pre-screen photos at dawn

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa

another question on "Similarly"

does a "name change" still lets a photo similarly ?
I've this one published where the plane had no name... https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9369161

Is then this one , where the plane got a name, similarly ?

Photo wise... they look like twins... so they should be similarly.... but since the name changed.... maybe the rule is different.

/thx for your time and help
a.m.

Technically not similar, but really pushing against the 'spirit' of the guidelines. If you're desperate to have the newer version accepted, you can point out when uploading the addition of the small sticker when uploading.

[a.m.]

Hi dlowwa

another question on "Similarly"

does a "name change" still lets a photo similarly ?
I've this one published where the plane had no name... https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9369161

Is then this one , where the plane got a name, similarly ?

Photo wise... they look like twins... so they should be similarly.... but since the name changed.... maybe the rule is different.

/thx for your time and help
a.m.

[dlowwa]

thx

Can you please review this one ? thx

Borderline dark/color (green tint).

[a.m.]

Yes, obstructed (also soft). Different airports are not similar.

thx

Can you please review this one ? thx

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa

Can you please review this one, specially regrading obstruction ?
For a different situation : Similarly photos: if the photo is taken on a different airport .. and resembles a "similarly" photo... will it be also rejected ?
or for a different airport "the counter is reset" ?

thx

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26980[/ATTACH]

Yes, obstructed (also soft). Different airports are not similar.

[a.m.]

Hi dlowwa

Can you please review this one, specially regrading obstruction ?
For a different situation : Similarly photos: if the photo is taken on a different airport .. and resembles a "similarly" photo... will it be also rejected ?
or for a different airport "the counter is reset" ?

thx

[a.m.]

If you're asking for prescreening:

1. soft, noisy, compression, centering, contrast
2. soft/blurry, noisy, compression
3. soft, compression, color, contrast
4. soft, compression, centering, contrast
5. soft, compression, contrast

All of these images are severely compressed.

Ah.. definitively, I don't have the touch, the feeling, the art, 1920 it's out of limits for me.
Maybe I can have a chance at 1280, just maybe, who knows.

thx again for your time and help

[dlowwa]

In the meantime and taking the opportunity of a short vacations period, I've change a couple of camera parameters and tried it on this new location.
At my eyes, they look a bit sharper (no additional SW processing, just different HW capture)...
... as such I've edit them at 1920... to confirm the "improvement" and/or the "normal" flaws.

Can you please have a look at them ?

If you're asking for prescreening:

1. soft, noisy, compression, centering, contrast
2. soft/blurry, noisy, compression
3. soft, compression, color, contrast
4. soft, compression, centering, contrast
5. soft, compression, contrast

All of these images are severely compressed.

[a.m.]

In order of importance: knowledge/technique, lens, editing, camera. More pixels will only make a difference if you're cropping your images significantly. Different sensor will only make a difference if you're shooting at higher ISO. If neither of those cases apply, then camera is the lowest priority. Knowledge/technique means knowing how and when to use your gear properly. The best pro will not be able to get perfect results if he is too far or there is too much haze, nor is a novice likely to achieve great results even at close range with perfect conditions.

Understand and agree with your points. For sure I need to know and proper use the gear I have. I've a 10Mpx and a 24Mpx camera... I've been able to take some photos from both. But I see that the 24Mpx does have a better level of sharpness.
That's the reason I was trying to understand if a higher level can be a achieved by a different sensor/gear.
I'm not being lazy here... I'm just trying to max out what the HW can provide... just like a good out focus and or ibis system.

All high-end cameras are likely to achieve the same results (good or bad) with the same user under similar conditions, so I can't answer that question for you.

ah.. ok, I understand the "political correct" answer

My not-so-sarcastic answer is the best photographers are used to take the best photos on JP Give a good photographer a lower-end camera, they'll still likely come up with good results. Give a poor photographer a high-end camera, and I'd say they'd be much less likely to achieve those decent results.

Again, agree. Gear are gear, and.. not everyone can be artists/pro grade photographs.
I would prefer to focus myself ...on good angles, framing, light,... instead on the processing side.
But I understand that the minimum acceptable photo quality ..do involve very specific parameters like : sharpness, exposure, level, etc.

Isn't every day that a photo that misses all these parameters is acceptable. And usually when it misses ... its an extraordinary GOOD photo

Well, maybe I'm expecting to much from my photos.. maybe I'm expecting that all came out sharp and or align and or well exposed... with no flaws.
Probably I should filter even more them. Since I started posting...I've reduce the processing workflow...just to a single (minimum) high pass sharpening filter.
I notice however, that a few images... are good enough with no high pass processing... so maybe I should just focus on these.


In the meantime and taking the opportunity of a short vacations period, I've change a couple of camera parameters and tried it on this new location.
At my eyes, they look a bit sharper (no additional SW processing, just different HW capture)...
... as such I've edit them at 1920... to confirm the "improvement" and/or the "normal" flaws.

Can you please have a look at them ?

