They all look dark to me, and most look like they could use a little CW rotation.
Printable View
They all look dark to me, and most look like they could use a little CW rotation.
Its funny because only two had underexposure listed as a reason for rejection. A few listed CW as a reason, it was hard with few buildings to guide to and an uneven runway. They looked good to me in CS6. Everyone except for the two DL MD-90s listed over-sharpening as a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
I just don't get this. Maybe one of you non-noobs could help. Here are the pics and reasons for rejection.
Reason: Oversharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/9/7/9...1355434979.jpg
Reason: Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/3/1...1355435132.jpg
Reason: Oversharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/4/3/2...1355435234.jpg
Reason: Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/3/6/6...1355437663.jpg
Reason: Oversharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/1/4/8...1355437841.jpg
Reason: Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots, Horizon unlevel
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/9/9...1355437992.jpg
That last one I really don't understand. I appealed the 2nd one because there was nothing wrong with the airline info I put (Untitled). Thoughts?? What should I do better? Thanks as always.
The last photo I see a huge dust spot just to the left of the tail,and just a little CCW.
Doug
Yes I saw that and a smaller one right over the cockpit area; I fixed both. I will try again. What about the other ones?? Also fixed the CCW.
The aircraft not centered reject seems valid, it looks a bit low to me. Oversharp is a bit hard for me to judge, what is your workflow? Are you cropping a lot and then sharpening a lot? Try to fill the frame, but leave enough room to level it up.
Yes the more I look at it, it seems a bit low. Its funny because A.net loves really sharp images, while jetphotos rejects for it. Here is my workflow:
1. Level image (using the ruler tool)
2. Crop (3x2 ratio)
3. Adjust Levels
4. Resize to 1024 pixels wide (Bicubic sharper)
5. Duplicate backkground layer
6. Use magic wand to select the sky, then select inverse
7. Unsharp mask, 200% at .2 radius. As many times as I see necessary.
8. Eraser for oversharp areas.
9. Flatten.
10. Duplicate again, then equalize.
11. Clean up dust spots, then delete the copied layer.
Finished. BTW, I always shoot raw so obviously I make those adjustments first.
I these two got rejected for "poor editing of sky" and "odd looking sky," respectively. Any thoughts?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_5484_bcs.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21212_3557.jpg
Yeah, shows up pretty readily in EQ... and be careful, on the Thai, you can see you clearly did some extra doctoring on the Sky, perhaps even copy/paste or clone. You could get yourself banned :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-czCGpFp-L.jpg
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-XZxG93b-L.jpg
Alex,Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaA330
The screening was spot on on all of them in my opinion. The sharpening is borderline neither here northere. Remember it will be a judgement call by the screener in the end so there isn;t a clear cut THIS IS IT sharp :-)
As for your workflow, I'd change a few things.
--ALWAYS try and make all your edits on the FULL SIZE image... the last thing you should do is sharpen and save
--Make your workflow in order of MOST destructive to LEAST destructive step by step.
+ Spot Removal First
+ Denoise
+ Exposure/Contrast/Levels/Color Balance etc.
+ Resize
+ Sharpen
+ Save As... (Never "Save for Web...")
--Sharpening will depend on each and every image... (to me at least. I use a brand new sharpen workflow for each image. Never same formula unless absolutely identical images within minutes of each other)
--If shooting RAW, sharpening will be MUCH different than if shooting JPG
--If editing JPGs, sharpening differs depending on the settings of your camera, the contrast levels in the scene, etc. etc.
Good luck!
Thanks, Manny. I'll have to re-edit that seam--that was where I removed a dust spot. Do you think that's why it was rejected for poor editing?
That and the bad halo on the tail... I can see it even without equalizing :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
This was rejected for "Blurry." I don't really see how it is blurry, do you guys think so? Is it worth an appeal?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/0/4/4...1357437440.jpg
Alex, it looks to me as if the front of the plane has a little motion blur. It's most noticeable on the nose gear door number and on the red static port outlined boxes. The right side of the plane looks okay. When I go through my pics, for F9 A319s especially, I always like to check the static port boxes at 100% to see if they have crisp edges or are soft in any way. Here is one of my recent additions, where the outline was pretty sharp:Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaA330
Thanks Cary! I just don't see how much blur could warrant a rejection. Anyways, it's fine because I got a shot of the same a/c taxiing accepted.
