Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Be Bold  
User currently offlineSuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Be bold and tell me what you think about what is wrong with this photo because it is about as good as I can do. I caught four photos of this aircraft transitioning from level flight. I thought conditions where perfect the aviator did what I expected, when I expected it the transition was smooth through all four photos and this photo was selected for upload because it contains the best vapor burst.

Canon 10d
Canon 35-350 lens
1/1600 sec
7.1
RAW image
Photo Taken at 8:30 AM at 85° air temp.

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=7592.jpg


Watch the ball
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

I can see some Jpeg compression in that one.

User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Great shot, but JPEG compression is aboundant. Either theres a LOT of cropping, or it was compressed too much. Post the original file if possible.

-Mike



The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Gerry,
I replied your email with some comments. I hope you find it useful.
Cheers,
Eduard


User currently offlineSuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

The orginal is a RAW file the orginal was 3072 X 2048 cropped to apprx. 1840 X 1192 and then reduced to apprx 1235 X 800 pixels the quality was maintained at 12 so I am not sure where the compression came from.

Please keep going I am actually setting in a meeting and attempting to read post at the same time quite fun actually.



Watch the ball
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1656 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

you need to pan a shot like that, use a much lower shutter speed and open that lens up a bit.

User currently offlineSuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

To capture a photo at the instant their vector changes at 350knots/402 mph takes less than a second I was actually quite please with shutter speed because having attempted this before at 1250 it was very shaky if not even a little blurred. I will give your suggestion another try but all of this happens very quickly.


Watch the ball
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

There are some artifacts in the image, but they're not really excessive. With the greatest respect, even now it isn't the sharpest knife in the draw, but I wonder how soft the original image was... Have you already sharpened it (or rather unsharp masked it) quite agressively??? If so, this could account for the artifacts. If the original is fairly sharp already, its possible that a change to your unsharp process might fix things.

Andy


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1610 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I have no doubt that it happens very quickly, but you are trying to achieve something that probably takes years of practice to get right. That is why I suggested in another thread that you practice on slower moving objects.

User currently offlineSuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

This photos was sharpened and the USM was added perhaps poorly but I did get better masking this time on the central elements main features fwd fuselage, wing tips and vertical stabs.

Skymonster I guess I should say that I have had this camera for a little over a year and have sent it back to the mfg at least three times complaining about the softness of the photos...I have even challenged them to use the camera and send me their best photos and they refused.

It might be me I don't know I have repeatedly asked others photographers to use my camera in order to help me improve my technique and both have agreed that I was doing everything necessary to get a good photo but the photos where still soft. So it might be that my Complementry Metal Oxide Silicon is just bad. I really can't say. But to answer your question yes the original was some magnitude softer than you see here.

[Edited 2004-06-16 23:52:33]


Watch the ball
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

OK, then I think that's what's causing your problems... The very limited artifacts that can just about be detected don't smack of jpeg compression to me, and that's really confirmed by what you tell me about your processing. I'd be interested to know what unsharp mask settings you are using (please note its late here in the UK so I won't see your response tonight) but I suspect that there's some problem with the sharpening process, maybe originated from an overly soft original.

For what its worth (and I know this will be no real consolation for you) a friend of mine has a 10D and has just sent it back to Canon because he continually gets images that are way too soft!

Andy


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1559 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



User currently offlineSuperHornet From United States of America, joined May 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

I have been seriously contemplating getting a Nikon D70 as a replacement with a Nikon Zoom telephoto AF VR Zoom 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 but I am a little shy about trading problems of softness for color. Does anyone have anything to say about this possible combination? Or would anyone like to purchase a slightly used Canon 10d?

Best price I can find on the D70 is $999.00 at B&H photo.



Watch the ball
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1530 times:

SH,

Trust us, it really is not the camera or lens. When I saw you were applying 100% sharpening DURING conversion, that scared the hell out of me. One of the things you really shouldnt do! I wont bother you with any advice, listen to Eduard (IL76), he definately knows what he is talking about.

With the equipment you have, you should not have problems at all...

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineMarco_polo From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 324 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 1503 times:

Not to jump to conclusion about what you did but it looks like you have over done the noise reduction in photoshop using Noise ---> Median. Whatever process you have done you seems leave the aircraft un-touched and Median the sky including all orsome of the vapor effects. I can see some parts of the aircraft that "Noise -----> Median" tool has effected it. If so you might replay with the Median values.

If you did not use this method, please kindly dis-regard this post.

Cheers - Jay


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 1495 times:

Regarding the softness - it does seem that some 10Ds/lens combinations are affected by focus problems. This has been fairly conclusively documented over on Dpreview, and while many user complaints can be written off as "user error" this issue does appear to have some basis in fact.

The first thing to determine is whether the lens or camera is at fault. You'll need a 2nd lens, a tripod and a test target. Compare results using AF and MF with both lenses. If both lenses consitently mis-focus on AF, the camera needs adjustment, and should be returned to Canon (with the images and test procedure as evidence). If only one lens shows a problem, then it is the lens that needs adjusting. If, in this test, you get perfect results, then you will have to accept that perhaps your technique is at fault.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineHisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1430 times:

I totally agree with Colin. Some body-lens combinations just don't work. Even different samples of the same model may behave differently.
My Canon 10D had focus problems with the Canon 70-200/4. The same combination works just fine for other people.
Now I'm using a Canon 80-200/2.8 with excellent results. I suggest you try a different lens.

Hisham.


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Superhornet
What lens are you using with the 10D???
That in itself may reveal some of the softness.
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1332 times:

I might be wrong but does 7.1 and 1/1600 sound like he was shooting at a high ISO. I never get that kind of shutter speed at 7.1 with same background and general aircraft color it is more like 1/400 or lower.

And you also said that you cropped it down to 1800 that is almost half the picture. My 10D 100-400 L IS combo does not do that well with small targets like that.

And one last thing my pictures all come out very soft from the camera.



Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1271 times:

Without seeing the shutter and aperture values, like Paulinba, I was already thinking high ISO.

I suspect that it was either ISO 400, or ISO 200 with underexposure.


Craig.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anyone Be At BKK 10 December? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:32:50 by Spencer
Spam?Can They Will Be Blocked? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 16:37:05 by AirMalta
Help: Can These Be Saved? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 18:20:48 by AirbusA346
Would This Photo Be Acceptable - 'motive'? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 01:41:04 by Chukcha
Hi And 'Does This Picture Can Be Improved?' posted Mon Nov 6 2006 15:59:30 by FYODOR
I Tried To Be Brave...... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:13:52 by Psych
Can This One Be Saved Or Not? posted Tue Oct 31 2006 21:17:56 by Walter2222
Can This Be Saved? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 12:22:26 by Cosec59
Would This Be Acceptable? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 23:24:42 by Walter2222
Could Be A Motive Rejection? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 00:07:25 by Pavvyben