Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Felipe Garcia - Editing Help

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

  • Felipe Garcia - Editing Help

    Can I get some pointers on this one? I really don't understand how any of those reasons apply to the photo. Mid afternoon light, not late enough to be a sunset photo, but not early enough to have harsh light. Histogram looks fine, saturation wasn't touched.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6463421
    [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

    Felipe Garcia

  • #2
    Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
    Can I get some pointers on this one? I really don't understand how any of those reasons apply to the photo. Mid afternoon light, not late enough to be a sunset photo, but not early enough to have harsh light. Histogram looks fine, saturation wasn't touched.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6463421
    Looks a little red, but the exposure is ok. Contrast is a little weak also, but not that bad for me so slight adjustments there would be all that is needed..

    ..but was this shot through a fence? I see a weird transition in the sky from light to dark on a diagonal line.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the comments

      Is this what you're talking about? I can't say for sure if I shot through a fence or not, I was on and off shooting through/over. If that's the band, it's positioned in a weird place to be caused by the chainlink fence, because I was shooting with a slight crop sensor, and the photo itself is a crop of the center. Maybe something caused by the brush fire smoke that was going on behind the airport? I have no clue, actually didn't notice it at all when editing the photo, had to equalize it and look hard for it.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	91864_1521934745.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.16 MB
ID:	1023158
      [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

      Felipe Garcia

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
        Thanks for the comments

        Is this what you're talking about? I can't say for sure if I shot through a fence or not, I was on and off shooting through/over. If that's the band, it's positioned in a weird place to be caused by the chainlink fence, because I was shooting with a slight crop sensor, and the photo itself is a crop of the center. Maybe something caused by the brush fire smoke that was going on behind the airport? I have no clue, actually didn't notice it at all when editing the photo, had to equalize it and look hard for it.

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]14755[/ATTACH]
        The line is too hard and angular to be anything natural like smoke (as I can see lower to the left). It's almost certainly either a fence/obstruction, or a bad edit (selecting only part of the sky). If it's there on RAW file, the obviously it's the former.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'll take a look at the RAW file see if there's anything, as well as the immediate before/after shots. I'm quite baffled, actually.
          [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

          Felipe Garcia

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, thanks for the help Dana. I had a chance to look at the RAW files today, and both that shot and the immediate after/before have that transition, so that's a no go. No idea what it is, so I'm just going to find a different angle shot that doesn't have the effect.
            [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

            Felipe Garcia

            Comment


            • #7
              Looking for some extra help.

              First reject due to contrast
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6484987

              Re-uploaded with a tad more contrast, rejected again
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6498902

              Rejected for soft
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6498900

              Second attempt: Still soft, and add a noise rejection
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6484980

              I need some help because I don't understand what I'm doing wrong at this point. My acceptance ratio is down to about 10% and it's all due to soft, contrast and noise (at ISO400ish). I already checked my monitor calibration, and my workflow and equipment is the same as before.
              [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

              Felipe Garcia

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
                Looking for some extra help.

                First reject due to contrast
                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6484987

                Re-uploaded with a tad more contrast, rejected again
                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6498902

                Rejected for soft
                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6498900

                Second attempt: Still soft, and add a noise rejection
                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6484980

                I need some help because I don't understand what I'm doing wrong at this point. My acceptance ratio is down to about 10% and it's all due to soft, contrast and noise (at ISO400ish). I already checked my monitor calibration, and my workflow and equipment is the same as before.
                1. I see very little difference between the two, so not much surprise the second was again rejected. It looks like there may have been a thin cloud layer in front of the sun, which would account for the lack of contrast.

                2. While not terrible, the nose area is noticeably softer than the rest of the aircraft. This is not uncommon at all, as we often see images that get softer towards the edges, either due to lens softness, motion blur, or what have you. It is also not surprising that the sharpened re-edit showed more noise, as that is a typical byproduct of increased sharpening. Is the front of the aircraft sharp at full resolution on the original? If yes, then you obviously just need a better edit. If not, you'll probably want to try and figure what's causing that softness.

                Both images were taken in light that, while not terrible, I certainly wouldn't call ideal, and that is likely contributing to the issues you're having.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                  1. I see very little difference between the two, so not much surprise the second was again rejected. It looks like there may have been a thin cloud layer in front of the sun, which would account for the lack of contrast.