No problem. You wouldn't believe how many old (and some new) pics I have, where one side or small area has the slightest bit of motion blur, and the rest of the plane is sharp. It's devastating for me to go through those pics now :) Normally A.net is more strict and JP.net is less strict with borderline cases like that, but maybe JP is getting more picky.Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaA330
Can anyone see where this is blurry? oversharpened? contrast?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4100026
Sergio, it looks oversharpened to me in a lot of places. Perhaps a pass at a lower setting, or use Smart Sharpen which is a much better algorithm than USM.
now this one for backlit, soft, and contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4111731
Hey folks, a little help here.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4130475
The rejection is, in my eyes, valid for various reasons. However, I got "undersharpened" and "bad composition". In regards to sharpness, I actually thought I was on the edge of being OVERsharpened. In terms of bad composition, well, I guess I don't handle that kind of angle quite yet. Any suggestions on these issues? (yes, I do realize the shot is too dark, etc.).
Thanks!
Edit: Same here: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4130469
Slightly too high in frame, so I understand the "bad composition". But I got undersharpened, and this is where I'm puzzled.
Rom, that's an easy one to fix...
--Soft
--High in frame
--A little dark...
So just center it more, sharpen it a bit more, the rear of the plane is softer than the front...
If you have the original and want me to give it a go, feel free to send me the file off-line and I will gladly do an edit on it and see if it suits you :-)
Hey Manny, thanks :)
I'll PM you a link. So it is indeed undersharpened then... Lately, I have switched from PS to Lightroom which is much noob-friendlier, but I don't seem to be getting results.
I do all my MANAGEMENT and initial RAW processing in Lightroom... but final edit is still in Photoshop for me. I have yet to find good formulas for what I do in PSCS5 in Lightroom... I may one day but for now, AUTO-CONTRAST alone in Photoshop is an invaluable tool missing from LR :tongue:
Rom,
Thanks for giving me a chance to edit your image. I think you weren't too far off (to my taste and that of what I think JetPhotos was looking for) .. here is a before and after...
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/5/4...1358785458.jpg
Mine is a bit oversharpened, but that's because I did not mask like I normally would and given that vBulletin will resize it, I overdid it a bit to make it show better as resampled by the forum. But you get the idea. The WINDOWS is what I usually sharpen more ... the rest I pull back a lot. I do usually different passes for windows, wheels, lines, titles etc. depends on the shot/plane...
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...xx42XXB-XL.jpg
BTW, you should also take a look at your sensor... seems to be a bit dusty and that is a surefire way to get an easy rejection,especially JetPhotos!
Thanks Manny! Definitely sharper. Windows: do you select each window individually, or do you select the zone around them? I always find it hard in PS to select specific zones/objects accurately. Like I want to select a window and bang, it selects the entire tail....
Yes, my sensor doesn't look quite right. Not that it carries a considerable amount of dust spots, but I always feel like my images look "foggy" somehow. I think I need to find the thread in this forum that explains how to clean sensors and the tools required (I'm kinda chicken about doing that though!).
In any case, thanks for your input!!
Rom,
While I do clean my own sensors, I would suggest just taking it somewhere that does it. Eric knows a great place in NYC that can do it while you wait... (I always forget the place)
So, I never actually select stuff like that :-) Layer Masks are your friend! I will do whatever I need to do to an area in a separate layer.. .apply the effect to the whole image, no selections.. .then I mask the entire layer in black. Using a white brush, I paint over the areas I want to apply the effect to 9essentially I am just REVEALING that layer in those areas) and I can go back and forth revealing more or less as I please... no complicated selections.
Only try to do magic wand selections on large swaths of color.. like blue clean skies. Otherwise, you'll be spending some time at your Psychiatrists office !
Your FOGGY sensor is the Lens you;re using, NOT the sensor. This is the effect of a cheaper lens wide open. I am not knocking you or anyone, but this is just factual. Unfortunately, those lenses will only start to perform well when they are stopped down a lot. The primary reason the 70-200mm f/2.8 is $2100+ and the 70-300mm is less than $500 is because of that.. CA correction and contrast and expensive coatings are not part of the formula. :-( Sadly, it is nothing you can do other than try to stop down a lot which robs you of light meaning higher ISO ... In full sun, ISO 400 and f/8 to f/11 on those lenses will work out to about 1/500sec minimum to a decent 1/1000sec so it would work nicely.
TEST my theory, do not take my word for it. Set up your camera on a tripod and take a series of pictures at different apertures... from wide open to fully stopped down. Make sure you use a far subject that is HIGH above the ground... like a distant building. Try to mimic the conditions a plane will be in ... You will find the lens' sweet spot or the best aperture that will give you the most contrasty and less milky images.
