pre-post screening spompert

spompert · Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:53 am

Hello this one was rejected for motive (too much to the right) and soft. Is it really unbalanced like the screener says? I think I have seen similar shots like this before and wonder what is wrong with it. Agreed with screener? Unfortunately it is displayed in wrong size (too big) in this post (at least at my computer) and therefore I can not ask opinions about quality right now.

ricox · Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:35 am

Honestly I agree with screener, usually I cut until I reach the plane nose or I balance the two engines so I cut the left side. I see the image @ 1280x854, I don't know if it was the original size but I see it very soft.
Bye

spompert · Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:04 am

Thanks, I have edited the mainpost so now the photo is visible in real size (1024). So you mean it would be better to cut off more of the right side? I have to be honest the whole right(side) wing is not of good quality and therefore I prefer to not display it.

ricox · Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:26 am

I don't know how much original shot is cropped but you could try to cut on the left around the initial part of the central flap on the left of engine and, on the right you could cut a bit more.
Pheraps some light is needed under the plane .. then if anyother could help you for the soft is better... I'm not so expert ;-)

airkas1 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:46 am

You could crop closer to the engine on the right side of the frame, but in my opinion it will still be unbalanced then. Quality looks pretty marginal to be honest.

Joshu · Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:35 pm

I am not on my screening comp but it also appears to have some softness/heat haze to it.

spompert · Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:21 pm

Hello, this one was rejected for motive (unbalanced crop), also after appeal. How can I crop better? I don`t really see the problem and have seen similar shots...thanks

PeterB · Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:29 pm

spompert wrote:
Hello, this one was rejected for motive (unbalanced crop), also after appeal. How can I crop better? I don`t really see the problem and have seen similar shots...thanks

Out of curiosity, I just searched the database for accepted images with a similar crop.

Especially with regard to your second image (KLM B777), a rejection for the motive is ridiculous. So, I would rather suggest to change your name than the crop.

jelpee · Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:26 am

I typically crop to include the entire aircraft, or I do a nose to tail crop but make sure that I don't crop in the middle of the engine. The image of the Condor B767 is passable since it includes the horizontal stabilizer. In the KLM B777, it seems unbalanced on the right side of the frame. Here's what would work better:

Jehan

spompert · Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:37 pm

Thank you Jehan for showing. I just uploaded a new crop that looks very much like your idea. We`ll see what happens now...

spompert · Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:25 pm

Thanks guys

spompert · Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:31 pm

Hello the following photo was rejected for dark and motive (too many obstructions). Is the motive rejection justified in this case? I thought with a window view the main subject is the plane of which the wing is shown and the background is less important. Ofcourse it should be interesting enough like a landscape or in this case an apron with some planes (and that there are some obstructions is not that kind of a problem)? There are enough window views with no planes at all in the photo. The rules are applied for the background and that`s at least new to me. Hopefully you get my point. It could be that this shot is not interesting enough for the database but that`s another discussion.

jelpee · Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:38 pm

I think you have a valid point on the motive.

Jehan

airkas1 · Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:47 pm

Hey Stefan,

Motive-wise your image is fine.

spompert · Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:53 pm

Thanks for the confirmation. I will focus on the other rejection reason. Greets Stefan

spompert · Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:03 pm

I am trying to get my first silhouette shot accepted. It`s getting rejected for dark twice now (and oversharpened last time). Isn`t the subject of a silhouette supposed to be dark? Or do they mean the space around it? It might not be a good example for a silhouette and maybe better move on. Not sure.

spompert · Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:59 pm

Hi, hope this time there will be some feedback again. This one was rejected for soft, dark and banding. I guess with soft they mean the wing, is this true? Do I need to brighten the wing? And I can`t see the banding to be honest. Is this fixable? Thanks

jelpee · Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:38 pm

Re. the silhouette, perhaps if the sky had some color, it would make for an interesting image. Otherwise, I can see how it an be judged underexposed/dark/backlit. Definitely see jaggies on the trailing edge of the wings and horizontal stabilizer.

Re. the window shot, overall the wing and winglet look underexposed. Looks like you exposed for the background. Overall, it looks dark. Soft as well: perhaps a result of shooting through layers of the window. Banding refers to the dark gradation at the top of the frame compared to the mid section. It looks very pronounced in this image. IMO, best to move on.

Jehan

spompert · Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:52 pm

Okay Jehan, it makes sense what you are saying. I`ll spend my time on others. Thanks Stefan

airkas1 · Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:00 pm

For what it's worth Stefan, that's one helluva view!

spompert · Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:34 pm

Yes Kas that was quite a flight, flying along the Himalayas in Nepal.

spompert · Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:50 pm

I wish everybody a happy and healthy new year! Thanks for the feedback this year and hopefully I can see a lot of interesting shots from all of you again in 2017. Greets Stefan

spompert · Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:33 pm

Hello there, I have some troubles lately with my new lens (Canon 100-400II) to get the sharpness right. Most of my photos are rejected for oversharpening. I have to admit I process them mostly the same way that I was used to do with my other lenses but apparently the new lens asks for another approach. I can`t really see many jaggy lines on this rejected photo. Can you? Perhaps the logo on the tail and winglets? Thanks

jelpee · Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:24 am

Sharpness looks fine to me. Can I confirm that this image was rejected for oversharpening?

Jehan

spompert · Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:28 am

Hi, yes it was only rejected for oversharpened. Should I appeal this one?

jelpee · Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:47 pm

spompert wrote:
Hi, yes it was only rejected for oversharpened. Should I appeal this one?

Stefan, I think it is passable and with an appeal.

Jehan

airkas1 · Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:59 pm

I agree with Jehan.

spompert · Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:27 pm

Thanks both, I`ll try to appeal.

spompert · Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:31 pm

Oversharpened was upheld but now blurry and quality was added. "Insufficient quality at such large size". Didn`t see that one coming.

airkas1 · Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:02 am

It's easy to say this now, but earlier today I did think blurryish, but when I looked at it later (when I posted), I thought it was passable. Sorry for the wrong advice.

spompert · Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:35 am

No problem, I had a look at the original and indeed it is not the best I ever have shot. I`ll retry at smaller size later.

jelpee · Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:38 pm

Ah...my miss as well...I just viewed the image that you embedded. I down loaded it and looked at it at full size, and see the blurry. Next time I need to download and view the image at full size before dispensing an opinion!!!

Jehan

spompert · Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:18 pm

Hello there, some photo I just don`t seem to get right. I fixed it already for oversharpened once. It was rejected for clockwise rotation so I rotated a bit. Now it`s rejected again for clockwise rotation and noise has been added as well. I had a look at some other photos that day from the same place and the vertical poles you see are absolutely no good reference to determine levelness. They are really leaning to the left. I am pretty convinced it`s level. What do you think? And the noise, is it below the wing and on the engine a bit? It looks really minor but maybe it`s there. Please click for full view to see in real pixels. Thanks and greets

jelpee · Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:54 am

Stefan, perhaps the screener is judging based on the vertical posts in the background. Based on those, some CW rotation is needed. I adjusted in PSE and about 1 degree looked like it should be OK. As for noise, at full size, some noise is visible in the dark area of the engine exhaust area. Without the registration number, I can't tell if this is a common airframe (i.e >100 images already in the DB). If yes, the standards are more stringent for acceptance.

Jehan

spompert · Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:01 pm

Thank Jehan for you time and reply. I have improved it and uploaded again. I now have a photo rejected for distance. Is this really the case? What is the maximum gap that is allowed? Personally I don`t like the really tight crops. Greets

airkas1 · Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:33 pm

There is no maximum gap distance, it's up to the screener. While the above crop is passable for me, it really shouldn't be any bigger without a good reason.

spompert · Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:00 pm

Thanks, I appealed and it was added. At least now I know this is about the most loose crop you want to have. Greets

jelpee · Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:51 am

Hi Stefan, I think you may have benefited from the fact that there was only one other image of this aircraft/registration in the database and therefore "rare." :shhh:

If this had been a common airframe, it probably would not have made it. Best to crop close to the aircraft unless there is good reason (motive) for space between the edge of the frame and the aircraft.

Jehan

spompert · Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:55 am

I keep struggling with the Singapore A350. Still noisy and soft now. I carefully removed noise from the engine and below the wings. Is it really still not acceptable? And whatabout the softness, where can I best sharpen slightly? Please click for full resolution. Thanks

310815 · Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:05 am

Hi Stefan,

yes it is a bit soft, visible around the titles. I think the fuselage could do with another pass of sharpening. As for the noise I am pretty sure that the darker taxiway is meant, as I had similar rejections for noise lately. In my personal opinion that is pretty minor, but you can work on it when sharpening it more and it should be fine.
I can help you with the noise if you want send me a mail.

See you
Julien

jelpee · Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:37 pm

Hi Stefan, I looked at the full size image and there is visible noise in the dark areas of the rear of the engine--sufficient to warrant a rejection. Soft area is minor IMO.

Jehan

spompert · Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:25 pm

Thanks both, now something new. This one was rejected a while ago with the remark "soft in parts". I only sharpened the right wing because I couldn`t see soft parts and now the photo has been rejected for oversharpened. So my question is, where are the soft parts in this photo? Thanks so much

airkas1 · Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:17 pm

To be honest, the fuselage of the A350 looks a bit blurry.
As for the 737, sharpening looks alright, but a bit marginal in general.

spompert · Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:05 pm

Thanks, I retried the A350. This Turkish was rejected for overexposed. I can only see some overexposure on the back (some flare) but I did not thought that it would be a problem. Maybe the tail logo is to bright?

jelpee · Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:22 pm

Hi Stefan, the entire fuselage seems overexposed and "glary". To me the window line looks rather washed out. Sometimes the angle of the light just does not cooperate!

Jehan

spompert · Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:09 pm

Thanks, you might be right. I`ll try another shot.

jelpee · Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:41 am

I see your SQ A350 got accepted...nice!

Jehan

spompert · Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:39 pm

Yes, thanks Jehan, special thanks to Julien for helping with editing!

310815 · Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:10 pm

You're welcome Stefan. Just for the record: Actually the original is of decent quality (really sharp), the problem was just that the exisiting file was reworked quite a few times which made it look like maybe having some quality / sharpening issues.

spompert · Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:51 pm

Hi guys, rejected for pink cast. I personally don`t see it that much, maybe a bit yellowish. But on the other hand it was quite late at day. Opinions wanted, thanks.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net