                  2. While not terrible, the nose area is noticeably softer than the rest of the aircraft. This is not uncommon at all, as we often see images that get softer towards the edges, either due to lens softness, motion blur, or what have you. It is also not surprising that the sharpened re-edit showed more noise, as that is a typical byproduct of increased sharpening. Is the front of the aircraft sharp at full resolution on the original? If yes, then you obviously just need a better edit. If not, you'll probably want to try and figure what's causing that softness.

                  Both images were taken in light that, while not terrible, I certainly wouldn't call ideal, and that is likely contributing to the issues you're having.
                  See, to me the second one looks like it's bordering on over contrast.

                  This one was taken under perfect light, yet still has still contrast issues (and again, to my eyes, it's fine, and actually checked on another computer, also with a calibrated display)
                  https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6501207

                  Sunset, no clouds, histogram is fine, got it bounced for underexposure and noise. About as much noise as some cameras (ahem, Canon 18MP sensors) at ISO 160, I can probably tackle some noise but that will soften it or result in bad processing rejection.
                  https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6501216


                  Thank you for all your help, but at this point I think I have a serious perception issue as well as equipment limitations.
                  [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

                  Felipe Garcia

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
                    See, to me the second one looks like it's bordering on over contrast.

                    This one was taken under perfect light, yet still has still contrast issues (and again, to my eyes, it's fine, and actually checked on another computer, also with a calibrated display)
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6501207
                    Contrast (and centering) look acceptable to me, but the heat haze would have been an issue.

                    Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
                    Sunset, no clouds, histogram is fine, got it bounced for underexposure and noise. About as much noise as some cameras (ahem, Canon 18MP sensors) at ISO 160, I can probably tackle some noise but that will soften it or result in bad processing rejection.
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6501216
                    This one I agree with; there may not have been clouds in front of the sun, but the grey hazy background gives the image a very washed out look, and the noise in the sky (and shadows) is quite noticeable. I'm sure you're aware that the number of megapixles is not a good indication of how much noise a camera produces, and in fact higher MP count usually means more noise, as the actual pixel size needs to be reduced to fit them all on the sensor - if that's what you were hinting at

                    Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
                    Thank you for all your help, but at this point I think I have a serious perception issue as well as equipment limitations.
                    Perception issue perhaps, but the 'equipment limitation' might just be that you're expecting your gear to be able to overcome all situations (low light, distance, etc..), which simply may not always be possible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                      Perception issue perhaps, but the 'equipment limitation' might just be that you're expecting your gear to be able to overcome all situations (low light, distance, etc..), which simply may not always be possible.
                      Could be, doesn't feel like I'm pushing things further than before, but who knows. I am starting to think that the background haze could be one of the big problems I'm having, something I wasn't used to dealing with on such a regular basis.

                      Perception, for sure. I'll probably stop doing my final edits late at night when my eyes are tired/strained, see if that improves things.

                      Thank you for bringing a more level-headed assessment of my problems. I do apologize for taking forever to reply, between being out of town with almost no internet and power outages, didn't get a chance to reply.
                      [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

                      Felipe Garcia

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can I get some pointers on this one? Can't tell if it's got too much or too little contrast (2nd time it gets rejected for contrast)

                        https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6937337
                        [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

                        Felipe Garcia

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
                          Can I get some pointers on this one? Can't tell if it's got too much or too little contrast (2nd time it gets rejected for contrast)

                          https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6937337
                          Too little. Overcast light, may or may not be fixable.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=7782512

                            Rejected for similar to https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9234288


                            Now, there's more than a 45 degree angle difference, and it's not a sequence (first photo was taken on 08 Dec 2018, rejected one on 08 Dec 2019, so I can see that it could have been mistakenly considered a sequence). Is it worth appealing or did I miss a change in the rules?

                            Thanks and happy new year!
                            [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

                            Felipe Garcia

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
                              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=7782512

                              Rejected for similar to https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9234288


                              Now, there's more than a 45 degree angle difference, and it's not a sequence (first photo was taken on 08 Dec 2018, rejected one on 08 Dec 2019, so I can see that it could have been mistakenly considered a sequence). Is it worth appealing or did I miss a change in the rules?

                              Thanks and happy new year!
                              45-degree rule was removed almost two years ago. Images from the same side/sequence can be considered similar regardless of date taken, although if the images are more than 6-7 years apart, we can be a bit more lenient. In this case, only a year separates the images, so yes, similar.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X