Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[sdspinelli2]

Don't be sorry Jared, and thanks for the advice wunala.

[Jared Blech]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...-recovered.jpg
you guys said so...

[Aviation.High.Guy]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...-recovered.jpg
you guys said so...

What was the screener's reason for rejection?

[Aviation.High.Guy]

I don't normally post here, but this one has stumped me. Rejection reason: "Grainy". I just don't see it.

[wunaladreamin]

Select the sky, reduce by one pixel, and run a noise reduction. Simple fix.

[Aviation.High.Guy]

Ahh, good point. I was only looking at the plane, but the sky does have some noise. Thanks

[Cary]

Ahh, good point. I was only looking at the plane, but the sky does have some noise. Thanks

The thing is, I'm pretty positive A.net increased the compression/lowered the quality of the re-saved photo (after the watermark and copyright banner is added). And that seems to add a tiny bit of grain, just by itself. So, I find the whole grain thing (unless it's blatantly obvious), to be overcooked...unless they are going to resave at 100% quality, which they'll never do.

[wunaladreamin]

On top of that, the blue channel will naturally have more grain than the others so treating the sky only all the time will help matters.

[Aviation.High.Guy]

The thing is, I'm pretty positive A.net increased the compression/lowered the quality of the re-saved photo (after the watermark and copyright banner is added). And that seems to add a tiny bit of grain, just by itself. So, I find the whole grain thing (unless it's blatantly obvious), to be overcooked...unless they are going to resave at 100% quality, which they'll never do.

I think you're right Cary. I uploaded the same DHL image to JP at the same res. then opened the watermarked version side by side with the Anet upload. A noticable difference in quality. The JP is cleaner for sure. Try it. It's a shame because Anet is not practicing what they preach about quality by adding compressing.

[Cary]

I think you're right Cary. I uploaded the same DHL image to JP at the same res. then opened the watermarked version side by side with the Anet upload. A noticable difference in quality. The JP is cleaner for sure. Try it. It's a shame because Anet is not practicing what they preach about quality by adding compressing.

I meant to say they increased the compression recently (back when they last had the missing pictures/thumbnails issue) -- but you got the drift :) I run most of my photos through NR, and save at 100%, but after A.net processed the photo, I could see at least a tiny bit of grain on a lot of my pictures.

[Jared Blech]

Sorry buddy, for not responding.... Quality... and other crap
one more just now...
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...78img_4058.jpg
Comment from screener "HIF" Centered?
If anything I see low in frame!!!

[moose135]

Comment from screener "HIF" Centered?
If anything I see low in frame!!!

Look at the distance from the window line at the overwing exits to the top of the frame, then look at the distance from there to the bottom of the frame...it's high.

[gonzalu]

Jared, I try to use this system to judge centering... it is NOT PERFECT but for side-ons it usually works well. Ultimately there are three major factors that go into play with the Screeners:

--Isometric Frame Centering as shown above.
--Visual Balance Full Frame
--Visual Balance in Thumbnail form.

So always look at it and FEEL the picture and see if it looks balanced at full resolution and also as a Thumbnail AFTER you center it as in my example

Sometimes centering is also considered based on the center of the aircraft being on the center of the frame. That does NOT always work, but sometimes it helps.

In the end, it is a toss up. Look for my thread on the Photo forum on A.net where I argue this very same thing and come up with a 50/50 split opinion.

[gonzalu]

The thing is, I'm pretty positive A.net increased the compression/lowered the quality of the re-saved photo (after the watermark and copyright banner is added). And that seems to add a tiny bit of grain, just by itself. So, I find the whole grain thing (unless it's blatantly obvious), to be overcooked...unless they are going to resave at 100% quality, which they'll never do.

Even if you re-save a JPG at 100% Quality, it will continue to lose data... it is ALWAYS lossy generation to generation.

On top of that, the blue channel will naturally have more grain than the others so treating the sky only all the time will help matters.

Only if unfiltered and only if the white balance is off. If a given sensor is tuned correctly for a particular blue/red balance and the light striking is exactly as it was tuned for, the blue channel should be no less or more noisy than the rest.

Try this trick.

--Take a shot under tungsten lighting in RAW with your camera set to DAYLIGHT balance
--Place a Kodak Wratten 80A filter over the lens, increase exposure by 1/3 stop. Take another shot, same WB on camera
--Bring both in to Photoshop and inspect the channels. You'd be surprised how the noise looks :)

We have grown to rely on WB calibration in camera which simply boosts the gain on a particular channel causing more noise. Shame, but, that's our reality these days.

If I have enough time, I usually shoot on Daylight WB or at 5500K manually set with a filter on the lens if needed. Or over the lights :P Most sensors are tuned to 5500K anyway. Anything other than that, you are only introducing noise into the data...

[Cary]

Even if you re-save a JPG at 100% Quality, it will continue to lose data... it is ALWAYS lossy generation to generation.

Oh, I know...I hate when lossy formats are saved more than once :P