control what areas of the image get sharpening calculated and which do not. The larger the mask, the greater the area calculated in finding contrast differences to "sharpen" against. Skies are seldom devoid of sensor induced noise. NO MATTER how clean the sensor or how low the ISO, you;re bound to find noise. But if it's very low noise, the contrast differences between those pixels is so minute, the simplest mask will completely exclude them from the calculation ... in most cases you can even leave your threshold at zero and it would not affect the sky in any considerable manner.
I always show people how to zoom in to the maximum zoom level while adjusting the settings and watching how one step up or down changes the effect in the preview. As I like to say "It is Therapeutic"
Thanks for the tips guys, I will try to play with it again when I get the chance. Also, thanks for the info on the regi, as for the airport, I did several air shows last year and realized after I sent it in that I had the wrong airport.:confused:
Hey guys;
Any clue what level could be on this shot? It apparently is not what I thought it was :(
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/4/9/7...1298599794.jpg
thanks
Try leveling on the parking garage in the background.
Edit: or whatever that brick structure may be lol.
Jeremy, it could probably use .02 degrees more but here it is with 1.15deg CCW rotation
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1211355163_49iXu-O.jpg
Thanks Manny. That does look better.
Passed first screen.
Rejected second screen.
Reason: Low in frame, dark.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...4wedgetail.jpg
I centered it and brightened it. What do you think?
http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/...edgetail-2.jpg
Also started from scratch and used a different white balance color tone. Not sure I'm in love with it.
http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/.../IMG_8784c.jpg
I can see the low in frame with my novice eyes, try to fix this slightly (if you can, I don't know how the original is). Dark, hmm, maybe I guess.
It should be a fixable shot as it looks stunning to me, no matter what!
Love that second "from scratch" edit! But feels a little oversharpened to me (look at the titles).