Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you!

[ErezS]

Erez,

Just to quickly address a few of your rejections.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3973599

This one is also quite soft. Where I hear you might ask? The wingtip is very blurry and soft, the nose gear is very soft, the bottom of the fuselage leading to the tail is very soft. Infact the entire outline of the aircraft is generally soft and this can be caused by over use of the noise reduction tool.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3973639

This one, there are thin white halos around most of the detailed areas of the aircraft, likely caused by using a large radius during sharpening. The top of the wing is also very soft.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3973609

I was the final screener on this one and noticed at the base of the wing root, and along the bottom of the front of the fuselage, there is an area which looks like it's been selected by the wand tool and the colour/brightness changed slightly. I've circled the area in red below. This may not be what what you have done but it is certainly the sae effect and is what I would call bad processing. I apologise if the original image is like this, but I really don't think it is.

I hope this helps you a bit in understanding what the screeners are seeing in your images. Just becareful when you talk about showing the images to your skilled friends who don't see anything, it's almost as if you are implying that none of us screeners are skilled

Dave

Thank you Dave for the reply and explanation.
About the photograph of the Sierra, now it's my turn to apologize, you're right, it was my mistake.

About the Cirrus SR22-G2 see please attached a new edit, without any noise reduction.
Is it better?
If it's not better, the reason as above is not appropriate in this case.

Regarding your comment at the end of the answer, no, I haven't any claim that members of crew are not skilled. Just write what other people think about it.

I hope to receive also responses about the issue of "Horizon unlevel".

With kind regards,
Erez.

[Mr Chips]

Regarding your re edit, it looks just as bad so you must be doing something else which makes it look over processed. The dessert in the background still doesn't look right, and the aircraft is still blurry and soft in areas. I doubt you'll ever be able to edit that particular shot up to database standards.

Now lets look at some of your images that were rejected for being unlevel.

1) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3973630

Look at the buildings in the background on the left hand side, they are leaning to the left, and there are also a few vertical lamp posts in there which are also leaning to the left.


2) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3973624

Same again with this one, buildings are leaning to the left.


3) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3964060

Look at the buildings in the background of this one, they are all very clearly leaning to the left.


4) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3966466

This image, whilst it doesn't have any buildings, is leaning a bit too much to the left. From your other images, we can already see that whilst there is a slight downward slope at this area, it is not as steep as in this image hence it requires CCW rotation.

It looks like you only had 4 or 5 images rejected for horizon unlevel. Writing a long paragraph in the screeners comment box when uploading will not prevent us from rejecting images for unlevel horizon should we see that an image looks unlevel.

Dave

[ErezS]

Regarding your re edit, it looks just as bad so you must be doing something else which makes it look over processed. The dessert in the background still doesn't look right, and the aircraft is still blurry and soft in areas. I doubt you'll ever be able to edit that particular shot up to database standards.

Now lets look at some of your images that were rejected for being unlevel.

1) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3973630

Look at the buildings in the background on the left hand side, they are leaning to the left, and there are also a few vertical lamp posts in there which are also leaning to the left.


2) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3973624

Same again with this one, buildings are leaning to the left.


3) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3964060

Look at the buildings in the background of this one, they are all very clearly leaning to the left.


4) http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3966466

This image, whilst it doesn't have any buildings, is leaning a bit too much to the left. From your other images, we can already see that whilst there is a slight downward slope at this area, it is not as steep as in this image hence it requires CCW rotation.

It looks like you only had 4 or 5 images rejected for horizon unlevel. Writing a long paragraph in the screeners comment box when uploading will not prevent us from rejecting images for unlevel horizon should we see that an image looks unlevel.

Dave

Dave,
Thanks for your time you spend for me,
Unfortunately I have no time now, (that I going out now for a day and a half), but just briefly about one photo, it's interesting that another crew member wrote me in email about the photo in the number 4 in your answer, that it's need a rotate clockwise!
With kind regards,
Erez.

[Mr Chips]

Dave,
Thanks for your time you spend for me,
Unfortunately I have no time now, (that I going out now for a day and a half), but just briefly about one photo, it's interesting that another crew member wrote me in email about the photo in the number 4 in your answer, that it's need a rotate clockwise!
With kind regards,
Erez.

Which is indeed what I meant so I apologise for that slip up. I was supposed to write that it needs CW rotation, hence the reason why I wrote "This image, whilst it doesn't have any buildings, is leaning a bit too much to the LEFT". If it's leaning to the left, then of course it needs CW rotation.

Dave

[Siegi N.]

Hello all
I would an explanation on rejected photos color problems:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3966931

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3975188

Regards,
Siegi.

[aviationhk]

Hello,

I would appreciate some input on this rejection.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3989256

I fully accept the noise & bad info rejection.

After equalizing the image I can see the distortion curves on the fuselage however it's very very minimal and I just think it seems harsh to have heat distortion as one of the rejection reasons.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Hi,
Sometimes you just select a rejection reason to point it out to the photograper. The heat wouldn't probably have been a rejection reason alone, but as there was other flaws I guess the screeners wanted also to tell you there was a little heat. But you're right it's really minimal.

