IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2236 posts, RR: 50 Posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Been trying to edit this shot numerous times, because I like it so much, but without success. The rejection reason was badquality/badblurry. The plane is distorted because of its own jet exhaust, but the picture is not unsharp I think, f.e. the runwaylights look ok to me.
Is the engine heat a not-to-overcome hurdle, or are there perhaps other issues that can (hopefully) be solved to make this shot stand a chance at A.net?
PH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 33 Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2284 times:
What's with the blur around the sun? That can't be from the exhaust IMO. Look's like a compression effect to me. Nice shot BTW.
Try less sharpening around the contours of the plane and it would look better IMO.
I had the same problem with my 747 taking of from RTM. These shots are very hard to get right. The exhaust blur looks jagged very quickly when sharpened some way or another.
Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3008 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
A beautiful photo Eduard. It is such a shame that the situation was going to prevent you getting the clarity of image demanded by the site.
If I were a site screener I know I would have to reject it, as the quality of the image of the aircraft itself is just not there. Having looked closely I cannot imagine how you can rescue that aspect of the photo. But it's a lovely image, nonetheless. Some of my favourite shots on the site include this kind of atmosphere that you have captured. My sympathies. However, I would be very pleased to have a photo such as this in my personal collection.
ehh... No, but perhaps someone could have a fantastic editing trick that could have made a difference... But hey, we all know: crap in = crap out. I'll try to see how it looks on print, and otherwise it'll get a nice corner of the harddrive to rest its days...
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 44 Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2179 times:
Magnificent Eduard but if you want somebody else to try you better post the original.
Although i am afraid the result won't be enough for A.net it is to good for the bin, a nice A3 print will do very good !
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3008 posts, RR: 59 Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
I've just had another look at this photo - really atmospheric. With a photo like this I can understand why some members propose an 'artistic' category.
Out of interest, Eduard, what are the details for this photo - you've obviously frozen the plane well, so what was the ISO etc? I love the way the sun is so clearly still up, yet it looks like night time.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2236 posts, RR: 50 Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
There was a massive fog that morning, so that's why the sun is so weak. Every plane that passed blew away some of the fog, dissapearing in the mist a few seconds later. There was very little contrast to begin with. Everything looked grey and the histogram basically was a tall spike in the middle.
To give you an idea of the unedited original:
I had to crank up the "shadows"-slider in the RAW converter to get any contrast.
Exif... Lemme check...
1/200s f7.1 400mm 200ISO.
Bobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2113 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 11): Everything looked grey and the histogram basically was a tall spike in the middle.
I have pictures like that too. The fog/mist/rain in the air erases all the color and contrast. You can't really put them back after they're gone. Increasing the contrast gives you a grainy and posterized image, and the color information is still gone. Low contrast pictures can look very nice, sort of abstract and moody, but a.net doesn't seem to go for that kind of picture.
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2529 posts, RR: 30 Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2100 times:
You know that really is a beautiful picture. And I dont think it's meant to have so much contrast.. that is what the image WAS. Why should it be rejected because you cant see every detail of the A/C? This picture is not meant to show that...it shows an a/c in the fog, with the sun and runway lights....its a gorgeous shot, and A.net is at a loss IMHO if they dont accept it....