Little bit of CCW rotationQuote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Printable View
Little bit of CCW rotationQuote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Soft? Where is my question, the logo's are literally not able to take anymore with out de-forming.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/...c0830fc6_o.jpg
N553UA United Airlines 757-222 by seahawks7757
Yellow? Ya think? The sun is setting, also too much contrast. I think it is just that the shutter speed was 1/125th of a second, any feedback?
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/...762d43b1_o.jpg
N495UA United Airlines A320-232 by seahawks7757
Also whats up with the 10 days to get results? Sounds like A.Net needs more screeners.
Great shots Brandon. Second one is a little yellow but a quick redit should fix it. As for the screening time yea queue is 11k and they average 1000 a day so it's about right. I wish they would take on a bunch of trainee guys just to screen the obvious rejects. Think about it if the veteran screeners only had to screen the close ones I bet the queue would go half as fast. Also seems like many more are uploading as well. Which is also contributing to the length. They have always screened the same # of photos a day. Just seems like a bit more is being uploaded.
Brandon, the first one, yup, very soft all over :-( Mind you am no screener bbut I am an expert because I get rejected a lot for this very thing :tongue: So, loot at the cheat lines... the rear fuselage up to the APU, your rear regi and the united logo could use SOME more passes of USM. THe softness is not the whole image in my opinion. Just some selective sharpening will do it I think.
The second one, yes, it is not that it is sunset, it is more that it looks too yellow all over. Basically there was a boost of saturation in post and it can be easily seen. The real scene is likely much less yellow and just a cast of gold on the fuselage will be OK. Trust me, the camera can;t pick this up on its own LOL. Only the JPG engine or your own RAW processor can boost saturation like that. I say try to use the original default settings from the camera if RAW. If from JPG already baked like this, try a little negative saturation and also tweak the WB to neutral on the very top of the fuselage. The top of the fuse should be on a slight blue cast as it reflects the nice blue skies of the desert. Also looks a bit too contrasty to me. There should be some detail in the shadows... I aim to make the rubber on the tires black where it should be. But then stop. I like to see some detail in the belly.
VEgas is tricky to get this right as the landing zone is full of rubber and it reflects NOTHING back up to the belly. I got a few rejections from my Vegas trip for such similar situations.
Your shutter sped had nothing to do with it. The overall exposure is the one that matters. 1/125 @ f/8 ISO 100 is a similar exposure to 1/250 sec @ f/5.6 ISO 100 but less blurry :tongue:
Either way, love these images... always remember A.net sharp is a bit more than you or I may be comfortable with
I took the liberty and did a couple of tweaks to yours to show you how I would deal with these ... totally my opinion and not even close to what you may like or what the db will accept :-)
Just pushed back the saturation of the yellows a bit and also boosted the Gamma by .05 to reveal some shadow detail. Added some USM to make it pop a bit more.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-VH7Q8RH.jpg
On this one, I just gave it a few more passes of selective USM. Compare with your original and you can see the slight boost in apparent sharpness. CLICK for full size image... these are reduced indiscriminately by the Wordpress theme :mad:
EDIT
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-dx8x864.jpg
Your Original
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/...c0830fc6_o.jpg
Both look a little better, my only thing though is the N495UA shot now looks dark.
It doesn't look that dark besides they give a little more latitude for those late day shots from the viewing area. When the engines get lip up. Should get in now.
Brandon, by all means give it a boost in contrast but please, use a Curves layer :cool: don't use Brightness or Levels as they are blunt tools. Curves allows a more graceful tuning of the areas you want to touch. I say start with a mild S curve that has a flatter shadow area and a more pronounced highlights area. Move the midtones down a but in the center so as to protect the contrast and give a boost to the brights only.Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks7757
Here is what I mean... I split the screen to show the affect better and overlayed the settings to make it easier for others to visualize. Again, click image for full size view!
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-8KhbjKD.jpg
I'll have to look into that some more, I appreciate the help Manny
Wondering about this one now, rejected for "Dark in spots." Just wondering what others think.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6236/...e2209f4e_o.jpg
G-BNLF British Airways 747-436 by seahawks7757
Touch rejection but basically valid. The sun is obviously nose on and the rest of the fuselage is dark.
