If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I recently had this photo rejected for Jpeg compression artifacts and Cropping/photo edges/size ratio. Is there any way to fix this in photoshop or should I ditch it? It was also rejected for grain issues but I know how to fix that.
I recently had this photo rejected for Jpeg compression artifacts and Cropping/photo edges/size ratio. Is there any way to fix this in photoshop or should I ditch it? It was also rejected for grain issues but I know how to fix that.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16713[/ATTACH]
Many thanks.
George...eh, sorry. Michael
First, the minimum aspect ratio allowed is 16:9, which means with a long edge of 1280 pixels like your image has, minimum height is 720. Yours is 695, so well below the minimum. As for the noise/compression, that unfortunately has to do with the type of camera you are using. Mega-zoom bridge cameras like your Coolpix L340 often sacrifice quality in order to be more versatile. One of those sacrifices is the small sensor it uses, which results in all the noise/compression we see in this image. You can try another edit to better hide the noise, but it may end up being be too difficult to do.
Ok. Thank you. Do you think that I should start saving up for a new camera?
Haha..well, that depends. Don't let the harsh acceptance criteria of an online photo database dictate an important decision such as that. If you're otherwise happy with the camera, then learn to work with its limitations when it comes to aviation photography and you would have no need to replace it. Ultimately it depends what your goals are for your photography. If your only purpose is to get certain types of images accepted, then yes, you might need to consider such an option. Otherwise I wouldn't let '(not) good enough for JP' be the deciding factor in such a decision.
Personally, I'd start saving up and upgrade. I went from a Nikon L820 to a D3300 and I do not regret it one bit. This was about 4 years before I started to upload to the big sites and even then I knew I had to upgrade. I think it would benefit you greatly if you upgraded so you wouldn't run into limitations as much.
As others have said, I would not make what may be a major financial decision based on advice of random people on the internet. As one of those random people I would point out though that there are lots of used DSLRs and lenses for sale out there. It can be a viable way to try out some more capable equipment without a huge commitment.
This photo was rejected for watermark being too intrusive. I understand all the other reasons but not this. Is it because the watermark is not centered? My goal was to center it based on the aircraft's landing gear to make it look better. If someone could explain this to me I would love that.
This photo was rejected for watermark being too intrusive. I understand all the other reasons but not this. Is it because the watermark is not centered? My goal was to center it based on the aircraft's landing gear to make it look better. If someone could explain this to me I would love that.
Probably because it was too bold, although technically we do allow such placement as long as it is not covering part of the aircraft. I will mention it to the screener involved.
In the future, please post any further rejection/prescreening help requests in the thread you already have open.
A few weeks ago I discovered that you can select the sky and use surface blur to eliminate sky noise. I used this trick on my photo of an F4U Corsair and I believe it resulted in a bad
post-processing rejection. Is this the cause or is it something else?
A few weeks ago I discovered that you can select the sky and use surface blur to eliminate sky noise. I used this trick on my photo of an F4U Corsair and I believe it resulted in a bad
post-processing rejection. Is this the cause or is it something else?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18584[/ATTACH]
Many thanks,
Michael
That, and the editing halos around the aircraft. Unless you've shot at an unnecessarily high ISO setting, there should be no need to eliminate noise in the sky on a bright sunny day.
I don't know how but for some reason when I set exposure to anything other than zero, it adds an unacceptable level of noise in the sky and that is what was causing the noise rejection on previous attempts.
I don't know how but for some reason when I set exposure to anything other than zero, it adds an unacceptable level of noise in the sky and that is what was causing the noise rejection on previous attempts.
Ah, I see the problem. Unfortunately (assuming the other pics you refer to were also taken with your Coolpix L340) your camera (as do all mega-zoom bridge cameras) uses a much smaller sensor than traditional DSLR-type cameras. This means that it will inherently have more noise, as there is simply less light hitting each pixel.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment