Printable View
Sergio, the helo crop now does look soft/distance... looks like you cropped a lot to get the tighter shot... there aren't rnough details in the original to get a good sharp result...
The first one is obviously CCW... just use the GUIDES in PS and make sure that very prominent building is STRAIGHT as a soldier! ;-)
Manny,
You may be confused because me and Sergio have similar user names, but I am not him. I believe he is Delta777LR, I'm deltaA330. Ya I've tried rotating both ways a little but no dice so far. Do you think the helicopter has a chance I add some USM?
Alex
Apologies Alex... yes, there ought to be a rule that screen names MUST be very different :tongue:
Anyway, what do you mean you tried?
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-Qhr6Vb6.jpg
I assume you shot from the Observation Park... if you look at the position of the terminal relative to your position, it is at almost 45 degrees to you..
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-BmjhrLC.jpg
This means the horizontal lines in those buildings SHOULD drop down and to the right as viewed, but your VERTICAL lines should still be vertical as long as your camera sensor is also perfectly vertical... the lines will begin to skew if you move your sensor up or down vertically (pitch?) otherwise the tower should be straight... and from the looks of it the aircraft is straight ahead from your position, not too far up or down... hope this BS makes sense :biggrin:
The helicopter is DISTANT and SOFT which means it will be VERY HARD to save unless the original is VERY VERY sharp... even then, if your resulting crop is less than 3,000px wide BEFORE reducing, I personally will not bother... but yours may be of higher quality. Feel free to PM me with the originals if you;d like me to give it a go :-)
I think I will send you them. I actually have a bunch of the helicopter but I felt that one was the best with the snow. But maybe I'll see what else I have regarding that. I will send you later today. Thanks very much!
Alex
Got 4 more for ya (ugghhh!!)
Soft again (even with 800% USM!)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141885
Over sharpen and similar photo (which makes no sense because I don't have any pics of this plane yet)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141888
Over sharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141891
Blurry
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141898
The E90 is pretty obvious... I would say even heat haze and distant as well...
The ERJ may be appealable (is that even a word? :smile:), does not look oversharp to me... the SIMILAR sounds like some other pic in your queue, not yet accepted maybe?
The MD-80 looks a bit over the border, maybe due to softness in the original and compensated for by extra USM in post... the jaggies should be TINY, as close to dots as possible... the longer they look, the worse your chances of making it look great at small resolutions. Try it at higher res (1300, 1400, 1500, 1600) and see if it looks any better... also go down to 1000px as well and see..
The Beech 1900 is a bit blurry but the wingtip gives it away the most... it also is a bit overexposed/too contrasty to me, but could just be the snow reflecting (snow on the ground?)
Yes I have has this problem with many small planes like that. As for the ERJ, I agree. And no, I don't have any other pics of it in the que, which is why I am confused. MD-80 I thought was fine but apparently not. Finally on the Beechcraft, I had a hunch it was blurry. Yes there is A LOT of snow on the ground! I'll try another picture of the Air Canada and see how it looks.
The Chautaqua ERJ...you can see the tail# is severely over sharpened. On my monitor it is heavily "jaggied"
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/3/1/7...1359901713.jpg
I love the reason for this one....part of aircraft cut off. Ya think?
It also looks soft in the nose area.
Jeremy, Try making a crop closer to the wheels on this type of crop
http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/4/7...1310853447.jpg
Horizon unlevel again, 5th rejection on this for the horizon
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4149309
Overexposed (There was snow on the ground)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4149290
Do you really think the Air Canada was overexposed?
The edge of the tower looks pretty darn straight to me. I wonder how they're coming to the conclusion that it's unlevel.Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaA330
The Air Canada has blown highlights, so I would recommend bringing down the exposure a bit.
Had a few contrast rejects from this day.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4148508
I assume it needs a bit more contrast?
Try less...look at your histogram.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Ya that's what I said! They're probably like, "UGHH!!!, not THIS guy again!! We are SO SICK of seeing gosh darn GRR! Lets find ways to reject his shots!" LOL! I do understand the Air Canada rejection and have revised the photo accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
I guess I do not understand. What component of the histogram should be guiding me? When I look at the histogram it looks a bit overexposed if anything. It seems to have a reasonable distribution of lights and darks.Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
Is there a spikes on the extreme edges of the histogram? That's what gives the shot a harsh look. Also when you correct levels, are you doing it in RGB? Or are you doing it by individual color channel?
I can still see a bit of CCW unfortunately :( Alex, this is really a simple matter of NAILING the level... you have enough straight lines to guide you.. not sure what you;re not doing but the arbitrary level tool should be useful instead of doing it by eyeballing it ...Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaA330
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-BMD7kM4.jpg
here is what the Air Canada Express should look like to my tatste (yours may vary). Aim to see details in the fuselage
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-krzg9CN.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
See if this helps... While there are sharp spikes, they are not up against the right hand side and also not too high up on the scale. Also, notice how the middle of the histogram got fatter? That means more data is now visible in that range of grays (yes, they are all grays per layer of color :tongue:)
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-nSmnqh5.gif
Everything I learned about histograms and color correction after much reading on the subject, was from the great Dan Margulis. I suggest you read him and learn a lot about how digital data is stored and used to represent real world scenes. Absolutely great learning from any of his books. The ...Canyon Conundrum... being my favorite!