- Dark / Underexposed
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/2/5...1317689522.jpg
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/7/1...1317686172.jpg
- Subject too far / too much dead space
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/6/1...1317690162.jpg
Comments? I thought the VC-25 was pushing it, but if I cropped it closer while getting the tower, it would end up with the aircraft off center...
http://www.moose135photography.com/p...tkLz8FZ-X3.jpg
Moose
Unfortunately I have to agree as far as the underexposed for the Delta :frown:
As for the Evergreen (love the shot) they have been pretty tough on the whole "centered" part, I was facing that issue a little while back with even just regular shots, I do see the point of your shot and think it's awesome but again on the "creative" shots, it's tough
The AF1 shot, I had the same rejection on a shot I took from Hobe with the tower and a LH a380 departing
Just my 2 cents .. Good luck with them sir !
Overexposed? Anyone care to share with me where it is?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawk...n/photostream/
Hi Brandon;Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks7757
I didn't screen this one, but it looks pretty high contrast to me. I like my shots like that but the whites along the fuse on this one are a bit hot. Looking at the levels, the mid range peaks spike right off the graph so you so have some blown highlights.
Pete
I am very surprised how strict JP has become over the last couple of years. Shots that got it easily don't stand a chance anymore. John's DL 744 is a tad underexposed. The first AF1 shot I think would have been an instant add. It's obviously not cropped tight to get the entire tower and airfield and with the exception of the crane taking the eye away from the scene seemed fine to me. Even though the tighter crop puts the fuselage low in the frame it's not the only subject and should get in.
Brandon's overexposure rejection again is close but it is slightly overexposed. The white DL fuselage leaves very little room for error and I hate shooting it when the sun is high. It's brutal to get right.
a little help here!!! maybe someone can explain what im doing wrong.....
Needs CW rotation, soft level personal
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...22_mg_7114.jpg
Harsh Contrast/ contrast personal
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...1_3202b436.jpg
Harsh Contrast
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...6_29057478.jpg
Harsh Contrast/Dark!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...88img_1639.jpg
Harsh Contrast/Soft!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...06img_1691.jpg
High contrast/ Dark/Contrast personal
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...85img_1761.jpg
Grainy!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...89_3571747.jpg
Harsh Contrast/ Grainy!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...73img_0745.jpg
Grainy/ Dark
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...13img_2717.jpg
Quality/ Grainy/Dark/
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...78_7038ke2.jpg
info plz
Sergio, on that first Eagle shot, it looks like it can use a little CW rotation - use the vertical edges of the building behind the aircraft as a guide. The next couple of "Harsh Contrast" ones, were they taken mid-day? Looks like you have bright light on the upper portion of the fuselage, and the bottoms are very dark - I know that's tough with a blue-bellied BA scheme. Can't really tell on the grain issues.
Sergio, I am afraid all were called correctly :-( The GRAINY is somewhat easy to fix as long as you have RAW originals. If not, the JPGs may be able to clean up a bit but no promises :-)
As for high contrast, simple, dial back your contrast a bit... This should not be too hard as long as you have enough data in the shadows in the original images. If you EXPOSED properly for the top of the fuselage or the well lit portions of the aircraft and did NOT overexpose a bit, the shadow areas will most likely have little data left in them. Unless you have a modern sensor and/or RAW originals, correcting for this will be difficult or not possible for A.net quality. I am saying this from personal experience, not judging you :-)
I would love to work with you offline on these as I feel some are terrific and likely have huge potential hidden in there. Ifyou don;t mind, I would like to take one or two of your originals and edit them in my usual workflow and send back to you for your opinion. If you like it, I can share the PSD with all the edit steps intact. I typically use layers for everything so nothing should be hidden.
Moose, I think the 'motive' of your second tighter crop on the VC-25 + Tower is an acceptable off-center condition. At least it is so with A.net rules... Almost all Maho Beach shots are off center to show motive for people on the beach.
Won the appeal on the Delta Shot!
Dark/Underexposed:
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/4/3...1319933345.jpg
Rejected because it's backlit (duh....I guess the guy is a rocket scientist)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/5/5...1319985555.jpg
JP.net recently rejected a photo of mine (here's the A.net version):Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee71
where the plane was hitting/brushing by a tree on final approach.
