Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

llpilch - prescreening request

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post

    Thank you! But please, as a senior screener, what do you think about it? Is it REALLY an issue here? Does it worth appealing?

    As I said on the "comments to screener" when I uploaded it, and as I said in the post #92, there is absolutely nothing on the post processing creating this bandings, it's just a lot of shades of orange fading to black in a dark sky almonst an hour before sunrise in a 8 bit JPG file with sRGB color space.

    I tried my best on the second upload, the banding was reduced, not even in the equalized image the banding is so strong. If it's possible to eliminate it from the JPG photo, I really don't know how...

    Being honest with you as much as possible: not even the vignetting is there, I uploaded a wingview as example of photo with similar conditions, it's natural, the rest of the sky is black...
    Unfortunately the print screen on post #92 is too small and it is not visible, but the lens profile is activated with vignetting correction, there is no vignetting on both lower corners of the frame...

    Thank you for you attention and help
    For me (as you may have guessed), the processing was not an issue. Try converting the raw file to a 16-bit TIFF first, doing all of your editing, then resizing, and then saving as jpeg. I find that usually eliminates most or all banding.

    I can see the vignetting pretty easily, even in the thumbnails. Given its location in both corners, it's pretty obvious it's from your lens.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Screener who rejected it said it was for the banding in the sky, not any halos.
    Thank you! But please, as a senior screener, what do you think about it? Is it REALLY an issue here? Does it worth appealing?

    As I said on the "comments to screener" when I uploaded it, and as I said in the post #92, there is absolutely nothing on the post processing creating this bandings, it's just a lot of shades of orange fading to black in a dark sky almonst an hour before sunrise in a 8 bit JPG file with sRGB color space.

    I tried my best on the second upload, the banding was reduced, not even in the equalized image the banding is so strong. If it's possible to eliminate it from the JPG photo, I really don't know how...

    Being honest with you as much as possible: not even the vignetting is there, I uploaded a wingview as example of photo with similar conditions, it's natural, the rest of the sky is black...
    Unfortunately the print screen on post #92 is too small and it is not visible, but the lens profile is activated with vignetting correction, there is no vignetting on both lower corners of the frame...

    Thank you for you attention and help
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post

    ok, thank you!
    Screener who rejected it said it was for the banding in the sky, not any halos.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Can't really say much about the vignetting. It is there, probably should have been mentioned in the first rejection.

    As for the bad processing, I've contacted the screener involved to see what they thought the issue was, and I'll post here when I find out.
    ok, thank you!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post

    Hi, asking for help with the same photo again
    Can't really say much about the vignetting. It is there, probably should have been mentioned in the first rejection.

    As for the bad processing, I've contacted the screener involved to see what they thought the issue was, and I'll post here when I find out.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Banding visible in the sky. May be compression rather than processing. Needs CW rotation.
    Hi, asking for help with the same photo again

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10459184

    First, thanks for the tip of the horizon, taking another look I had to agree with the unlevel, so I applied 0,3 CW, looks better!

    Now about the vignetting, which wasn't even an issue on the first rejection: there is no vignette at all, dark corners are visible only in the upper part of the image, the lenses does vignette in all corners. The image was taken in the early moments of dawn at about 45 minutes before sunrise, the sun rises exactly in that part of the sky seen in the image (see planet Venus next to the tail), that part is more lit than the rest of the sky, it's natural, just a bit up this frame the sky was black.
    It is an 4 seconds exposure image, the sky was very dark.

    And then comes again the overprocessed/bad post processed. I'm assuming it is due to the banding again, which is way weaker than the first rejected upload and should not be a problem, but as I said: dawn, dark sky, a lot of orange tones in a fading to black sky, pollution and dust in the air from a big and dry-weather city close to the horizon, even in the raw file some banding is visible, imagine it after converting to a 8 bit JPG in sRGB color space! It is impossible this conditions will provide a smooth color transition...

    I attached a print screen of the original RAW. In this image only the color profile and and lens correction were applied as my Lightroom is set to do it by default when importing the files.
    Notice how the corners in the sky are dark even with the lens correction and the ground are not, how the pollution close to the horizon creates a strong and sharp division between the orange and the black, how the sky fades to darkness to the left, right, and up.

    Plus, see how the image was cropped cutting off the corners, the most affected area by vignette

    Sorry for the long text, thanks in advance for your attention and help.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hi, please some help here:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392896

    I can't see any sign of over processing or bad post processing, no halo at all, no noise reduction, looks normal.

    About the horizon: there is no good reference, the horizon itself is not visble due to rugged terrain, but the photo looks ok. There's only a tower hard to be seen above the tail, and a pole under the tail, wich looks vertical. By the way, not reliable references since it is too much to the left of the frame, taken with a wide lens. More to the center there is some equipment with vertical lines which looks ok also. The plane doesn't seem to be "climbing or descending a hill"
    Banding visible in the sky. May be compression rather than processing. Needs CW rotation.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hi, please some help here:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392896

    I can't see any sign of over processing or bad post processing, no halo at all, no noise reduction, looks normal.