Thanks Manny,
It is indeed a cheap lens, and it shows in my aviation photography. Which is why I stopped this activity for a while because each picture is a battle. HOWEVER, it does perform much better in other situations. I have nice results every year at the US Open for instance, it is sharp in spite of the moving "objects" :P
But yes, aviation photography with my current equipment is EXTREMELY frustrating. Oh sure, you'll make it to anet once in a while, but even when I do, I look back at the picture and think that the screener was probably wasted ;) I have compared my photos to those of other folks using the exact same equipment on JP and anet (D60 + 55-200-cheapster), and I could not honestly see any major differences quality-wise. I feel that I am reaching the limit of what my current setup can offer, at least in the aviation photography field.
And of course, there is the KNOWLEDGE, which I am seriously lacking.
Made a little boo boo. This one gets rejected because I forgot to place Night on the category. I wasnt sure what was missing but the screener mention that because of the horizon shadow.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4132691
I'm not sure why these two photos got rejected? Worth an appeal?
This one, subject to far away, but I thought I had motive for doing so.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4134509
This one they claim is not level, although it looks pretty dang level to me.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4134500
Should I appeal?? Thanks guys!
Both are fixable and the rejections I believe were warranted in both instances... great shots though :-)
The first one, I see your motive but it may not be strong enough for the screener. I say you could still show the effect and tighten the crop a bit... maybe there is a happy medium?
Second one, well, it is very obvious to me it needs a lot of CW. Easy fixes I believe
Sergio, the JP.net dark category is definitely an odd one... I argued it once and they really were serious about it being just before actual sunset (which is technically NOT dark) and that they should use the rule at least as within Twilight and Dusk ... but no, I was told it has to be any long shadows, dark category... Kaz should be the expert by now on exactly when is the cutoff time for Dark or not :-)
Rom, you are SERIOUSLY being too hard on yourself. You do know that much lower end equipment is used all the time. Marseno Bremmer of SXM fame uses a Panasonic Bridge camera and he gets great results.Quote:
Originally Posted by RomNYC
I think the conditions you are shooting in may be at play.
For example, my rule for resizign a photo to 1200px wide is that the final BEFORE cropping... once I am done with all the editing etc. and cropping, has to be 3000px wide... only then do I reduce to 1200... if it is 2800px and it is SUPER SHARP original, I may reduce it to 1024px wide and see if it works.
If you're resizing from anythign less than 3000px you are really gong into maybe territory. In my experience, anything less is hard to edit correctly down to 1200px ...
On the contrary, a 7000+ px wide frame from my camera with a really poor quality consumer lens such as a 55-200mm with heavy CA and Fringing etc. can be somewhat easily reduced to 1200px and cover up all the flaws and look like a terrific shot at 1200px wide.
Let's chat more next time we are together. Perhaps some of my techniques or editing can help you feel better about your photos.
And don't let anyone kid you here... it is NOT that easy to get a clean shot of a moving object... sure it is made to look easy by Mark and Cary and Kaz and Eric, but those guys have been shooting planes since like 1990 or even before!!!! :)
Thanks Manny, I still feel my motive was appropriate. Should I appeal?
Thanks Manny, took a few rejections to get them right :) Here is how I go about it, pretty much if there a tint of yellow from dawn or dusk lighting, I go with the night shot, just to be safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
This is where it is starting to get to that point:
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/3/3...8907863_tb.jpg
This is pretty much a must at this point:
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/4/1...1305871_tb.jpg
Photo Tech Repair Services IncQuote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
110 E 13th St, New York, NY
(212) 673-8400 · phototech.com
Agreed 110%. A lot of people think there's some magical post-processing that makes photos better, and while there are some techniques that help, the key is to start off with a tack sharp, well-exposed photo, with the plane covering as much of the sensor as possible. I still kick myself for only filling < 75-80% of the frame on shots...and that yields about 4,000+px width on the 5DmIII as a starting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
As for the JP.net "Night shot", I have asked them repeatedly to change their description, or the criteria. It still reads: "Night Shot: Depict an aircraft in night/dusk/dawn lighting?" Dawn is before sunrise, dusk is after sunset...so sunrise/sunset shots shouldn't be classified as Night Shot according to that. Let alone post-sunrise and pre-sunset :confused:
Excellent, thanks Eric.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
The first one is a toss up. It is a good shot, tells a story and has an aviation theme......but for jp/anet it is sometimes more about cataloging than aviation.Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaA330
Second one looks pretty good to me also, perhaps .3 degree ccw. Take it with a grain of salt, I had 4 horizon rejects in the last week!
Not sure I would appeal.
jeremy
This is getting frustrating. Rejection number 4 for this photo, all for the same reason! Horizon unlevel yet again...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4140971
Again this one too, after two motive rejections now rejected for being soft.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4140978
Not sure what do now. It seems like some of my photos of airliners get accepted even though they are far less quality than these and other photos I have of general aviation aircraft. Does jetphotos sometimes reject just because the subject of the photograph isn't an airliner? It sure seems that way to me...
Alex