Printable View
It does have some JPEG artifacts around the NWA logo and the windows, and also on the tail. But I only noticed it because I spent two years working for a company that makes image compression software. You might be able to fix the windows in PS, if the problem exists in your source image. And you should definitely be able to fix the tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by hiss srq
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1508328
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1508321
Should've really gotten that last piece of tail!
Story of my life :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
May seem off-topic, but after looking at Ryan's DC-9, what the flip is jpeg artifacting?
I don't think thats off topicQuote:
Originally Posted by stuart schechter
Jpeg artifacting is when you compress an image into a smaller file size, some data is is discarded by the program that is changing the file size. Technically speaking, since Jpeg images aren't lossless, all images suffer from artifacting, but usually that is not noticeable. Basically, there are a few types of compression, contouring, posterizing and blockiness.
If you open up a photo in photoshop and go to save it, drag the quality bar less than 12 and save it (lets say, save it as 3) now look at the file, you will notice the artifacting, in the case of Ryans Dc-9 photo, you can see it around parts of the fuselage, like the nwa symbol and windows. Iv'e seen rejections at A.net and Jetphotos for compression, but it was actually oversharpening, but its not likely in this case, because the rest of the image is not super-sharp.
Ryan, is your photoshop quality setting set to 12 (highest)?
I hope that answers your question.
Thanks for the help Matt. I am going to give it a shot again tonight. I have the orig file still.
Another crock of **** Airliners rejection.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 2-redo.jpg
Soft and quality my ass.
Actually, I would agree with both of themQuote:
Originally Posted by hiss srq
Ryan it looks like it could use a little more sharpening. Not sure why you got the bad quality rejection tho.
Bad quality is a BS reason to reject a picture like this. According to some Anet screeners, Anet uses this reason when they feel a picture is overall "ok" but doesn't meet with their standards and they can't pinpoint what exactly they should reject it for, sort of a contradiction IMO. A quality rejection should only be given to a picture that is really bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
It's clearly stated on anet that the rejection reason for bad quality is just that so what is the issue? It's their standards, not ours. I took at look Justin Idle's pic of the same aircraft in the same position, I am assuming they shot together but his looks a tad better and a little more sharp on this crappy work monitor. A better edit may be all it needs.Quote:
Bad quality is a BS reason to reject a picture like this. According to some Anet screeners, Anet uses this reason when they feel a picture is overall "ok" but doesn't meet with their standards and they can't pinpoint what exactly they should reject it for, sort of a contradiction IMO. A quality rejection should only be given to a picture that is really bad.
Dust spots?? :shock:
Please tell me they made a mistake? I hope I don't have a dust problem :shock:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1512508
try equalizing it in photoshop and then take a look at the pic... you'll know thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
This was the last thing I thought this shot might be rejected for
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... LN-RKH.jpg
What'd it get rejected for. The frame that says rejected for is gone.
Chris sorry to say all of those rejections reasons are spot on. You do have three large dust spots in the lower left of the picture. The conditions at the time just don't look as though you would have got very good results. The lack of light and the dark body of the helio just don't mix well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
I can see how frustrating uploading can be. I thought I had a knack for this. :| :|
This was rejected for soft.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... N17244.jpg
And this was rejected for soft and bad centering.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... UPmd11.jpg
Can you please yield some advice guys? I'm truly at a loss especially with the CO photo since I thought it might be a touch OVERSHARP.
advice?
They do seem a bit soft, but not too bad. Just a quick sharpening should be good.
It's a fine line Mario. I've gotten a number of rejections on photos I thought were oversharpened. Usually when I think it's good, I give it another pass of USM. I guess it's the difference in calibration between my eyes and the screeners. 8)Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrodie
What do they mean by dirty scan/CMOS dust spots?
I know there is one dust spot but what is a CMOS dust spot?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1515061
You have dust/dirt on your sensor, which is why you have a few dust spots on the image. Try cloning them out and use equalize to see where the spots are easier. But don't clone while equalize is on.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirtrafficController
Here's a trick I learned for PhotoShop (should work in PS Elements as well) - create a duplicate layer, and equalize that layer so you can see the dust spots (actually, I select just the sky and equalize that, it helps them stand out even more.) In your layer control window (not sure if that's what it's really called) select the original layer, but leave the top, equalized, layer visible. I then clone as I normally would, but you won't see any results as you go along. When I think I've gotten them all, I discard the equalized layer, and check the original layer (equalizing if needed). If I missed any dust spots, I simply repeat the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by njgtr82
Thanks guys I did take away the dust spots.
Another one : :cry: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1515325
You see how you have a line in the sky that looks like you just did it with a paint brush? The picture is also soft. I don't know if it is salvageable.
It's low in the frame and dark too. Badquality all around. Make it easier on yourself and shoot in ideal conditions while you get your feet wet.
*Categories wrong or missing*
What did I do wrong here?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519268
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519263
Just out of interest Matt, did you have the special scheme checked? That's one I always forget.
Ahh, that must have been it, does that not auto-fill???
Not that I have seen - it's usually something you have to fill in yourself.
TAMQuote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
Eric you use PS correct? The TAM seems like you over did it. I'd reduce the HUE and the sharpening. Also are you deselecting the sky? If not I would. I always leave the sky as is and never increase the blueness of it, when you do it seems the entire photo looks to worked over.
Southern Air
I don't think the Southern Air is soft, in fact to me it looks over sharpened, its def overexposed. Try shooting in TV mode next time at 500th to 800th of a second, I know you have a 30D and that's what I've been using with great success.
Emirates
Same suggestion as the TAM, it’s not soft though.
LAN
Same suggestion as the Southern Air, again it’s not soft. I don't know why the screener though it was soft.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1519985
Now that I look at it, it is boring.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517974
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517967
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517949
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517703
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517687
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517678
many rejections! :|
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... .jpg-1.jpg
rejected for jagged areas....help?
I remember that day Mario! Pic is oversharpened. Re edit and back off the USM a bit.
Mario, the flag on the tail. I got hit with the same type on the same paint scheme into JFK.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 39U-bk.jpg
And another. I dunno., I'll back off, but I find that with Anet, I'm getting rejected for either sharp or soft. I can't win.
Mario the two shots you posted are oversharpened big time. Here is my shot from that day of the 727. I purposedly did a little less sharpening and figured the subject would make it easier to get in.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1167738/L/
On your Emery you have jaggies all over the place and the overall look is way overdone. Back off a bit. The light was perfect when we shot at Ikea so you shouldn't need much USM.
This photo was pretty much DOA out of the camera, but I'm a big fan of the T-6, so I took a stab. It was donked for the contrast - anything more and the sky behind gets totally blown out. Oh, well.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1531974
Ugh,
Categories wrong or missing
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536858
Comment: cargo category needed
Over Processed / Bad postprocessing
Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536854
Comment: Halos (WHAT? Can someone help me here with what the screener ment?) Can someone also show me where the dust spot is because I could not find it, I just tried every trick in the book (it doesn't help that my screen is dirty though)
Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536857
Again, can anyone spot it?