If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I suspect that blurry is just an excuse to reject the photo. I think both of the photos are equally crisp and equally blurry. z740 might be on the right track about the lettering in some sense. I think the wingtips are both equally blurry it is just more noticeable with the lettering. I feel what makes the second photo stand out somewhat unique and is probably why it was approved is the reflection on the finish seems to be slightly more appealing in the second photo.
IMAO. I think both photos are superb, I think the second photo looks slightly better because of the reflection on the finish. I think both photos probably took about the same artistic and technical skill to take; I think the second photo was just a little more lucky to get the light angles to look a little nicer.
I think you also had the misfortune of having a photo of the aircraft with the lettering on the wing tip.
Thanks. I'm trying to work out the logo on the wing tip. I've gotten it the tiniest bit better but the letters are essentially right on top of each other. --
The whole plane is blurry, including the signage on the plane. The other photo you linked too clearly shows some of the finer detail whereas you shot doesn't, especially around the tail area.
Fixing it will be hard, as blurriness is caused in the camera, usually from hand movement, or object motion. Becasue it is in the origianl it is hard to get rid of.
Three different sets of screener eyes looked at the shot and concluded that it was blurry.
And ATFS Crash, we dont reject just as an excuse to reject. We look for reasons to accept all the time, otherwise we wouldn't have over 1.25 Million photos in the database, with over 16000 pics added so far this month.
I'm sorry but the "whole" plane is not blurry. The only thing slightly out of focus in my eyes are the letters on the "Sign works" logo and the small funky comic sans letters underneath Pedro O'Hara. Other than that it looks good to me.
The whole plane is blurry, including the signage on the plane. The other photo you linked too clearly shows some of the finer detail whereas you shot doesn't, especially around the tail area.
Fixing it will be hard, as blurriness is caused in the camera, usually from hand movement, or object motion. Becasue it is in the origianl it is hard to get rid of.
Three different sets of screener eyes looked at the shot and concluded that it was blurry.
And ATFS Crash, we dont reject just as an excuse to reject. We look for reasons to accept all the time, otherwise we wouldn't have over 1.25 Million photos in the database, with over 16000 pics added so far this month.
Even though you can't see his face, the pilot in my photo is in better focus than the other photo, the red star in my photo is no better or worse than the other photo. The yellow arrows are no better or worse they're brighter and just as sharp, the red stripes are no better or worse they're brighter and just as sharp. "Finer details" wasn't a reason for it being rejected. Some of the rivets don't appear in my photo because of the lighting.
That’s not what I said and your response doesn’t make any sense. The photos looked equally crisp and blurry. As I said it I think the text on the aircraft makes any blur more evident, I don’t think it is the photo that is different I think it is the subject matter that is different.
The angle that the photograph is shot at also makes the depth of field more of an issue in the first photograph because the aircraft is somewhat diagonal to the camera, whereas the second photograph the aircraft is parallel to the camera. So the subject in the first photo is using a greater depth of field, whereas the subject matter uses less depth of field in the second photo. Both of the photos were shot with a shallow depth of field which is evident by the blurred trees in background and the blurred photos in both photos on the wingtips.
IMAO for the most part both photos have the same degree of crispness and blur.
Instead of trying to compare the photographs to each other by details that are not evident in both photographs, perhaps you should look at details that are equally relevant and each photo for a more equal comparison so you’re not thrown off by the subject matter.
Compare the cockpit lines, the rivet and sheet metal lines.
The optics in the second photograph look inferior. It looks like the optics precision is in the center of the lens and it looks like there is more blur in the extremities of the photograph. Notice that there is more blur near the nose cone and the nose gear of the second photograph than in the first photograph. From my experience that is from inferior optics/lenses.
That’s why some people spend several grand to get a lens that is optically made more superiorly. Also using lenses like fluoride can let more light in an increase your depth of field. I’m not that familiar with digital photography but I’m pretty familiar with legacy film photography. Perhaps you’re familiar with someone that me and my father consulted with, named Harold Edgerton (AKA popa flash). Perhaps you’re familiar with some of my fathers photography, such as using plastic explosives and high speed film for the blade off tests. I suspect you’ve never heard of something in photography called color reciprocity failure. It mainly has to do with high-speed flash photography with legacy film, where the emulsions of different colors expose at different rates depending on the speed of the flash. Thusly at extremely high speed many films colors shift depending on the speed of the flash. Different types of film and even different lot numbers can react differently to hi speed flash and require a unique color balance.