Regards
Alex

[MarkLawrence]

A quick question regarding this rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3978077

The noise I can work on - the compression artifacts though - can someone point me to the problem here please?

[Michael Wolf]

A quick question regarding this rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3978077

The noise I can work on - the compression artifacts though - can someone point me to the problem here please?

Mark,

JPG compression artifacts start to appear when a photo is saved at less than 85-95% quality, mostly visible around the edge of the plane. This is easy to avoid by simply never going below 95%.

Cheers.

[rmk2112]

Hi ya
Just had this rejected for noise. I'm not here to appeal it as I now see it clearly, rather, how can I avoid this in future. I like to try and get high contrast shots of sunlit aircraft against a stormy sky and often find the dark sky does come out noisy. I tend to shot using aperture priority of 8 or 9, ISO 200. I have a Nikon 300s and find any higher ISO and things get grainy very fast so I keep it to 200. Any advice gratefully received !!
Regards
René

[Mr Chips]

Hi ya
Just had this rejected for noise. I'm not here to appeal it as I now see it clearly, rather, how can I avoid this in future. I like to try and get high contrast shots of sunlit aircraft against a stormy sky and often find the dark sky does come out noisy. I tend to shot using aperture priority of 8 or 9, ISO 200. I have a Nikon 300s and find any higher ISO and things get grainy very fast so I keep it to 200. Any advice gratefully received !!
Regards
René

René, you have have any noise reduction plug in's? (Assuming you are using photoshop). You can selectively noise reduce only the sky using the magic hand tool at around 15 or 20 tolerance level and making sure the wand tool is set on 'add to selection'. A few clicks around the sky and voila, the sky is selected, to which you apply some light noise reduction to.

Some people select the sky and then add a light blur, however this can leave thin halos around the aircraft if not done properly so it's not really recommended.

[rmk2112]

René, you have have any noise reduction plug in's? (Assuming you are using photoshop). You can selectively noise reduce only the sky using the magic hand tool at around 15 or 20 tolerance level and making sure the wand tool is set on 'add to selection'. A few clicks around the sky and voila, the sky is selected, to which you apply some light noise reduction to.

Some people select the sky and then add a light blur, however this can leave thin halos around the aircraft if not done properly so it's not really recommended.

Thanks Dave for your quick response, really appreciate it
I use Photoshop Elements 7 and I'm sure, like you say, it does have noise reduction tools, I'll have a look and re-edit the image and see how I get on. I really wanted to know how to avoid the noise/grain the first place, is there something I as do or is it just one of those features of digital photography...

[Mr Chips]

Thanks Dave for your quick response, really appreciate it
I use Photoshop Elements 7 and I'm sure, like you say, it does have noise reduction tools, I'll have a look and re-edit the image and see how I get on. I really wanted to know how to avoid the noise/grain the first place, is there something I as do or is it just one of those features of digital photography...

If shooting RAW, slightly overexposing the images is supposed to help keep noise to a minimum. Underexposing images and then making them brighter during editing will of course introduce noise and grain.

You mention you like to photograph aircraft against dark backgrounds (I think we all do! ), if you're brightening the aircraft at all during editing then the sky is probably getting brightened a bit as well which is sometimes where the noise can be applified a bit.

Noise reduction seems to divide photographers, some use it and apply it in every image, where as some never use it. Personally I don't mind it's use when used properly, I've used it since 2010 without any issues. I guess it can described as one of those features of digital photography, if the tool is available, use it

[rmk2112]

If shooting RAW, slightly overexposing the images is supposed to help keep noise to a minimum. Underexposing images and then making them brighter during editing will of course introduce noise and grain.

You mention you like to photograph aircraft against dark backgrounds (I think we all do! ), if you're brightening the aircraft at all during editing then the sky is probably getting brightened a bit as well which is sometimes where the noise can be applified a bit.

Noise reduction seems to divide photographers, some use it and apply it in every image, where as some never use it. Personally I don't mind it's use when used properly, I've used it since 2010 without any issues. I guess it can described as one of those features of digital photography, if the tool is available, use it

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head... I never over expose such shots, rather I use 0 or -1/3 to prevent the white of the aircraft burning out. Thanks for that, next time I'll bump up the exposure and see what happens, living the UK I should get able opportunity to experiment in these conditions

[Mr Chips]

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head... I never over expose such shots, rather I use 0 or -1/3 to prevent the white of the aircraft burning out. Thanks for that, next time I'll bump up the exposure and see what happens, living the UK I should get able opportunity to experiment in these conditions

If you're shooting RAW, you don't need to worry too much about overexposing and burning parts of the aircraft as it's easy to recover burnt out areas when processing the RAW. But if you're shooting jpeg, then becareful with exposure as it's hard/near impossible to recover burnt out areas. Jpeg's can be processed in Adobe Canon Raw (ACR, which should be usable with Elements 7) which actually handles slightly burnt Jpeg's pretty well.