Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Screening standard changed?

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

  • Screening standard changed?

    Hi,

    I've successfully uploaded more than 150 photos to JP so far and over the last 5 months or so my rejection rate has been pretty low. I pretty well nailed down a standard method of processing my photos from RAW through sharpening to the final JPG where I would get maybe one or two rejects from 10-15 photos.

    Over the last 24 hours I've had a total of 9 rejections from 14 photos for mainly undersharpened images and it's got me wondering if there has been a tightening of the standards as I haven't changed my camera, lens, method of processing but all these rejections are now happening.

    Don't believe for a moment that I am having a moan about it - I simply want to just find out where I am now going wrong when before I was getting about 80% acceptance.

    Would appreciate a screener having a look at a couple of rejects to provide me with some guidance.

    Thanks in advance

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846861
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846813
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846422
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846440

  • #2
    Originally posted by gunna64 View Post
    Hi,

    I've successfully uploaded more than 150 photos to JP so far and over the last 5 months or so my rejection rate has been pretty low. I pretty well nailed down a standard method of processing my photos from RAW through sharpening to the final JPG where I would get maybe one or two rejects from 10-15 photos.

    Over the last 24 hours I've had a total of 9 rejections from 14 photos for mainly undersharpened images and it's got me wondering if there has been a tightening of the standards as I haven't changed my camera, lens, method of processing but all these rejections are now happening.

    Don't believe for a moment that I am having a moan about it - I simply want to just find out where I am now going wrong when before I was getting about 80% acceptance.

    Would appreciate a screener having a look at a couple of rejects to provide me with some guidance.

    Thanks in advance.
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846861
    Horizon is leaning slightly to the right but as far as overprocessed goes...the screener is probably referring to the fact that there are varying levels of sharpness...from very soft ( the nose ) through soft ( front titles and tail ) through sharp ( Virgin Atlantic titles ) to slightly oversharp ( not excessive but the engines are starting to show jaggies ).
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846813
    Definitely soft...and also slightly overexposed as the nose end and roof whites are starting to burn out.
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846422
    Soft all over.
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2846440
    Soft all over and if you look at the histogram you'll see distinct baseline gaps at both ends of the graph indicating a loss of both dark and light tones, causing the "washed out" appearance.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #3
      Brian,

      Thanks for your feedback, it's really appreciated.

      Time for me to go back to the drawing board about how I post process photos I think!

      Regards,
      Lee

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gunna64 View Post
        Brian,

        Thanks for your feedback, it's really appreciated.

        Time for me to go back to the drawing board about how I post process photos I think!
        Same story here.

        I also have the feeling that the standards are changed with the last huge amount of rejections, but I think I've to blame it myself.
        Although it's quite remarkable that there are more photogs with the same feelings last weeks......

        Freek

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Lee

          I have had a few similar problems to the one that you have with your Virgin Atlantic photo, where the nose of the aircraft is soft and the tail is sharp. Is this a lens issue, or is it more likely to be the image shot at les than f8.0? As a relative beginner, any advice appreciated.

          Cheers
          M

          Comment


          • #6
            Mist likely the later. Try at F8 (when the weather allows) and see if it cures the problem.

            Comment


            • #7
              somehow my acceptance rate has increased recently. Sometimes we get that batch that just stinks as far as acceptance rate goes. Just gotta learn and do a better job next time .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wrxflyer View Post
                Although it's quite remarkable that there are more photogs with the same feelings last weeks......
                Hi Freek,

                Apologies for it taking a week to reply to this. I blame the fact I've been screening so much!

                Just to clarify, the standards haven't changed in any way recently and there have been no discussions with regard to changing them. I've just had a look at your rejections and apart from one (which to my eyes is very borderline) I think they were all rightly rejected for very obvious flaws. The problems you're having seem to be in processing, and as I went to some length in another thread to explain, a lot of those problems I believe are due to poor sharpening technique. Have you been playing with the sharpening settings I suggested? Have you seen an improvement?

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

                My images on Flickr

                Comment


                • #9
                  Paul,

                  I am very, very sorry but I completely missed your explanation in that other topic.
                  Thank you very much, for your link.

                  First of all I can tell you that I never blame anyone, but myself for my rejections!
                  So, coming back to the point now, I used a radius of 1,0 pixels (!) and that must be my mistake.
                  I've changed my settings immediately (0,4 radius now) and will start from scratch with the Air Tahiti A340, as a starter; just to see what happens now.

                  Once again, thanks to you guys for your time.

                  Freek

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    1.0 radus is way too much. I use 0.4 for first pass of USM and then 0.2 for additonal passes if needed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wrxflyer View Post
                      So, coming back to the point now, I used a radius of 1,0 pixels (!) and that must be my mistake.
                      I've changed my settings immediately (0,4 radius now)
                      Ahh, I thought that was the problem! If you're doing your sharpening after resizing then I think 0.4 is still a bit big. Try 0.3 instead and see how you get on with that.

                      Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                      1.0 radus is way too much.
                      I think he's now aware of that, Stefan!

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

                      My images on Flickr

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sorry for misusing this thread for my own "problems", but I coudn't resist.

                        How about this?



                        To me, it looks defenitely better than every version I ve uploaded before.

                        Freek

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Freek, it definitely is better than any edit you tried before, but unfortunately the image remains slightly blurry. Blur caused by camera shake can be corrected to a certain level, but your Tahiti Nui A340 is a hopeless case I'm afraid.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by boeingfreak View Post
                            Freek, it definitely is better than any edit you tried before, but unfortunately the image remains slightly blurry. Blur caused by camera shake can be corrected to a certain level, but your Tahiti Nui A340 is a hopeless case I'm afraid.
                            Actually it looks ok on my screen.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by magic48 View Post
                              Actually it looks ok on my screen.
                              Tail, reg. and windows are soft/blurry, the edges of the belly show jaggies/ signs of oversharpening. Not for me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X