My eyes are getting relatively old, but the crispmess and the blur look about the same. Of course I didn’t bother to download the photo and take a close look at them, perhaps you did. Perhaps your eyes are better than mine. However it is also possible that you have a stigmatism or that you are thrown off/prejudice by the details in each of the photos.
I tend to agree with MrC_5151 and he seems to agree with me.
(Color reciprocity failure has nothing to do with these photos, I was just letting you know that I’m well versed in some aspects of photography. Photography is easy now days. I was well versed/experienced in photography when it was still very difficult and expensive. You may be familiar with Edgerton‘s work, he‘s the one that first photographed bullets going through Apple‘s, playing cards. Also develops special photography techniques and film for reconnaissance aircraft and filming nuclear bomb explosions. He has some very famous photographs and footage.)
I thought maybe it was a limited categorization thing on automated form. I thought perhaps blurry was the excuse that closest match your views. As I said the reflection in the second photograph might give the second photograph the appearance of having greater detail, though the true detail is probably about the same. Like I implied I think the lettering in the first photograph makes any blurring more evident, whereas the second aircraft basically lacks the lettering. I have the impression that the lettering is altering your perception and judgment/interpretation of the blurriness.
Perhaps you should look into optical illusions. Perception and interpretation has a lot to do with analyzing photography.
That’s not what I said and your response doesn’t make any sense. The photos looked equally crisp and blurry. As I said it I think the text on the aircraft makes any blur more evident, I don’t think it is the photo that is different I think it is the subject matter that is different.
To quote the first line of your first post...
I suspect that blurry is just an excuse to reject the photo
The angle that the photograph is shot at also makes the depth of field more of an issue in the first photograph because the aircraft is somewhat diagonal to the camera, whereas the second photograph the aircraft is parallel to the camera. So the subject in the first photo is using a greater depth of field, whereas the subject matter uses less depth of field in the second photo. Both of the photos were shot with a shallow depth of field which is evident by the blurred trees in background and the blurred photos in both photos on the wingtips.
IMAO for the most part both photos have the same degree of crispness and blur.
Instead of trying to compare the photographs to each other by details that are not evident in both photographs, perhaps you should look at details that are equally relevant and each photo for a more equal comparison so you’re not thrown off by the subject matter.
When screening each photo is taken on its own merit, no comparisons are made except to check for double/similar uploads. A pictures quality must stand on its own.
Compare the cockpit lines, the rivet and sheet metal lines.
The optics in the second photograph look inferior. It looks like the optics precision is in the center of the lens and it looks like there is more blur in the extremities of the photograph. Notice that there is more blur near the nose cone and the nose gear of the second photograph than in the first photograph. From my experience that is from inferior optics/lenses.
.............
From the look of the original picture it looks like a basic case of a blurry in camera pic that has then been overprocessed with sharpening. The finer detail can look ok, but there is a point where no amount of shaprening can help some edges.
Looking at the EXIF (digital pictures have the camera shooting information embedded in the picture), we can see the shot was at a focal length of 400mm (with a 1.6 crop factor as well making the real length 640mm), an aperture of f5.6, and a 1/400s shutter speed. At 400mm a 1/400s shutter speed is a bit low, it really should be up around 1/800s (double the focal length). I would be willing to bet the f5.6 would mean that the lens was wide open at that focal length as well (and not doubt exposing the weakness of the glass at that length).
If the lens had IS, VR, or OS a 1/400 shutter speed would certainly be achievable, but this type of shooting has its own problems. You need to adapt your technique to using this type of lens. When the IS,VR, or OS is turned on there is a slight instability in the lens while it starts. I have seen pics come out blurry where the shutter has released before the initialisation has finished. But any sort of stabalisation sometimes cant fix all the problems.
I don't doubt your knowledge in photography, don't see what it has to do with your original post that called into question the rejection excuse as just an excuse. We screen thousands and thousands of pics each week/month/year. The sort of problem in this pic is not new and seen numerous times every sceening session. After a while it becomes very easy to recognise.
Perhaps you should study Modern Digital Photgraphy.
From the look of the original picture it looks like a basic case of a blurry in camera pic that has then been overprocessed with sharpening. The finer detail can look ok, but there is a point where no amount of sharpening can help some edges.
Your original post asked for advice on how to fix this picture. The answer is, you can't because it's blurry.
How can you avoid it happening again ?
Practise your panning techniques.
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment