Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blurry Rejections

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

  • Blurry Rejections

    Hello JP members.

    I have two photos of flight decks but there were rejected with reasons blurry.
    Does anyboy know of this realy blury or can i fix this photos?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2842965

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2842970

    Thanks for help.

    Regards Ronald.

  • #2
    Hello Ronald,

    Unfortunately there isn't much you can do with blurry photographs. The only option is to upload a smaller size where the blurring is not so visible, but as your two shots are at 1024px as it is, there isnt really anymore you can do.

    Personally both shots don't look to bad, and i'd say they are on borderline acceptance but it's all down to the screeners.

    Thanks, Jimmy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Ronald,

      I opened both in Photoshop and tried to sharpen them up but they are indeed blurry and not just soft. Sharpening will never improve a blurry picture, it just makes it blurry and oversharpened.

      The use of f5.6 and 1/1000 shutter seems to have caused a lack of depth of field resulting in the out of focus blur. At 1/1000 it is almost certainly not camera shake that has caused the blur but more likely lack of focus. If you had shot at 1/500 or even 1/250 then you would have got f8 at least and probably smaller which would have given the depth of field required at the focal length of 92mm used, as indicated by the EXIF data.

      Sorry, two for the personal collection.

      By the way, for the information of all viewing this thread, this is a classic example of how important it is to include EXIF data with your shots. Without it, giving advice in detail becomes very difficult
      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

      Comment


      • #4
        Chrystal clear explanation Brian!
        Thank you.

        Keeping your information in mind, I'd like you (or other screeners) to have a quick look at the picture below

        http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2845197

        It's also rejected for blurry, but with 1/400 shutterspeed it can't be camera shake, can't it?
        And with the aircraft at an angle of 90 degrees to my position there isn't any Depht of field; or am I completely wrong here?

        To understand where I went wrong, please advice.

        Best regards

        Freek

        Comment


        • #5
          This is clear camera shake. Don't forget, that you are following a moving object with the camera, so the camera moves, thus making camera shake at least possible.
          My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wrxflyer View Post
            Chrystal clear explanation Brian!
            Thank you.

            Keeping your information in mind, I'd like you (or other screeners) to have a quick look at the picture below

            http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2845197

            It's also rejected for blurry, but with 1/400 shutterspeed it can't be camera shake, can't it?
            And with the aircraft at an angle of 90 degrees to my position there isn't any Depht of field; or am I completely wrong here?

            To understand where I went wrong, please advice.


            Best regards

            Freek
            Exactly as Gerardo says. Don't forget that the two images forming the focus of the thread are static images. The Air Tahiti ( of which I was one of the screeners ) is moving. If the shutter speed is 1/400 and you introduce 1/200 worth of shake up/down and/or left/right then you will get a blurry image to a greater or lesser degree. The eventual physical size of the picture will determine whether this blur is seen or not. At 1024px wide you might get away with it but not at 1600px wide where every defect becomes more noticeable.

            The Air Tahiti is an example of an original blurred image that has been sharpened but has become blurry and oversharp. The classic signs of the oversharpness are the blurred jaggedness of the titles, the thin light colour outline around the aircraft and the biggest giveaway...the birds with a light halo around them. Your image is 1024px wide yet still shows the blurriness so I have to say that it's a non-saveable image for upload.

            As far as depth of field is concerned, yes it can be a problem, especially if you use centre or spot focussing. Those wingtips and outer engines are an awful long way out from the fuselage. If the camera focusses on the wingtip and/or outer engine then the fuselage could easily suffer from a depth of field issue.
            Last edited by brianw999; 2010-01-26, 16:37.
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for helping me i know what i dit wrong so next time i will make a better photo.

              Ronald.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wrxflyer View Post
                Chrystal clear explanation Brian!
                Thank you.

                Keeping your information in mind, I'd like you (or other screeners) to have a quick look at the picture below

                http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2845197

                It's also rejected for blurry, but with 1/400 shutterspeed it can't be camera shake, can't it?
                And with the aircraft at an angle of 90 degrees to my position there isn't any Depht of field; or am I completely wrong here?

                To understand where I went wrong, please advice.

                Best regards

                Freek
                Freek, in all honesty to me that image doesn't actually look like it has motion blur, it has exactly the look you get when you use too big a radius when sharpening. What sharpening settings do you use and at what stage do you apply it? USM can, if misused actually make an image look blurry because it starts to do exactly the opposite of what you're using it for; the effect of the sharpening becomes wider than the defining line you're trying to sharpen, giving a slightly blurry appearance. You can see this effect by zooming close into the image so you can see the individual pixels:



                For a sharp image the lines between, for example, a fuselage and the sky should only be 1 or 2 pixels wide, but here you can see it's 4 pixels wide in places and a few pixels of white are evident from sharpening, making the image appear blurry. It may well be fixable using a slightly less savage sharpening technique.

                As an example, the first image here has been sharpened at 1024 using USM at 110% and a radius of 0.3. The result is a nice clean, crisp image.



                Zooming in we can see the line between things like the fuselage and sky, titles and fuselage, etc, are all around 2 pixels wide. When the image is viewed at 1024 then it looks nice and sharp.



                This is exactly the same image, again sharpened at 110% only this time using a radius of 1.8. You can see the clarity has gone and it's starting to have a slightly blurry appearance.



                And for reference, your original upload. I see almost exactly the same flaw in both.



                Zooming into the now oversharpened LH shot we see exactly the same effect as in your photo. Those lines are now 3-4 pixels wide, destroying the sharpness.



                This really does seem more a sharpening technique problem than blur to me. Maybe try reducing the radius to something like 0.6 on a full size image and 0.3 for 1024-1200 and see how you get on.

                Paul
                Last edited by PMN; 2010-01-28, 17:20.
                Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

                My images on Flickr

                Comment


                • #9
                  I still thin there is some blurr in it. maybe you were cold and shivering a little. In my experince that is one of the worst things for camera shake induced bluriness.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                    I still thin there is some blurr in it. maybe you were cold and shivering a little. In my experince that is one of the worst things for camera shake induced bluriness.
                    If there is then I don't think it's affecting the photo at all. The LH shot I used as an example is absolutely pin sharp, but when oversharpened looks exactly the same as Freeks. I think the image is perfectly saveable.

                    Freek, if you want to email me the original I'll have a quick look at it if you like.

                    Paul
                    Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

                    My images on Flickr

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Nice answer Paul. Must say I hadn't thought of that. 99.9% of the time I use USM set at 50_0.2_0 and sharpen in small stages so possibly I've never seen what you're referring to.

                      One learns a little something every day.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X