RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Is this noisy? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18041)

Decapod401 12-03-2017 03:04 AM

Is this noisy?
 
Got this rejection. I don't see it, but some of you have better eyes and monitors than me for this sort of thing.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...74&key=7533585

SAR Connecta 12-03-2017 03:30 AM

The sky looks a bit pixelated on my side and some jagged lines on the straight edges (loco / coach & bridge / bridge supports), with three distinctive fudgy areas under the bridge where the bridge supports begin. I have almost no experience with the scanning of slides (unlike yourself), so just my observations on looking at the rejected photo.

RobJor 12-03-2017 03:38 AM

I like so much of yours(like every one) but this one is a mess. Not sure it is noise but look at all the edges, maybe you blurred parts but couldn't get close, there are ragged edges all over and the car and engine looks funky. Everything has a blur. Not sure what original looked like but can't imagine a slide looking anything like that.

Bob

Decapod401 12-03-2017 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAR Connecta (Post 192903)
The sky looks a bit pixelated on my side and some jagged lines on the straight edges (loco / coach & bridge / bridge supports), with three distinctive fudgy areas under the bridge where the bridge supports begin. I have almost no experience with the scanning of slides (unlike yourself), so just my observations on looking at the rejected photo.

The whether the source of the image is a digital camera or film, the final image is the deciding factor. Based on your observations, I'll let this one go. Thanks.

bigbassloyd 12-03-2017 05:13 AM

It is quite noisy Doug. Above the locomotive, passenger car, and the dark areas of the bridge are the worst, but the entire image is muddy. Perhaps you can re-scan ?

Loyd L.

miningcamper1 12-03-2017 06:42 PM

1 Attachment(s)
The screener must have zoomed in. Was the finished image a significant crop from the slide? A new scan might be in order.

JimThias 12-04-2017 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 192905)
The whether the source of the image is a digital camera or film, the final image is the deciding factor. Based on your observations, I'll let this one go. Thanks.

Does the original image look this way (when the slide is viewed on a projector), or is this a result of poor scanning?

SAR Connecta 12-04-2017 12:42 PM

I'm sure Doug will respond, but he had a successful resubmit of the photo this morning :-)

[photoid=639950]

JimThias 12-04-2017 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAR Connecta (Post 192913)
I'm sure Doug will respond, but he had a successful resubmit of the photo this morning :-)

The accepted version looks a bit bland compared to the rejected version, which I prefer. :-)

Decapod401 12-05-2017 01:56 AM

Thanks for the advice guys. I had an early flight this morning, and I'm finally in my hotel room, or I would have replied sooner.

The root cause of my issues was oversharpening. I start my processing with a preset in lightroom to get me to a certain point before final adjustments. The sharpening and masking settings have worked consistently since I developed the preset, but this image reacted differently for some reason. I started with the same scanned image, and processed differently in LR to get what was accepted. Lesson learned - double check the sharpening before submitting.

Jim, I agree with your assessment. I was distracted with the noise issue and could have done a better job with the final version.

Thanks everybody for your input.

wds 12-05-2017 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 192915)
...Jim, I agree with your assessment. I was distracted with the noise issue and could have done a better job with the final version...


So long as there's this, it's never really a final version unless you feel you've done the best you care to do:

http://www.railpictures.net/members/resubmit.php

Re-upload improved scans or versions of photos already in the database.

miningcamper1 12-05-2017 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wds (Post 192916)
So long as there's this, it's never really a final version unless you feel you've done the best you care to do:

http://www.railpictures.net/members/resubmit.php

Re-upload improved scans or versions of photos already in the database.

Absolutely! (Provided I have done an improved version for Flickr, where you can place the photo where you want among your uploads so more than a handful will view it. :evil:)

wds 12-05-2017 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 192917)
Absolutely! (Provided I have done an improved version for Flickr, where you can place the photo where you want among your uploads so more than a handful will view it. :evil:)

Ahh, Flickr! Unfortunately I cannot view images on Flickr - or more accurately I refuse to open a Flickr link because I don't have the patience to wait for them to first open as fuzz-ball lookin' images, then eventually clear up. At first I thought it was just that I'm on a deep woods out-in-the-sticks turtle network, but when I tried on the kids' network down in the big city and it wasn't a helluva lot better I decided it's a waste of my time. I suppose if they ever get that major annoyance eliminated I might be converted, but as it is, well I have enough annoyances in my life without that sort of bull crap! ;)

Decapod401 12-05-2017 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wds (Post 192916)
So long as there's this, it's never really a final version unless you feel you've done the best you care to do:

http://www.railpictures.net/members/resubmit.php

Re-upload improved scans or versions of photos already in the database.

