Undersharpened, I need some help

[Diezel]

My last four submissions were all rejected for being blurry/undersharpened. I just received a new hi-res monitor and the pictures are quite sharp on my new screen up to a point that sharpening them even more will give some jaggies. So, I wonder if it is the screen and I have to adjust my workflow a bit.

Can you give me some feedback on the following pictures. I hope I can save them. They were all rejected for being undersharpened/blurry. The two banking shots were also rejected for being digitally manipulated (?):

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=933192

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=933205

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=933238

Thanks!

Roel.

[MaxPower]

Can you link the origs. here or somewhere.

I'd like to give it a shot later when I get home.

[RingwaySam]

I think there soft but the screener feels they can't be fixed... I'd also like to have shot at editing some.

[Will M]

Well,

The first one , definitely blurry , the front half seems weird to me looks painted on , a perfect candidate of perhaps noise reduction tools being used.

the Fokker is most definitely blurry , I'd suggest maybe not uploading at 1600 pixels , perhaps 1024 max if its a lil blurry and can't be fixed , 1600 pixels wide have to be almost immaculate to be accpeted as ever detail stands out on the aircraft , so does every defect.

The SQ bank almost looks heat distorted and blurry to me.

[Diezel]

Well,
the Fokker is most definitely blurry , I'd suggest maybe not uploading at 1600 pixels

Actually this is a 1200 pixels width upload but I get your message.

About the little Fokker Can you give me some more clues why you think it is blurry as I fail to see it. The registration is crisp clear as are the windows, the sticker and the (almost) white paint, you can even see the structure in the paint. I did not use any noise reduction at all btw. My best guess is that it is the nose section that suffered from the slow exposure time used to blur the props.

Thanks for your reactions.

Roel.

[Will M]

haha sorry my bad mate. 1200 pixels it is indeed !

The nose inparticular is rather blurry to me
and your guess about what caused the blur would be spot on , but thats what happens with a slow shutter speed and a 3/4 head on unfortunately

[Diezel]

...and your guess about what caused the blur would be spot on , but thats what happens with a slow shutter speed and a 3/4 head on unfortunately(

Yep, well I guess I have to live with it and try again some other time. And...hey wait....that's a good excuse to go the airport again

Roel.

[Greg Wilson]

Roel,
Couple of nice shots there mate,and the Fokker and Korean may be salvageable.
I believe all photos are underexposed.
FOKKER:
There is softness/blury near the cockpit windows as you mention,and blury effect to the rego which looks more like oversharpened.Problem angle at those shutter speeds.It is difficult without the EXIF info or knowledge of your sharpening methods or camera settings,but selective sharpening would help with this picture. An upload at 1024 as sugested would help.
KOREAN:
I'm guessing that this photo is some way from the airport...1to3 DME and if so a good shot and maybe a touch unlucky for it to be rejected.Others have offered to work on your originals,but a couple of seconds on your rejected I came up with..........



so that photo has potential

[Diezel]

Looks better!

For anybody who wants to try. Here is the link to the korea 747. It's a Nikon RAW file. Let me know if you need the JPG. I can convert it.

It's not an easy edit.

Korea747

Roel.

[pdeboer]

It's not an easy edit.

No it is not, gave it some minutes but could not get it right so I stopped. Greg did a nice job though!
Btw you have some dust spots on your sensor

cheers, Pamela

[MaxPower]

I have to say that this 747 is really tough to edit. I tried three times. One you do something with it, it does stand pretty much clear out from the background. Sort of haloed around the aircraft. A little bit added USM 2x140,0.2 0 had been added, the third time was a little worse in the end. I tried smaller USM but didnt help anyway. So bad results from me. I hooe others can get it right.

[magic48]

I think you gave us the wrong original. Your rejected pic shows more of the right wing than the one you gave us. Right??

[MaxPower]

I assume the effect would still be the same, no matter what pic it is, one-sec-before picture or after, noh ?

[Diezel]

I think you gave us the wrong original. Your rejected pic shows more of the right wing than the one you gave us. Right??

Sorry for that. Noticed that too late but the the other is just the same quality wise.

Thanks anyway for trying. I really appreciate that (and anyway, it keeps you guys off the street for a while )

Roel.

[MaxPower]

Roel, You are welcome to bring more "work" or whatever to us.... Right guys..????