    About the horizon: there is no good reference, the horizon itself is not visble due to rugged terrain, but the photo looks ok. There's only a tower hard to be seen above the tail, and a pole under the tail, wich looks vertical. By the way, not reliable references since it is too much to the left of the frame, taken with a wide lens. More to the center there is some equipment with vertical lines which looks ok also. The plane doesn't seem to be "climbing or descending a hill"

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    We generally don't comment on rejections that have already been appealed.
    The 737 was not...

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hello!

    I would ask some help with this two rejections, please:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10253620

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10266224

    What am I missing? (beyond the bizzjet category )

    The 737 is totally fine for me, in the parts with more contrast there is including a white border, like under the entire fuselage, landing gears, horizontal stabilizer... The only problem with this photo is the conversion to .webp, done by the site, wich I have no control. It affected the title "Gol", the tail painting and the winglet, but looking the colors/lines that were not affected by the .webp conversion, where is soft?

    The Legacy, as the 737, looks pretty good. The blue line on the fuselage length is a bit jagged specially on the nose, the cockpit windows, the small registration on the tail, the wings, specially the one that is lower in the frame, everything looks ok on the entire frame.

    Both photos has the same appearence in sharpening that a lot of photos that I'm getting accepted, including from the same day, with the same equipment and edited togheter. Also both photos comply with the site standards, it's easy to find here photos wich are equal or even more soft than mine, and please, don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that those photos are bad and if they were accepted, my photos should too. I'm just saying that there is a standard here.

    Sharpening vary from monitor to monitor and is a bit subjective, we can't be so rigid with it, there is some margin, a bit more soft is ok, as a bit more oversharpen, I do believe these 2 photos are totally inside this margin.
    We generally don't comment on rejections that have already been appealed.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hello!

    I would ask some help with this two rejections, please:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10253620

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10266224

    What am I missing? (beyond the bizzjet category )

    The 737 is totally fine for me, in the parts with more contrast there is including a white border, like under the entire fuselage, landing gears, horizontal stabilizer... The only problem with this photo is the conversion to .webp, done by the site, wich I have no control. It affected the title "Gol", the tail painting and the winglet, but looking the colors/lines that were not affected by the .webp conversion, where is soft?

    The Legacy, as the 737, looks pretty good. The blue line on the fuselage length is a bit jagged specially on the nose, the cockpit windows, the small registration on the tail, the wings, specially the one that is lower in the frame, everything looks ok on the entire frame.

    Both photos has the same appearence in sharpening that a lot of photos that I'm getting accepted, including from the same day, with the same equipment and edited togheter. Also both photos comply with the site standards, it's easy to find here photos wich are equal or even more soft than mine, and please, don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that those photos are bad and if they were accepted, my photos should too. I'm just saying that there is a standard here.

    Sharpening vary from monitor to monitor and is a bit subjective, we can't be so rigid with it, there is some margin, a bit more soft is ok, as a bit more oversharpen, I do believe these 2 photos are totally inside this margin.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    This plane is at a junkyard at my city, it's registration is PT-DEM, can the first photo (the green one) be accepted? Just upload the location as "Brazil - other location - name of the place"?

    What about the second photo (yellow)? It was taken in 2012 and I don't remeber why I took the photo on the wrong side, so it's backlit. But there isn't any photo of this plane here, and today it is green, maybe this backlit photo of the plane being used as ad sign have a historical value, what do you think?
    1. contrast quite harsh
    2. backlit means unlikely to be accepted

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    This plane is at a junkyard at my city, it's registration is PT-DEM, can the first photo (the green one) be accepted? Just upload the location as "Brazil - other location - name of the place"?

    What about the second photo (yellow)? It was taken in 2012 and I don't remeber why I took the photo on the wrong side, so it's backlit. But there isn't any photo of this plane here, and today it is green, maybe this backlit photo of the plane being used as ad sign have a historical value, what do you think?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    hey!

    Wanted another opinion on this one
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10085068

    The histogram is cool, the contrast between the plane and the background are also fine, the entire aircraft is perfectly distinguishable from the background, nice colors, nice contrast visually. The weather was not that bad, is was pretty clear in fact, is visible how there is plenty of light on the fuselage and a weak shadow on the ground.
    This one is not related to the histogram, but to the overcast conditions. I don't think there is much more you can do here.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    hey!

    Wanted another opinion on this one
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10085068

    The histogram is cool, the contrast between the plane and the background are also fine, the entire aircraft is perfectly distinguishable from the background, nice colors, nice contrast visually. The weather was not that bad, is was pretty clear in fact, is visible how there is plenty of light on the fuselage and a weak shadow on the ground.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X