I have done that in the past. In this case, the image was accepted in the middle of the night, and I had an early morning flight to a destination 500 miles from the computer where I process my images. If I'm so moved, I'll revisit when I get home in a few days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wds (Post 192918)
Ahh, Flickr! Unfortunately I cannot view images on Flickr - or more accurately I refuse to open a Flickr link because I don't have the patience to wait for them to first open as fuzz-ball lookin' images, then eventually clear up. At first I thought it was just that I'm on a deep woods out-in-the-sticks turtle network, but when I tried on the kids' network down in the big city and it wasn't a helluva lot better I decided it's a waste of my time. I suppose if they ever get that major annoyance eliminated I might be converted, but as it is, well I have enough annoyances in my life without that sort of bull crap! ;)

I've never seen that issue. In fact, I find the instant uploading and response from Flickr to be quite refreshing. The only downside is the inability to reliably search for an image.

JimThias 12-06-2017 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 192919)
I've never seen that issue. In fact, I find the instant uploading and response from Flickr to be quite refreshing. The only downside is the inability to reliably search for an image.

Me neither. Flickr loads just as fast (if not faster) than any other image hosting site.

WDS, are you sure you're not confusing Flickr with http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/?

wds 12-06-2017 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 192932)
Me neither. Flickr loads just as fast (if not faster) than any other image hosting site.

WDS, are you sure you're not confusing Flickr with http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/?

Absolutely positively Jimbo! I've had times where it's taken a minute and a half for a Flickr link to open and clear up. That's why I just don't bother anymore. As for RRPA I just don't go there at all unless it's looking for something from the past that just doesn't exist anywhere else - maybe once in a couple of years. I've talked to others that have the same experiences with that site (Flickr) too, so I know I'm not alone. Also I've had times where I've been told by others they've seen my pictures show up on other folks Flickr accounts. Notifying their admins gets zero results, so as far as I'm concerned they're a bunch of unethical jerk-offs and I have no use for them.

miningcamper1 12-06-2017 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wds (Post 192934)
Absolutely positively Jimbo! I've had times where it's taken a minute and a half for a Flickr link to open and clear up. That's why I just don't bother anymore.

Flickr doesn't display tiny thumbs that the viewer needs to click on to see what they are. A hundred or more postcard size previews are loading, so there is a delay if your ISP sucks, as my Verizon (big lie) High Speed Internet does.
Also, many Flickr photos are large files, and large files take longer.

Also:
No nit-picking, no drama, no rejections.
Large files accepted.
Options to view larger.
View on black.
Photostream can be rearranged.
Re-uploads can be placed first.
One-click yields 1000 visually similar photos by clicking the magnifying glass icon.
Where one can find numerous photogs who don't upload to RP anymore. :twisted:

Decapod401 12-06-2017 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 192937)
Where one can find numerous photogs who don't upload to RP anymore. :twisted:

And many good ones that never did!

Joseph Cermak 12-06-2017 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 192937)

Also:
No nit-picking, no drama, no rejections.
Large files accepted.
Options to view larger.
View on black.
Photostream can be rearranged.
Re-uploads can be placed first.
One-click yields 1000 visually similar photos.
Where one can find numerous photogs who don't upload to RP anymore. :twisted:

Not to hijack this thread, but how does one place re-uploads first?

miningcamper1 12-06-2017 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 192943)
Not to hijack this thread, but how does none place re-uploads first?

Glad you asked!

You can simply upload the new version with a different file name. You can leave the old version where it is or delete it.
Or, if you want to remove and replace but retain the views and comments, replace the photo in edit, then go to the Flickr upload date drop-down and change the upload date. This is also an option for one's older stuff that went unnoticed at the time.

jac_murphy 12-07-2017 12:18 AM

Flickr was horrendously slow for several months following the big site revamp a few years ago, but it's much better now.

That, or I've just gotten used to it. :D

-Jacques

miningcamper1 01-15-2018 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wds (Post 192918)
Ahh, Flickr! Unfortunately I cannot view images on Flickr - or more accurately I refuse to open a Flickr link because I don't have the patience to wait for them to first open as fuzz-ball lookin' images, then eventually clear up. At first I thought it was just that I'm on a deep woods out-in-the-sticks turtle network, but when I tried on the kids' network down in the big city and it wasn't a helluva lot better I decided it's a waste of my time. I suppose if they ever get that major annoyance eliminated I might be converted, but as it is, well I have enough annoyances in my life without that sort of bull crap! ;)

Mozilla just launched a new Firefox. So far, the speed improvement is stunning (at least on my system). It's worth a try IMO. :)

JimThias 01-15-2018 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 193080)
Mozilla just launched a new Firefox. So far, the speed improvement is stunning (at least on my system). It's worth a try IMO. :)

I'm using version 57.0.4. Info area states that it's up to date. Is that what you have as well?

miningcamper1 01-15-2018 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 193082)
I'm using version 57.0.4. Info area states that it's up to date. Is that what you have as well?

Yes. Looks like it was launched "a couple months ago", but it was only offered to me last Thursday. Just in time, too, as I was thinking about switching to Chrome. Mozilla claims it's twice as fast as the previous.

JimThias 01-16-2018 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 193087)
Yes. Looks like it was launched "a couple months ago", but it was only offered to me last Thursday. Just in time, too, as I was thinking about switching to Chrome. Mozilla claims it's twice as fast as the previous.

I haven't noticed twice as fast.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.