I'm somewhat new at uploading but have been lurking the forum for a couple of years. Is this image really THAT bad? I'll move on, but would like to learn from this one if I can. Thanks in advance.......
Terry
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1878 times:
Hi Terry,
The motive is nice, but the photo was ruined by heat / haze impact. The air wasn't very clear on that day and sharpening resulted jaggies, take a look at the small black cheatline and the stripes on the tail!
Badquality is also because of the grain caused by heat / haze in the air.
I guess badexposure because the gears are too dark. I guess you underexposed?
In all, the motive is nice, you know how to edit properly but it just wasn't a good day for shooting. Too hazy, you can't fix that in any way.
Maybe next time go out in early morning / late afternoon so air is a bit cooler than during the day.
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
Terry,
No, the photo isn't terrible, but it could be improved somewhat. The overexposure can be seen quite clearly at the top of the engines, where the grey "lines" have disappeared due to being blown out.
As for the badjagged, I think it refers to the lines on the tail; they are not perfectly smooth. Might want to try using layers to avoid sharpening the tail as much as the rest of the plane (to be honest I don't know how to do this myself!).
One more thing, the colours seem somewhat dull, perhaps try boosting the saturation a little.
All that being said, the overexposure probably prevents it from being accepted, unfortunately. Try again and keep working at it.
A346Dude
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
Hi Terry,
I think the cheatline going down the side of the fuselage is where the jaggies are noticable. I find this often occurs with aircraft that have such straight lines in their livery. Then, when they are at an angle, the jaggies appear - especially following some sharpening.
But I think the killer blow is the heat haze. This prevents any real clarity to the image. I think that is the kind of problem that no amount of post-processing skill can resolve.
One for the personal collection, as they say. Hopefully better luck with the conditions next time (though I wouldn't say no to a bit of heat haze here - we're a bit cold in the UK at the moment).
C133 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Thanks, Florian. Shooting from Imperial Hill is tough due to the distance involved. Other guys (Mike Carter, Ben Wang) seem to pull it off in the same conditions, but I do think bad air is a large part of my problem. As to the dark gear, maybe CS' highlight/shadows can help; will have to experiment with that. Thanks again.
Terry
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
BadExposure:
Blown highlights on the wing/fuselage fairings and the #1 and #2 engine nacelles. You can slightly underexpose to avoid the blown highlights and then bring up the midtones in post-processing. Shooting with a strongly directional sun doesn't help much either.
BadJagged:
There are some sharpening artifacts (Mostly along the black line down the middle of the fuselage). More careful/selective sharpening should take care of that.
BadQuality:
Because this one can't be saved without going back to the original image. And given the heat haze and the blown highlights, I'd suspect it can't be saved at all.
A nice effort, and one that is worth keeping on file, but I would suspect it was probably the blown highlights that really knocked it out.
C133 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Thanks all for the good suggestions. I have to smile at one opinion of over exposure and another of under!
I've taken to shooting exclusively in RAW for max post processing capability, but find that with constant take-offs and ground movements in this area of LAX the air is rarely good enough for lift-off shots like this. I'll just have to keep at it and be more selective in what I think makes the grade for upload. You guys are sharp on the fine points and I'm glad I asked for your help. Thanks again.
Terry
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1808 times:
Hey terry its a great shot but like others said it let you down in some areas.
What camera and lens are you using ?
Keep up the great work and good luck in future uploads.
C133 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1771 times:
It's a D70 and the Nikkor 80-400VR. I've even wondered if a 300 or 400 2.8 (at around US $4,0000, not that I can afford that) would help much with any of this, but don't think so. LAX is so restricted for photography that Imperial Hill is the only spot I know of to get lift-off shots, and it's simply kind of far when you throw in the effect of constant huge volumes of jet exhaust laid down by all the departures. Some luck is needed for a break with clean air.
That's my theory, anyway. As I've said, others do better with the same situation, and I bet they work harder at it. I will keep trying--I can't move to Amsterdam!
Thanks for the encouragement.
Terry
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
