Kris, I created a small video on cropping and ratios just for this very question some time ago :smile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av-OgMIAgMI
Printable View
Kris, I created a small video on cropping and ratios just for this very question some time ago :smile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av-OgMIAgMI
In screening we get the jpg file without watermark - there is no capability in the screening tool to zoom, equalize or anything else. Very occasionally I will save the file and open in Photoshop, usually when checking a suspicious area for cloning. However, if we did that for a majority of images the queue would be astronomically long.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Pete,Quote:
Originally Posted by alevik
I apologize, I was actually speaking of the JP.net process I was told that they have a tool on the browser on the URL they use for screening that does a few things like grid for centering checks, zoom, eq etc. Dana has told me many times you guys do none of the above except maybe check suspicious stuff once in a while and that even then, Photoshop can't be used to justify a rejection. That last one is kind of weird as there is never a time where I have appealed and been ever been justified and frankly, we can never tell if a Photoshop EQ was used or not :tongue:
Thanks Manny, that answers a lot of my questions on cropping! :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Now if I may ask on CS5 is there an auto fix or is it all manual?
AutoFix? like what, exposure/contrast/color balance? BETTER than Lightroom :smile:
For cropping in CS5, it sucks ass ... in my opinion, Lightroom is soooo ahead of Photoshop with the crop tool.
So, Auto Color is CTRL+SHIFT+B, Auto Levels is CTRL+SHIFT+L and Auto Contrast is CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+L :wink:
But be careful, they can sometimes bite you... you can use them individually or separately and definitely can be combined in any order depending on the result you want. Make sure you do it on a separate layer, always and mask mask mask!
Realized this was probably a motive rejection, but I wanted to post it here, because I think it's funny:
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...1329202190.jpg
For my next trick, I will land on the roof of this small van...
Because this thread should never die- both for 'soft'
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._0024c_dxo.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...4dsc_0403d.jpg
William, nothing a bit of USM can't fix :smile:
There are of course a bit oversharpened as I was working from your JPGs but given the right workflow, here is an idea of what A.net sharp is: Remember to right-click and view image at full size since the forum likes to resize to 800px wide.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-X7DWQZq.jpg
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-4x9jrc7.jpg
Thanks Manny that definitely looks sharper. I just have to make some time to sit down and actually learn the USM thing. I'm in the 'choose between sharpening the aircraft enough but now the sky is noisy or don't sharpen everything as much but now the plane's soft' catch-22 right now.
Don't sharpen the sky! When I'm sharpening an image, I select the sky, then invert the selection so that only the aircraft is selected before applying USM.
William, Moose is right... I go a bit further just to make it less abrupt...
--Duplicate your base layer or whatever your current final edit layer is.
--Select Sky, best as you can. Using the Magic Wand, change the [tolerance] to help you select more or less of it in one swoop without intruding on aircraft. Think of tolerance slider as the difference in brightness between where you click and any adjacent pixels. The tool looks at the pixels you clicked on (the area used to be an 8x8 grid but that was Photoshop 1.0 :tongue:) and then using the tolerance number you dialed, looks around and keeps selecting as long as the adjacent pixels are within the tolerance number in brightness up or down!
--Invert the selection (in Windows, the shortcut is CTRL+SHIFT+I)
--Grow the selection by 10-15 pixels: Select > Modify > Expand...
--I now like to soften the edges of the selection so that the effect is not so abrupt on the edge of contact between fuselage and sky. Select > Modify > Feather... I use 5 pixels.
--Now sharpen away to taste. After each USM pass or whatever sharpen method you use, go over the layer being sharpened and either mask or erase away areas that have been oversharpened. Flatten your image after each pass and then duplicate again and check for areas that may need more sharpening. The goal for A.net sharp is to have very very small jaggiess start to appear and then back away one level of USM.
If you start with a critically sharp original and reduce to 1024-1200 pixels wide, a single USM pass of say 50,0.3,0 should be sufficient. If your version of Photoshop is new enough, Smart Sharpen is a far better sharpening tool as it is dynamic as opposedto the blunt process of USM :smile:
Thanks for the advice guys, I have heard the 'don't sharpen the sky' bit many times so that is no surprise. I'm actually using Paint Shop Pro Photo X2, I need to translate what you said into how to do it with that software(it was a free gift from the girlfriend)- I'm sure it can do layers and I know it has its own version of USM, just need to figure it out when I have some actual time. Hard to do that between work, my lady, my other photography, training for some upcoming road races, transitioning to the Captain Sim 757-200 and -300, and my 6 guitars.
I was on a strike of sorts with submitting to them for over a year as I refused to become a slave to their ridiculous acceptance criteria, but I decided to make an exception for the 787 and give it a whirl.
William, I hear you. You certainly don't have to upload to them if you don't want to... Do you have your own website? That's what I did and many of us have done to be able to show WHATEVER we like in whatever condition :tongue:
Let me know if I can be of further help... sorry about Corel X2 ... that is not a friendly piece of software unfortunately... powerful indeed, but kind of obscure. Here are some tuts I found on line...
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pai..._Resources.htm
http://www.vtc.com/products/Corel-Pa...-tutorials.htm
You could also use the High Pass Filter to do sharpening. Duplicate the layer, go to filters/other/high pass. Select a radius of no more than 0.3 and hit enter. The screen will turn grey where you will see an outline of the photo. On the layers pallet, make the blending mode to "linear light." Note, this will sharpen the entire image. Simply take the eraser tool and pass over jagged edges, the sky, and any other areas with noise. The beauty of Photoshop is that there are many ways to do the same task.
Here are some of my recent rejects...
