Printable View
Had this one rejected for processing:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 1107_1.jpg
It also had a message from the screener that said: A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"N214WN_ALB_111107_1.jpg halos"
Any ideas on the halos? I've heard the term used before but I guess that I'm not familiar enough with what one looks like to be able to avoid it.
Thanks!
Dan
Dan,
I'm looking on a monitor at work and it's tough to see, but it appears there is just the slightest halo around the right wingtip. Looks like a very pale white shadow if you will. Usually happens from over post-processing (too much sharpening, or if you are using Lightroom too much Clarity)
John
Grr me and my not paying attention:
Cat wrong/missing (wing view)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1680159
Categories wrong. Special scheme. D'oh!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1685268
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1693412
I kinda figured this one would get rejected for either noise or soft, but it was close enough to try anyway. Is it worth re-submitting with more aggressive noise reduction? I don't have my heart set on getting this particular photo into the database, because USAir A319s are a dime a dozen at LGA, but I'd like to get SOMETHING accepted :)
The question is, how much does aperture size affect noise on small-sensor cameras (like mine)? When I started out, I was getting motion blur because my shutter speed was too slow, so I upped the shutter speed and decreased the aperture, and my later photos got noisy...
Is it possible to edit so that noise and grain are reduced - I got a few of these from the FLL day..
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704241
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704238
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704215
Photoshop has a decent noise reduction filter (Filters->Noise->Reduce Noise... if I remember correctly), but it will significantly soften your image. I've had the best luck using Reduce Noise, then selecting the plane, copying it into a new layer, and doing an aggressive Smart Sharpen on the new layer. But "best luck" means I've gotten three accepted in 15 or so tries... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Your EXIF data says you were shooting at ISO 800...
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703607
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703547
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703539
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703527
To hell with these people. Time spent editing shots to get accepted to anet or jpnet is time wasted. From now on, I spot an edit for me...not for some website.
If you're shooting just to get photos on a.net or jp.net, you're wasting your time anyway. Shoot for yourself, and if you get photos accepted, all the better. That's what I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie.
That said, checking the photos accepted to those sites can help you become a better photographer, and get more photos accepted. I may be unusual (well, I know I am, but that's another discussion) but I got my first upload to jp.net accepted. Since then, there have been lots of uploads, and lots of rejections along the way. For the longest time, I didn't upload to a.net because of some of the rejections I got, but I'm giving it a try again, with good results so far.
Looking at your photos, the JetBlue shot is overexposed - that's a common problem with those jets, I do it myself, and looking at the line between the white fuselage and blue belly, you can easily see the heat haze issue. Your Avianca 762 looks OK to me, but then I find I usually need a touch more USM for uploads then I think absolutely necessary. On the Allegiant shot, the heat distortion is clearly seen on the starboard wing (right side of photo). The Spirit shot looks pretty good to me, but again, I see a little heat distortion.
As I said, if you don't want to upload to jp.net or a.net, don't. Shoot for yourself. For me, this hobby isn't about uploads or hits, but about the people I've gotten to know and the things I've experienced along the way. But please, use the feedback from your rejections (or from posting here on NYCA) to help you become a better photographer. We all have something to learn!
Thanks for the critique Moose. I see the B6 errors, aswell as the Avianca and Allegiant. But as for the Spirit shot, I spend quite some time on it and even now from my perspective its a near perfect shot. I've seen alot worse (heat distortion) thats been accepted.Quote:
If you're shooting just to get photos on a.net or jp.net, you're wasting your time anyway. Shoot for yourself, and if you get photos accepted, all the better. That's what I do.
That said, checking the photos accepted to those sites can help you become a better photographer, and get more photos accepted. I may be unusual (well, I know I am, but that's another discussion) but I got my first upload to jp.net accepted. Since then, there have been lots of uploads, and lots of rejections along the way. For the longest time, I didn't upload to a.net because of some of the rejections I got, but I'm giving it a try again, with good results so far.
Looking at your photos, the JetBlue shot is overexposed - that's a common problem with those jets, I do it myself, and looking at the line between the white fuselage and blue belly, you can easily see the heat haze issue. Your Avianca 762 looks OK to me, but then I find I usually need a touch more USM for uploads then I think absolutely necessary. On the Allegiant shot, the heat distortion is clearly seen on the starboard wing (right side of photo). The Spirit shot looks pretty good to me, but again, I see a little heat distortion.
As I said, if you don't want to upload to jp.net or a.net, don't. Shoot for yourself. For me, this hobby isn't about uploads or hits, but about the people I've gotten to know and the things I've experienced along the way. But please, use the feedback from your rejections (or from posting here on NYCA) to help you become a better photographer. We all have something to learn!
Window glare/dirt? Thought so.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1705803
For all you know Mark, I could be standing on the ground looking up at your plane in this picture with a shovel in my hand saying, "damn, I wish I were on that plane."
That was actually the flight to Seattle that I ranted about being about 4 hours late, sitting on JFK's tarmac with no APU, in the middle of August.
Well, those were the fires in Montana and I was out there all summer.
Ohh... I get it now. It makes your last post in this thread make a lot more sense.
Gee, now I wonder how it feels to be down there looking up at the plane.