Thanks again for your comments, insights , recommendations and extended chat, appreciated it.

[dlowwa]

Now, on the other side of trying to improve the quality...
What would "radically" improve image quality ? Full Frame or a good lens ?
Rational says lens... but I've several lens....fix, zoom, prime....and can't see the difference... so the sensor, should be the key to get sharp photos like yours.

In order of importance: knowledge/technique, lens, editing, camera. More pixels will only make a difference if you're cropping your images significantly. Different sensor will only make a difference if you're shooting at higher ISO. If neither of those cases apply, then camera is the lowest priority. Knowledge/technique means knowing how and when to use your gear properly. The best pro will not be able to get perfect results if he is too far or there is too much haze, nor is a novice likely to achieve great results even at close range with perfect conditions.

What do you recommend/would you choose ?
6D MKII, D750, A7III ? ( sure, old gear.... but prices are reaching my buying line )

All high-end cameras are likely to achieve the same results (good or bad) with the same user under similar conditions, so I can't answer that question for you.

Is it me....or the 6DMKII, is used to take the best photos in JP ?

My not-so-sarcastic answer is the best photographers are used to take the best photos on JP Give a good photographer a lower-end camera, they'll still likely come up with good results. Give a poor photographer a high-end camera, and I'd say they'd be much less likely to achieve those decent results.

[a.m.]

First pair ok, but second pair a bit soft towards the tail. Not a bit difference in quality between the two sizes.

Thx dlowwa

Rigth now, I'm doing deep tests (again) with my gear. With the same setup... some images get ok, some are a bit soft... it may be because of the shaking...
but I'm starting to wonder if the focus works ok... because the background is always sharp... but not the tail or wing....and at f/10 aperture....shouldn't be the case
Anyway.... now I'm trying to use area focus instead of spot.... to force...different areas to be in focus.

Generally, the higher the resolution, the more flaws will be noticeable. Of all possible resolutions, those who upload at 1920 probably have the least success, since that size hides flaws the least.
.. I'd suggest 1280 as a good middle ground to try, and 1600 if you want to take a bit more risk.

appreciate your comments

I set 1600 as a maximum for myself, which is a bit riskier than say, 1280, but I work under the principle if it's not good enough for 1600, then simply don't upload it.
For a very small number of images that I really like, but might not have the quality for 1600, I will submit at 1280

...and insights.

Now, on the other side of trying to improve the quality...
What would "radically" improve image quality ? Full Frame or a good lens ?
Rational says lens... but I've several lens....fix, zoom, prime....and can't see the difference... so the sensor, should be the key to get sharp photos like yours.

What do you recommend/would you choose ?
6D MKII, D750, A7III ? ( sure, old gear.... but prices are reaching my buying line )

Is it me....or the 6DMKII, is used to take the best photos in JP ?

thanks again for your time and help

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa.

While trying to understand the softness limit/characteristics of my hardware, can you please review these ?
are these ok with their respective resolution ?

If yes, which one should I upload (off course this is a generic question for all images, no specifically these) ?

I prefer detailed photos.. so I like more resolution. But how about JP... is there any preference for low/high resolution photos ?
I can think of some "constraints" : disk space, time to download, client screen resolution.
Another issue is acceptance ratio. What's better : low or high resolution ?

Sorry for so many questions, but I'm just trying to reduce my rejection ratio...

Thanks for your time and help

First pair ok, but second pair a bit soft towards the tail. Not a bit difference in quality between the two sizes.

Generally, the higher the resolution, the more flaws will be noticeable. Of all possible resolutions, those who upload at 1920 probably have the least success, since that size hides flaws the least. I set 1600 as a maximum for myself, which is a bit riskier than say, 1280, but I work under the principle if it's not good enough for 1600, then simply don't upload it. That means I'm pretty selective, and might leave out a few more images than I'd like, but I think my acceptance rate speaks for itself For a very small number of images that I really like, but might not have the quality for 1600, I will submit at 1280. I'd suggest 1280 as a good middle ground to try, and 1600 if you want to take a bit more risk.

[a.m.]

Hi dlowwa.

While trying to understand the softness limit/characteristics of my hardware, can you please review these ?
are these ok with their respective resolution ?

If yes, which one should I upload (off course this is a generic question for all images, no specifically these) ?

I prefer detailed photos.. so I like more resolution. But how about JP... is there any preference for low/high resolution photos ?
I can think of some "constraints" : disk space, time to download, client screen resolution.
Another issue is acceptance ratio. What's better : low or high resolution ?

Sorry for so many questions, but I'm just trying to reduce my rejection ratio...

Thanks for your time and help

[a.m.]

Both look fine. Not sure why the accepted one needs replacing.

Thx dlowwa. The 2nd is a bit more defined... but agree, I've other photos/planes to upload..

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa

Is this one ok ?
if yes, can/should I submit it to replace this one : https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9143747 ?


thx for your time and help

/rgds
a.m.

Both look fine. Not sure why the accepted one needs replacing.