Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

StefBrat - Editing and Screening advice

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

  • #46
    @dlowwa
    please read my post again! I did nowhere wrote to decrease the queue. I wrote the opposite. I meant that it's a bit strange to reject photos with strange reasons. That will raise the queue as people will reupload pictures again and again. So please be more careful what you wrote before starting saying I'm ignorant.

    I also put the original image into LR CC and tried sharpening from that point. I added sharpness but could not see a difference except getting typical problems causing a oversharpness rejection. Even at 100% there isn't a real difference. Also there is no advice in the rejection mail. Last time there was the comment "need only a little bit sharpness". Please advice me whats is a little bit? How can I see that? How do you measure it?
    By the way, all photos got the same treatment. So why are 3 photos of the same sequence okay and these 3 not? They have identical values and where all shot from a tripod.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6711233 -> where is the digital manipulation? Is sharpen and adjusting the brightness manipulation? Also the photos histogram looks now good. So why once again dark?
    View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
      @dlowwa
      please read my post again! I did nowhere wrote to decrease the queue. I wrote the opposite. I meant that it's a bit strange to reject photos with strange reasons. That will raise the queue as people will reupload pictures again and again. So please be more careful what you wrote before starting saying I'm ignorant.

      I also put the original image into LR CC and tried sharpening from that point. I added sharpness but could not see a difference except getting typical problems causing a oversharpness rejection. Even at 100% there isn't a real difference. Also there is no advice in the rejection mail. Last time there was the comment "need only a little bit sharpness". Please advice me whats is a little bit? How can I see that? How do you measure it?
      By the way, all photos got the same treatment. So why are 3 photos of the same sequence okay and these 3 not? They have identical values and where all shot from a tripod.

      https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6711233 -> where is the digital manipulation? Is sharpen and adjusting the brightness manipulation? Also the photos histogram looks now good. So why once again dark?
      Perhaps a poor translation, as I would interpret 'push the queue with things like a little bit' as meaning speed up screening by rejecting images for minor problems.

      In any case, not sure what else to tell you about your soft rejections. Whether the originals are actually soft, or they just need a better edit, I took a look at the accepted images from the same sequence you mention, and I would have rejected two of the three (I didn't screen any of the images accepted or rejected), so the problem is consistent in my eyes (and at least several other screeners). I'd be willing to take a look at the originals to tell you what I think, but given all of the images in question come from the same sequence where you are shooting in conditions that seem different from what you usually submit, I think that difference in conditions offers a clue as to why you are having issues.

      As for the manipulation rejection, I didn't screen that either, so can't comment directly, but based on the internal comments left by the screeners who rejected it, I would have personally disagreed with that part of the rejection.

      Comment


      • #48
        JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


        According to the reason there are compression problems. If you use to check for "dust" you see in the left corner a kind of stream which seems to be the problem. But in the normal uploaded picture there is nothing visible. Only with that special tool (not available in LR by the way).
        Now I tested and made 10 uploads and rechecked with the dust feature. The problem comes not really from editing, it's the white balance making this. I deleted all editing things and only applied white balance and then the "stream" is getting visible. Of course when editing other values it gets more or less visible.

        But that is not a compression problem as it does also not apply with the example picture and description of the guideline.

        Below is the original image with only cropping made.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8483.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.00 MB
ID:	1029694
        View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
          Below is the original image with only cropping made.
          Banding is visible in this image too. This is quite common when there are subtle gradations in color/brightness in the sky, and can appear even when saving as a full quality jpeg. When this kind of issue appears, the best solution is to convert the RAW file to a 16-bit tif when doing your editing, and only save as a jpeg as a last step. Any kind of changes to the brightness or color when editing an 8-bit jpeg will only accentuate the banding. You'll notice the banding is absent in the 16-bit tif, so yes, technically, this is a compression issue.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
            Banding is visible in this image too. This is quite common when there are subtle gradations in color/brightness in the sky, and can appear even when saving as a full quality jpeg. When this kind of issue appears, the best solution is to convert the RAW file to a 16-bit tif when doing your editing, and only save as a jpeg as a last step. Any kind of changes to the brightness or color when editing an 8-bit jpeg will only accentuate the banding. You'll notice the banding is absent in the 16-bit tif, so yes, technically, this is a compression issue.
            I have done so but the image is the same when checking with the dust feature. So it seems the photo is not good enough to be uploaded even a normal user will not see a problem in my eyes.

            I do not really get the problem and even the solution. I understand your help and as written I have done that. But it's same result as when exporting RAW direct into JPEG.
            View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
              I have done so but the image is the same when checking with the dust feature. So it seems the photo is not good enough to be uploaded even a normal user will not see a problem in my eyes.

              I do not really get the problem and even the solution. I understand your help and as written I have done that. But it's same result as when exporting RAW direct into JPEG.
              You don't need to equalize to see the banding, and I'm not referring to the patch on the top left corner. The banding is visible throughout the whole sky, but is most noticeable in the center and above the aircraft nose. I'm sorry you're not able to see it easily, but it is there, again quite visible without equalizing.

              Comment


              • #52
                Is it better now? And if yes, also the rest like exposure etc?
                After editing saved as TIFF with 16bit and AdobeRGB and then converted to JPEG with Canon Digital Photo Pro

                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8483.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	959.1 KB
ID:	1029767
                View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
                  Is it better now? And if yes, also the rest like exposure etc?
                  After editing saved as TIFF with 16bit and AdobeRGB and then converted to JPEG with Canon Digital Photo Pro

                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]17942[/ATTACH]
                  Is that a line of clouds in the sky? There is generally less banding visible, but whatever is in the upper left portion of the sky is more visible. Since the banding seems to be less, I'm going to guess clouds?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                    Is that a line of clouds in the sky? There is generally less banding visible, but whatever is in the upper left portion of the sky is more visible. Since the banding seems to be less, I'm going to guess clouds?
                    I would say yes, but don't remember that for sure as I started taking photos at around 3AM local after a day of work. But I guess that it was a small layer of coulds.
                    View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Sadly the same photo got rejected once again for compression artifacts and bad colour. I thought it's okay now?

                      JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
                      View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
                        Sadly the same photo got rejected once again for compression artifacts and bad colour. I thought it's okay now?

                        https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6763820
                        Color should be passable, but I guess the screeners who saw it thought that compression/banding was again too noticeable.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Would need an opinion on this one please:
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0146.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.62 MB
ID:	1030936
                          View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
                            Would need an opinion on this one please:
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]19355[/ATTACH]
                            Awkward crop of stabilizer, and grass covering too much of gear. Usually we accept up to about half the gear being covered.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              @dlowwa
                              right with the stabilzer, I could use another crop as the original is wider. But the grass is the problem.

                              Another one, here not sure for quality and leveling. Please "judge" for me if its okay for upload:
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0167.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.60 MB
ID:	1030953

                              Please also judge these three, I'm not sure especially with the last one. It looks so shiny? (because it was parked between 2 or 3 lightpoles from all sides)
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0282.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	936.6 KB
ID:	1030954

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0286.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.13 MB
ID:	1030955

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0293.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.35 MB
ID:	1030956
                              View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
                                @dlowwa
                                right with the stabilzer, I could use another crop as the original is wider. But the grass is the problem.

                                Another one, here not sure for quality and leveling. Please "judge" for me if its okay for upload:
                                [ATTACH=CONFIG]19376[/ATTACH]

                                Please also judge these three, I'm not sure especially with the last one. It looks so shiny? (because it was parked between 2 or 3 lightpoles from all sides)
                                [ATTACH=CONFIG]19377[/ATTACH]

                                [ATTACH=CONFIG]19378[/ATTACH]

                                [ATTACH=CONFIG]19379[/ATTACH]
                                1. borderline crop of tail
                                2-3 ok
                                4. horizon, borderline glare/backlit

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X