His recent Picture Postcard Workflow is a terrific video tutorial from what I hear (have not had the pleasure...)
http://www.danmargulis.it/index.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
Thanks for the help guys. This was a horrible light day, but AF1 was in town and I figured I would give it a go.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Levels correction is done in RGB.
Even though its quicker to do it in RGB, you'll have more accurate correction using individual channels.
These rejections I'm going to have to call BS on!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4154787
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4154787
Both rejected for overexposure and CMOS dust spots. The overexposure I can see, but given the time of day and the amount of snow on the ground pictures are just going to look a bit brighter. The dust spots are totally messed up by the screener. The "dust spots" he/she saw are water vapor coming from a building nearby, anyone can clearly see. When equalized, NO dust spots are seen anywhere! I'm going to appeal, because whoever screened this clearly DID NOT take his/her time actually looking at the photo.
Alex, sorry, no BS and you only linked one image twice... what is the URL for the other one?
In any case, the one above is clearly NOT overexposed; the brightest white I can find is about 251 level out of 255. Bright but not over in my opinion...
But it does indeed have large dust spots!!
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...QLZsqgJ-XL.jpg
Equalized I can see them clearly, but some curve work can show them even more
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...cg2LB6p-XL.jpg
Oh wow, when I equalized none of that seemed to show. Weird. The other must be the same.
Why do you find it weird? If you;re not equalizing your FINAL JPG that you saved for upload, you're not really seeing what THEY see... always keep that in mind. I usually save the file and then open it back up in PSCS6 and EQ and Curves to see if there is anything I missed. Now for some of the rules applied by the two main database sites as I know them:
JP.net
--ANY dust spot or blemish will be revealed via EQUALIZATION even if invisible in regular shot and will be rejected (usually) and they are VERY good at this ;-)
A.net
--Screeners MUST be able to see the spots and/or blemishes UN-EQUALIZED ... Equalization is at the discretion of the screeners to CONFIRM something noticed in the regularly screened image as seen by anyone as normally displayed. So if there is a spot in the image but it is not discernible to the naked eye, it gets a pass usually.
Another trick to use (one used by the screeners at A.net is to rapidly circle your eyes around a picture. Your eyes are so good at hiding the HOLE in the back of the retina (where the optical nerve is) that you miss stuff that's directly focused / projected on that spot. By moving your eyes around quickly you pick up subtle differences in the image such as spots quite easily.
I am equalizing the final JPEG, it is just hard for me to see dust spots for some reason. I guess I'll just have to train my eyes to see them better. It also doesn't help that my computer's screen is below average.
Also good to know is that screeners use either a 24inch S-IPS panel or larger at at least 96dpi and hardware calibrated. If you are not doing the same, you're just guessing and getting lucky ... seriously, the A.net database literally wants perfect shots or close to it. There is no point in thinking of it any other way... you can upload to literally any other database or on-line gallery... they may not be as strict... but A.net is aiming to have the highest standards and that's their turf, whether you agree with it or not ;-)
What do you guys think?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4156617
You're in a double edge sword world there - the top of the aircraft is very bright - which can be classed as over exposed. While the Air Canada red titles are good - the express and the reg seem soft - just comments from looking on my Mac - if you can selective sharpen the tail area before processing - I think you might be in a better place...
Thanks Mark! I can see soft, but overexposed I dont think so, given that the sun was high in the sky, few if any clouds, and tons of snow, so photos will be a bit brighter, right?
It does look overexposed to me as well, mainly the fuselage. I would play with the brightness a bit. As for snow, sun, etc. the screeners don't know that and I believe they screen regardless of the conditions. First impression is important, and my first impression was "whoa, bright!". Should be easy to fix, try again because this is a very sweet shot.
Overexposed in Minnesota :)
Reprocess, dial back the exposure a hair, sharpen a bit and it is in.
I've said it numerous times in this thread already...LEARN YOUR HISTOGRAM! It will not only end your exposure issues but it will help with the overall sharpness of the image as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaA330
WAAAAY overexposed, Alex... I actually SHOWED you how to get it better and you ignored good advice? Shame on me...!
Here is the edit I showed you a few days ago and compared to yours... It still shows the BRIGHTNESS of the conditions yet it has some details visible in the fuselage. It is a balancing act. But you seem to be trying to force a square peg into a round hole. You are NOT playing by YOUR rules... it is THEIR rules you play by... You never get an argument from Flickr or from Facebook... or your own website. IF you want to upload to the main two databases, you need to learn how to accept the fact that the way they want the pictures is just the way they should be. In this particular case, you have many people telling you it looks overexposed and indeed it is a bit... I also think the contrast is a bit much in your last version... in any case, my edit isn't far from yours so I do not believe it is a huge effort for you to accept it as it being a bit over.
My Edit a few days ago...
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-krzg9CN.jpg
Your image from above post
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/1/7...1360887716.jpg
I'm sorry Manny, I thought I was taking your advice when dialed back the exposure but I guess I didn't do it enough. I will try again.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/7/9...1361033976.jpg
Horizon unlevel (leveled it on building on the right)
Obstructing objects (they said the AIRSTAIRS are an obstructing object? Come on now.)
Categories wrong/missing (biz-jet?)
Not happy with that reject.
Hey guys;
Got this one from the LA trip.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/1/6...1362453615.jpg
Yes, bits are cut off, but I have the most important parts :)
Any suggestions on a better crop?
Unfortunately any air stairs blocking the aircraft will get that rejection. Sucks but it is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by adscram14