Take your pick here: Bad composition, bad framing, and motive. I wanted to point out how Phoenix is creating an air train to pass OVER the taxiway where planes filled with people will pass under. The logic is just mind boggling to me because FOD will fall off of that track onto the taxiway. I don't even want to think about some sort of structure failure over the taxiway. Anyways, apparently JP didn't appreciate what I was trying to display.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/4/7...1330556742.jpg
A bit of heat distortion in this one. This a is a major problem with Phoenix, but it's so much fun to spot at!
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/7/4...1330786471.jpg
This one hurt SIMILAR PHOTO UPLOADED!. Anyways, the similar photo is just of this one coming around the corner. I forgot I had gotten it accepted a few weeks ago
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/5/6...1330786652.jpg
Timothy, I think the motive on the first one is justified as it has lots of dead space ... You could have certainly gotten the message across by cropping tighter and still show the overpass. Perhaps a more balanced image with the plane directly below the structure.As for the overpass, LAX is going to have a sky bridge across the ramp between the two International Arrival Terminals, high enough for an A380 to pass under. I think the engineers have thought through all the issues ... in your image, it looks like a concrete design where the actual bridge is a tub and tracks, electrical, etc. is completely embedded without gaps... having a bridge collapse is highly unlikely in this day and age. I can;t wait to see images shot from the train with traffic passing below :-)
Dark, soft, motive, and they didn't like that I wrote in comments: for NYCAviation
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...eingvisit2.jpg
Dark? A little :-) Soft? hmmm, maybe the tail a little bit? that's a stretch... Motive, indeed, looks like the president did not help :tongue: and the comments, yeah, they have gotten a bit strict on that. For example, no more pixel dimensions allowed. I guess shout-outs are also not acceptable.
And yet, a picture of an airplane shadow on the ground is accepted. That's why I rarely upload anymore.
Oh Moose you must show me that ... I hope it has an airport in it or else I have a few to argue about myself :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
i've seen that shot tooQuote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
REJECTION: Level
"Needs CW"
APPEAL REJECTION: Level
"Does need slight cw rotation, around 0,2 or 0,3 degrees"
I purposely put the first long line slightly off the edge of the building, as the 1px width would cover the edge, making it harder to see. You tell me...does this seem like a website where screeners find reasons to ACCEPT photos rather than reject them, as one crewmember put it? I wrote in the appeal that the building edges were parallel to the photo edges (very easy to tell in my hi-res), yet it's been determined in my 1200px that it's 2 tenths of 1 degree off?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...2179/level.jpg
Ok so this one I don't see it's problem:
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Undersharpened (Soft)
- Too much noise or grain
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/5/5/3...1332766355.jpg
It's a little high in the frame. It does seem to have a little too much grain,but I bet both of these can be fixed. Sharpness seems okay,but that's one thing I seem to have the biggest problem with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris V
Doug
Cary, do you have a version without the lines? It could be perceptual ...
Kris, all counts are accurate in my opinion. Easily fixed if you have a high res version :-)
Cary, there's a simple solution: stop caring. :-). A site that is that bent on rejecting photos probably isn't worth the time spent on it :)
Unfortunately there isn't a site that even comes close to the exposure so the revolving wheel will just continue. Constantly complaining yet constantly uploading.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
Pretty much. It's slowly changing though as other sites pick up more and more of the share of traffic. Top shots on the front page used to knock in way way more than they do now. The wheels are turning, but very slowly.Quote:
Unfortunately there isn't a site that even comes close to the exposure so the revolving wheel will just continue. Constantly complaining yet constantly uploading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
I think I have fixed it now. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by nssd70
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/7/5...1334328571.jpg
All that exposure has ever gotten me was plenty of requests for free pictures. I think I've uploaded two pictures in the past year. I really don't care any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Not sure what sites you are talking about but that wheel is turning very slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
http://www.alexa.com/search?q=airlin...einfo&p=bigtop
same here. airliners & jetphotos are the last places I will post to these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
The Top shots on A.net isn't indicative of the site traffic (although I'm convinced Demand Media thinks it is). It's only indicative of how many shots A.net promoted on their FB and Twitter pages, and how quickly they were promoted after being added. So, the days you see 20,000+ views in the Top 5, it's usually because a photo was promoted within a few hours of being accepted. They quickly get about 1k views per hour, and hog up a place in the Top 5 for the rest of their first 24 hours. On days where the Top 5 is much lower, it's because they haven't promoted newly added photos (but the number of photos that get into the Top 5 is much greater, since they continually cycle through all day long).Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
Any idea on what horizon I should be leveling to in this shot? Shooting these 3/4 shots rather than straight on is still giving me fits :mad:
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/6/0...1334016062.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3816965
You can use the fence or trees in bg :-)
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-5xR5Dwq.jpg
A bit of a pedantic rejection I will agree Cary (I didn't screen this one). if you look at the horizontals on the buildings right and left though, they do indicate a bit of cw required. However, I would probably have HQ'd the image because it looks level for the most part. When I get rejections like this I just adjust a bit and re-upload.
I'm not trying to defend the screening process - it will have flaws as there are many humans involved in judging photography which is very subjective in nature.
Jeremy if I was screening your Delta CRJ, I would immediately drag the window to the right side of my monitor and look at those three grey posts under the horizontal stabilizer. That indicates it needs some CCW rotation.
So even with Cary overlaying perfectly level vertical lines on the buildings on BOTH sides of the photo, AND a perfectly horizontal line with the ground, you still think it needs CW rotation? This my friend is one of the reasons people are not uploading to that site as much. It's almost as if they are looking to reject excellent photos just to say they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by alevik