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter
I know it looks similar to pictures where a tree is in the foreground, and the plane is way above and behind it (in which case a rejection would have been justified), so I reiterated that the plane was at the same height and in the path of the tree, and that it was actually touching the tree. In that appeal, they rejected it again, and stated "perhaps standing somewhere else or shooting just a second later could help". :confused: No s***, Sherlock! Of course I have other pics of this sequence, but this is the only one that shows the plane touching the tree (you know, which is so common on JP.net)! And yes, I should have stood somewhere else, knowing that this plane would hit the tree, and a few leaves would block the gear. Meanwhile, I saw a 2000-era film/slide scan that had just been accepted, that had color, contrast, and centering problems (horizontal stabilizer cut off at the tip and way low in frame) -- and was the dirtiest scan I've ever seen accepted (lint, white spots, film emulsion anomalies, etc.). And there were already 30 pics of that plane in the database. I almost lost it, but decided to just ignore it and not submit to JP.net anymore (or at least for the time being). Not worth my time and aggravation.
So to you, Mark, I say: perhaps you could have stood somewhere else, like 4 miles on the other side, or perhaps you could have used fill-flash. :tongue:
Funny Cary, that shot should have got in anyway. IMO the gear hitting the leaves doesn't matter much to me as the position of the tree, angle and prop blur. Which I think make the shot. Whether you uploaded any shot of that sequence it was worthy and I am glad anet took it. Moose's shot at FRG is also puzzling. It may be slighty underexposed but not dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Who would have thought we would see the day where people would be ranting about something JP rejected that anet took?
Funny thing is, I recently uploaded about 15 pics to JP.net, from a batch that had all been accepted by A.net in the months prior, and I got 3 rejections! Which reminds me that once upon a time (years ago), I got a rejection from JP.net and appealed it, saying "A.net accepted it". Guess what? They accepted it on appeal :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Cary, I am sorry... I called them before they screened them and told them to just reject a few of your pictures because I was jealous of you... and they love me :tongue:
Yes, I'm sure JP.net loves you after they caught wind of your "huge lens".Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Of course that is the best appeal reason!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Can someone tell me what is unlevel about this?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...505ph-ofe3.jpg
Looks like it needs a little CCW rotation, Joop.
I got this reject this am :(
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3635810
I think the plane is fine, but the tower does have some distortion. Does the tower need to be razor sharp also? Is it worth an appeal?
Jeremy, how far away were you and how far off the ground was the aircraft? Look at your tail right in front of the tower... it is heavily heat hazed :-( Tower has nothing to do with it and typically does not matter. Your aircraft is all that needs to be tack sharp and well exposed/sharpened.
Hey Manny;
thanks for the feedback. I was a rather long way away. This was 320mm required to get near fully frame. The plane was a 50-100 feet off the ground.
I can now see the tail is heat hazed, now that you pointed it out. Another one for the personal file.
Ack. Thought I had this one figured out. :confused:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3644679
I leveled it to the handles on the first set of overhead bins.
Bank angle! Bank angle! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Forget the overhead bins use the bottom of the rear door which acts as the horizon.
Either that, or the top of a row of seatbacks.
Jeremy, the best way to level an image that has no TRUE OVERALL guide, is to do it by feeling. Does the image make you feel dizzy or does it just look not leveled? Technically you can select many a reference, and it sometimes works. But when it clearly does not, use the liquid in your ears :tongue: Seriously, your brain is so good at detecting things like vertical lines that it is not easy to fool.
IF you need a good reference point, start with ANYTHING in the center of the frame. If the central vertical lines are upright, the brain (and sometimes screeners) will forgive anything that isn't level on the edges.
Here is the level on the door in the back... better but not by much...
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-pBt9T6c-L.jpg
let's try the seat back reference
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-GX2gRwx-L.jpg
Feels a little better... but now the rear door is leaning a bit to the right. Balance it out until it looks visually pleasing to you. If using Lightroom, pay attention to the gridlines on the rotation/cropping tool.
this one for backlit dust spot, can anyone help?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3654994
Look on the far left side of the image, about one inch down. There is a black dot on the image. What program are you using to edit your shots? If you are using Photoshop, you can create a duplicate layer and equalize it. That will show all dust spots. As far as the backlit, that is debatable since it is an overcast day. The aircraft has a pretty even cast of light on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta777LR
Hey Sergio... here is what I see:
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-WGDVZ9t-L.jpg
and I tried to clean it up a bit and play with curves to try and minimize the look of it being back-lit.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-BrFhWQ4-L.jpg
Original for comparison
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/5/8...1321969853.jpg