heeshung
2006-11-27, 06:40 PM
I've got a wing view photo:
The Original (rejected for unlevel horizon): http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 224qe8.jpg (http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf1173jpg34224qe8.jpg)
If you look at the horizon, I wanted to include the curvature of the horizon in the picture. If I had straightened it out, it would not have been as evident. It got rejected and I filed an appeal. The appeal was rejected.
Not wanting to sacrifice the beautiful horizon, I straightened the photo out somewhat into: http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image ... 844ru6.jpg (http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf11731jpg17844ru6.jpg)
It still got rejected for unlevel horizon. I didn't appeal this time, and I fully straightened the horizon out finally in the next one: http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 812kh3.jpg (http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf11732jpg38812kh3.jpg)
I hope in the last one (which is still in queue), the horizon will still be "semi-evident". But, as the photo got straightened out more and more, I noticed it got less and less detailed (since it sort of had to "zoom in"), even from the first to the second. I sharpened the second one again, but I would've definetely preferred the first. After straightening it even more to the third photo, the detail just got worse. I couldn't sharpen anymore, and now I can't shake the feeling that it's just a lot more "blah" than the first. I asked a friend for opinions, and he claimed the difference was pretty big.
My questions are:
Do you think the first is better than the third?
Is there really THAT noticeable a difference between all three, or am I just paranoid?
All comments appreciated.
The Original (rejected for unlevel horizon): http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 224qe8.jpg (http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf1173jpg34224qe8.jpg)
If you look at the horizon, I wanted to include the curvature of the horizon in the picture. If I had straightened it out, it would not have been as evident. It got rejected and I filed an appeal. The appeal was rejected.
Not wanting to sacrifice the beautiful horizon, I straightened the photo out somewhat into: http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image ... 844ru6.jpg (http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf11731jpg17844ru6.jpg)
It still got rejected for unlevel horizon. I didn't appeal this time, and I fully straightened the horizon out finally in the next one: http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 812kh3.jpg (http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf11732jpg38812kh3.jpg)
I hope in the last one (which is still in queue), the horizon will still be "semi-evident". But, as the photo got straightened out more and more, I noticed it got less and less detailed (since it sort of had to "zoom in"), even from the first to the second. I sharpened the second one again, but I would've definetely preferred the first. After straightening it even more to the third photo, the detail just got worse. I couldn't sharpen anymore, and now I can't shake the feeling that it's just a lot more "blah" than the first. I asked a friend for opinions, and he claimed the difference was pretty big.
My questions are:
Do you think the first is better than the third?
Is there really THAT noticeable a difference between all three, or am I just paranoid?
All comments appreciated.