Pre-Screening Feedback - Schmave

Schmave · Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:57 am

Hi all, and thanks in advance. I've been struggling a little to get some shots accepted here and would like some editing feedback. I had two photos rejected recently:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 642ce4008e
This one had rejections "Info", "Personalized Message", and "Underexposed". Ok I get the first two, but maybe there is just a little too much contrast giving it an underexposure?

I re-edited this photo and uploaded it again:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 70ef87ef15
This time I got a bunch of rejection reasons: "editing", "blurry", "category", "quality", "soft", "halos". The only major changes I made were to some of the exposure settings. I don't really get why there are so many more rejection reasons on this version with just a few exposure adjustments. Can someone enlighten me?

I also edited another shot in this sequence and uploaded it to my Flickr account here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/justinkan ... 2/sizes/o/

Do you think this one would get accepted? Any feedback would appreciated.

Runway28L · Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:14 am

The first image is a bit blurry; also underexposed but not too bad. However, it looks like you over-edited the second image. Way too bright and you probably lifted the shadows too high hence the haloing and other issues.

I like the third image the most. Although it looks a bit oversharpened and needs some noise reduction (both easy fixes).

jelpee · Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:10 pm

#1 and #2 are definitely underexposed and blurry. #3 looks over sharpened in the process of compensating for blur. Perhaps you have another one from the sequence that does not show any blur that would be better.

Jehan

Schmave · Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:46 pm

Thanks all for the feedback. For the 3rd image I agree I may have over-sharpened it a bit, but I'm still trying to get a feel for the sharpening "standard" here.

Both RAW images look plenty sharp to me when I pixel peep them. It is just after resizing and sharpening I'm having a little trouble getting it dialed in right. I'll try re-editing the 3rd one after work today with a little less sharpening and see how it looks.

jelpee · Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:02 am

When screening, if jagged edges (jaggies) are prominent along lines and edged, that indicates over-sharpening. When I apply sharpening, I do it on a duplicate layer. If jaggies are visible, then I use the eraser tool and remove the sharpening from those areas.

Jehan

Schmave · Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:10 am

Here's a re-edit of the 3rd pic above with less sharpening:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/justinkan ... 4/sizes/o/

What do you all think, is it passable? Thanks.

Schmave · Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:21 pm

What do you all think about this pic?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 0259d5a208

Runway28L · Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:00 am

Front half of the aircraft looks blurry. Seeing some minor halos around the tail and terminal building in the background.

I also see part of a reflection below the fuselage and near the engine, since it seems like you took this through a terminal window.

Schmave · Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:15 pm

Runway28L wrote:
Front half of the aircraft looks blurry. Seeing some minor halos around the tail and terminal building in the background.

I also see part of a reflection below the fuselage and near the engine, since it seems like you took this through a terminal window.

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah I guess the front of the aircraft could use a little more sharpening. Is the reflection you are talking about a slight vertical line in front of and below the engine? I guess there's not much I can do about that.

jelpee · Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:05 am

I would try this at a smaller size (1200 pixels) with a light round of sharpening.

Jehan

Schmave · Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:14 am

jelpee wrote:
I would try this at a smaller size (1200 pixels) with a light round of sharpening.

Jehan

Thanks for the tip. I re-edited this at 1200 px wide. What do you think?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8acaa84f6d

Thanks

jelpee · Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:38 pm

I see a bit of over-sharpening (jaggies) on the trailing edge of the tail including the insignia on the tail. If you applied sharpening using a layer, you could apply the eraser tool and remove the sharpening in that area. Did you resize and sharpen your previously edited version? I recommend starting from you original image, resizing to 1200 pixels first, and then edit and apply your sharpening as the last step.

Jehan

Schmave · Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:47 pm

jelpee wrote:
I see a bit of over-sharpening (jaggies) on the trailing edge of the tail including the insignia on the tail. If you applied sharpening using a layer, you could apply the eraser tool and remove the sharpening in that area. Did you resize and sharpen your previously edited version? I recommend starting from you original image, resizing to 1200 pixels first, and then edit and apply your sharpening as the last step.

Jehan

Ok thanks. I did start from the original and resize first and then added sharpening. I do see what you are saying with the tail. I toned down the sharpening in the tail a little bit and re-uploaded here.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... b44c6d1bc1

airkas1 · Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:04 pm

For the last link, the fuselage looks a little soft, but otherwise it's a nice photo.

Schmave · Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:06 pm

airkas1 wrote:
For the last link, the fuselage looks a little soft, but otherwise it's a nice photo.

Thanks! Do you think it will be accepted as is or should I go back for more sharpening on the fuselage? Also, are you talking about the outline of the fuselage or the lettering, logos, etc.?

airkas1 · Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:55 pm

Windowline and titles. I would sharpen it a lottle more before uploading as final edit.

Schmave · Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:11 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Windowline and titles. I would sharpen it a lottle more before uploading as final edit.

Ok thanks. I'll do this later tonight.

Schmave · Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:26 am

Ok I re-uploaded the Etihad with a bit more sharpening. Hopefully that does it.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f6fec86a1b

Schmave · Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:12 pm

OK all, so I just had this photo rejected for being "soft":
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 33a30f0d2a

This was one of the ones I had pre-screened. One of the pre-screened versions was said to be too sharp, so I toned it down a little. Now the screener says this one is too soft. It is barely less sharp than the one that was "over-sharp". Is it just me, or is there some inconsistency with screening, particularly when it comes to sharpening? I think I should appeal based on feedback I got from the forum here.

Schmave · Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:48 pm

Hi, thanks all for your help. I just got my first photo accepted!
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Etihad-A ... /5321549/L

jelpee · Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:09 am

Schmave wrote:
Hi, thanks all for your help. I just got my first photo accepted!
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Etihad-A ... /5321549/L

Congratulations! Glad it worked out.

Jehan

jelpee · Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:11 am

Schmave wrote:
OK all, so I just had this photo rejected for being "soft":
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 33a30f0d2a

This was one of the ones I had pre-screened. One of the pre-screened versions was said to be too sharp, so I toned it down a little. Now the screener says this one is too soft. It is barely less sharp than the one that was "over-sharp". Is it just me, or is there some inconsistency with screening, particularly when it comes to sharpening? I think I should appeal based on feedback I got from the forum here.

Sharpening can be subjective. It looks acceptable for me.

Jehan

Schmave · Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:54 am

How does this one look? Captured the other day from San Diego:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a04df62da4

jelpee · Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:32 pm

The Alaska A320 looks too bright for my liking. Other aspects of it look fine for me.

Jehan

Schmave · Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:28 am

jelpee wrote:
The Alaska A320 looks too bright for my liking. Other aspects of it look fine for me.
Jehan

How does it look now? I dropped the exposure just a little bit:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2d73c9cf92

airkas1 · Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:33 am

Looks alright to me.

Schmave · Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:20 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Looks alright to me.

Thanks! I'll leave it in the queue.

Schmave · Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:44 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Looks alright to me.

airkas,

I just got a rejection for the image above that you thought looked alright. The rejection reasons were "soft", "low contrast", and "noise". Is this worth an appeal? I don't really see the soft or noise, and at least at this time of day the sun was pretty low, so the bottom of the aircraft was illuminated a bit.

For reference here's the direct link to the image:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2d73c9cf92

spompert · Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:04 pm

There`s noise on the belly of the plane and right wing, it also looks a bit soft to me

Schmave · Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:24 am

spompert wrote:
There`s noise on the belly of the plane and right wing, it also looks a bit soft to me

I mean, I guess I disagree, but whatever.

airkas1 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:00 pm

Not seeing the noise. It's on the soft side, but still passable for me. Contrast; next time a bit more won't hurt.

Schmave · Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:55 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Not seeing the noise. It's on the soft side, but still passable for me. Contrast; next time a bit more won't hurt.

Ok, so do you think it's worth an appeal? Thanks.

airkas1 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:30 pm

Yeah, try it. Will see if I can catch it.

Schmave · Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:56 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Yeah, try it. Will see if I can catch it.

Thanks airkas. I just submitted an appeal.

Schmave · Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:49 pm

Hi all, I have a couple more images I was hoping could get pre-screened. Here are the two:

Southwest 737: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a0c6f34277
United A320: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 472d9c05f4

Thanks in advance.

JakTrax · Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:14 pm

Both look a bit cyan to me and the UA looks soft/blurry in parts (and oversharp to compensate).

Karl

Schmave · Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:45 pm

JakTrax wrote:
Both look a bit cyan to me and the UA looks soft/blurry in parts (and oversharp to compensate).
Karl

So they were both taken just before sundown, so the colors look more or less as they did at the time. I thought about correcting the white balance for the UA based on the fuselage, but then it didn't look right for the time of day.

For the UA, are there specific areas you think are blurry or OS?

Thanks

JakTrax · Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:13 pm

Hmmmmm. I've been shooting for a very long time and I've never seen colours like those close to sundown - I'd expect more red/yellow.

With the UA the whole of the rear above the gold cheatline looks a touch soft to me, but the titles look oversharp. Could be the light, though. Not sure I can see blur, looking at it again - I have long stated that it's very difficult to tell from such a small image. The original file will tell you for sure.

I'm not really the right person to ask here as I only ever determine the level of sharpness from my original files.

Schmave · Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:50 am

JakTrax wrote:
Hmmmmm. I've been shooting for a very long time and I've never seen colours like those close to sundown - I'd expect more red/yellow.

With the UA the whole of the rear above the gold cheatline looks a touch soft to me, but the titles look oversharp. Could be the light, though. Not sure I can see blur, looking at it again - I have long stated that it's very difficult to tell from such a small image. The original file will tell you for sure.

I'm not really the right person to ask here as I only ever determine the level of sharpness from my original files.

Ok, after looking at them a little more I think you are right, they both have a bit of a green cast. If I use the color picker and choose something that should be white to change the WB it definitely looks better, though it makes it not look like just before sunset. I can add a slight bit of yellow to the color temp and I think it makes it look more like the time it was actually taken.

The original file of the UA A320 definitely looks sharp 1:1 in the original file. I think I'm still just figuring out the correct amount of sharpening for uploading here.

I re-edited both and re-uploaded. I think they look better now, but what do you all think?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 73048bd5bb
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... fbf1c60311

Thanks

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net