Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 66

Thread: Pre Screening Advice - Robbie Mathieson

  1. #1
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default VH-ROB - Editing Advice

    Hi All, can I please get advice on the following rejection.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6229986

    The noise/grain I don't necessarily agree with however can be fixed, however I'm confused by the bad motive. I've looked at the Upload Guidelines and I don't see how it can be rejected for motive. The only reason that I feel it could possibly be rejected for is an easily identifiable person, however in my opinion neither of the people in the photo is not easily identifiable.

    Can someone also please explain to me JPeg compression artefacts - like in this picture https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6229981. I've only recently started getting these rejections.

    Many Thanks, Rob

  2. #2
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi All, can I please get advice on the following rejection.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6229986

    The noise/grain I don't necessarily agree with however can be fixed, however I'm confused by the bad motive. I've looked at the Upload Guidelines and I don't see how it can be rejected for motive. The only reason that I feel it could possibly be rejected for is an easily identifiable person, however in my opinion neither of the people in the photo is not easily identifiable.
    I didn't screen this one, but I probably would have voted no on the motive as well. The composition is simply poor; the person (not identifiable, so not an issue) is cut off along the feet, so it looks like you were more interested in trying to include them in the frame than actually show the location, which is the purpose of the 'Spotting Location' type of image. A wider shot that actually shows the location better (but still including the person) would probably be more acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Can someone also please explain to me JPeg compression artefacts - like in this picture https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6229981. I've only recently started getting these rejections.
    Actually, like this image. Wider, and not so focused on the individual. As for compression, we use that rejection not only for when the image is highly compressed like with a too low jpeg save setting, but also when there is the pixel-smearing you usually see with images taken with small-sensor cameras. Given you are using an EOS 600D, I wouldn't expect to see such an effect like we are in this particular image, so I'd guess somewhere in your editing/saving workflow you've done something to introduce this effect.

  3. #3
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    I didn't screen this one, but I probably would have voted no on the motive as well. The composition is simply poor; the person (not identifiable, so not an issue) is cut off along the feet, so it looks like you were more interested in trying to include them in the frame than actually show the location, which is the purpose of the 'Spotting Location' type of image. A wider shot that actually shows the location better (but still including the person) would probably be more acceptable.



    Actually, like this image. Wider, and not so focused on the individual. As for compression, we use that rejection not only for when the image is highly compressed like with a too low jpeg save setting, but also when there is the pixel-smearing you usually see with images taken with small-sensor cameras. Given you are using an EOS 600D, I wouldn't expect to see such an effect like we are in this particular image, so I'd guess somewhere in your editing/saving workflow you've done something to introduce this effect.
    Many thanks for the reply. Regarding the 'pixel-smearing'/compresssion, where in my editing workflow do you think this would happen. I haven't made any changes to my editing workflow, and have only recently started recieving these rejections so am a bit lost as to where in my workflow it would start appearing.

  4. #4
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Many thanks for the reply. Regarding the 'pixel-smearing'/compresssion, where in my editing workflow do you think this would happen. I haven't made any changes to my editing workflow, and have only recently started recieving these rejections so am a bit lost as to where in my workflow it would start appearing.
    Can't say for sure, but a likely culprit would be any noise reduction settings. NR filters tend to smear out fine detail, similar to how small sensors do.

  5. #5
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Can't say for sure, but a likely culprit would be any noise reduction settings. NR filters tend to smear out fine detail, similar to how small sensors do.
    Awesome, thanks.

  6. #6
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Hi all, quick question regarding the following rejection. All photos of this aircraft in the database are uploaded as registration MM62209, however, I uploaded it as registration MM-62209 as that is what is printed on the side of the aircraft. Surely the correct registration should be what it actually says on the aircraft?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6272219
    Last edited by VH-ROB; 12-28-2017 at 07:47 AM. Reason: forgot to add link to photo.

  7. #7
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi all, quick question regarding the following rejection. All photos of this aircraft in the database are uploaded as registration MM62209, however, I uploaded it as registration MM-62209 as that is what is printed on the side of the aircraft. Surely the correct registration should be what it actually says on the aircraft?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6272219
    No, MM62209 is the correct format. All Italian military are entered as such.

