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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Felipe Garcia - Editing Help
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostCan 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
..but was this shot through a fence? I see a weird transition in the sky from light to dark on a diagonal line.
-
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.
[SIGNATURE GOES HERE]
Felipe Garcia
Comment
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostThanks 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]
Comment
-
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
-
Looking for some extra help.
First reject due to contrast
Re-uploaded with a tad more contrast, rejected again
Rejected for soft
Second attempt: Still soft, and add a noise rejection
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostLooking for some extra help.
First reject due to contrast
Re-uploaded with a tad more contrast, rejected again
Rejected for soft
Second attempt: Still soft, and add a noise rejection
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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.
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
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post1. 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.
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)
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.
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
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostSee, 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
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostSunset, 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.
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostThank you for all your help, but at this point I think I have a serious perception issue as well as equipment limitations.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View PostPerception 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View PostCan 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
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Posthttps://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!
Comment
Comment