  8. #8
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Hi All, the following photo got rejected. In the screener comments, it stated that the motive reason was because of the vehicle registration plates. Am I able to blur these in photoshop? The upload guidelines doesn't specify anything in regards to vehicles. Many Thanks, Robbie

  9. #9
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi All, the following photo got rejected. In the screener comments, it stated that the motive reason was because of the vehicle registration plates. Am I able to blur these in photoshop? The upload guidelines doesn't specify anything in regards to vehicles. Many Thanks, Robbie
    Don't see any photo.

  10. #10
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Don't see any photo.
    Would help if i remembered to put the link

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6815862

  11. #11
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Would help if i remembered to put the link

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6815862
    In this case yes, this is the ONLY time where such manipulation is allowed. Be aware that the other quality issues remain, which still might preclude the adjusted image from being accepted.

  12. #12
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    In this case yes, this is the ONLY time where such manipulation is allowed. Be aware that the other quality issues remain, which still might preclude the adjusted image from being accepted.
    Great, thanks for the help.

  13. #13
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default Pre Screening Advice - Robbie Mathieson

    Hi guys, would it be possible to get some prescreening on this one? Have a new laptop and am also now editing in LR rather than PS so there's quite a few differences in my workflow. Many Thanks, Rob

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B-LAL.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	662.7 KB 
ID:	19775

  14. #14
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    Hi,
    Crop is too tight (a bit more space around plane is needed) and whole plane appears a bit too soft

    Regards
    Alex

  15. #15
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    Hi,
    Crop is too tight (a bit more space around plane is needed) and whole plane appears a bit too soft

    Regards
    Alex
    Awesome, thanks Alex, I'll go and work on it again, many thanks.

  16. #16
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Hi guys, can I please get some advice on the following shots. Many Thanks, Robbie


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VH-VYL1.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	857.5 KB 
ID:	19867Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZK-NZC.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	413.2 KB 
ID:	19868Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VH-VXJ.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	823.4 KB 
ID:	19869Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VH-VUR.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	886.2 KB 
ID:	19870

  17. #17
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi guys, can I please get some advice on the following shots. Many Thanks, Robbie


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VH-VYL1.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	857.5 KB 
ID:	19867Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZK-NZC.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	413.2 KB 
ID:	19868Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VH-VXJ.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	823.4 KB 
ID:	19869Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VH-VUR.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	886.2 KB 
ID:	19870
    1. borderline oversharpened/compression
    2. borderline compression
    3. oversharpened, compression
    4. blurry

    I'd recommend not uploading at 1920pix, since that makes the quality flaws much more apparent. #1-3 might stand a chance at a smaller resolution like 1200pix.

  18. #18
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. borderline oversharpened/compression
    2. borderline compression
    3. oversharpened, compression
    4. blurry

    I'd recommend not uploading at 1920pix, since that makes the quality flaws much more apparent. #1-3 might stand a chance at a smaller resolution like 1200pix.
    Thanks. Regarding the compression, what can I do in my editing process to avoid this happening? I've just started using Lightroom in the last week or so, so I'm still learning how to use it properly. Many Thanks, Robbie

  19. #19
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Thanks. Regarding the compression, what can I do in my editing process to avoid this happening? I've just started using Lightroom in the last week or so, so I'm still learning how to use it properly. Many Thanks, Robbie
    Most likely noise reduction settings; any kind of noise reduction applied to areas where there is a uniform color, or smooth gradient transitioning from lighter/darker areas like you find in blue skies will tend to leave the sky looking blotchy or compressed. That is assuming of course that you are also saving your images at maximum quality. If not, you'd want to start with the latter.

  20. #20
    Member VH-ROB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Hi guys, can I please get some pre-screening on this one. I appreciate that the weather at the time was atrocious, and I've done my best to get it relatively okay, but want to just double check before i waste a queue slot. Many Thanks, Robbie

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZK-OKT.jpg 
Views:	50 
Size:	229.7 KB 
ID:	19989

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •