Now, I'm not sure if it meets or not A.net standards, so I'm wondering if I should pull it out from the queue or not. It may not be a very special shot, but the OS 342 has been very hard to catch for me this summer (flies in only on Saturdays, cloudy evenings, 8+ pm arrival, etc...) so I'd be happy if it could get online..
From my perspective, I like the overall composition of the picture. Thing is I wonder if the logo and the "Austrian" title are too much sharpened. Is it acceptable?Also I was looking at it, and thought the picture might be a bit flat (contrast)?
Any thoughts? Should I rework it from the original file?
Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3026 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2143 times:
Hi,
Well I'm no photo screener whatsoever, but I'd say it might have a good chance of getting accepted, quality wise that is. The Austrian logo has a few jaggies, as has the wing root, but I've seen photos with much more jaggies that got accepted.
Benyhone From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 206 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2088 times:
I praise your attempt at this difficult shot, Alex. But I'm predicting rejection - it looks like you took a slightly soft/out of focus image to start with (notice the registration) and oversharpened it (notice main landing gear, nose wheel door letters). I'm wondering if you had waited for the full side-on shot (main landing gear lined up with your lens), the aircraft would have slowed down a little more and your panning may have been more 'in sync' with the aircraft's motion...?
I don't think it's an editing issue - think the original was just not sharply focused.
AGD From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 204 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2032 times:
Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 3): Are you familiar with the duplicate layer technique?
To be honest, no..I'm used to select a portion of the aircraft and inverse the selection so I can sharpen only the parts I want. It seems to work for me so far... Maybe I should have a close rlook into that!
Quoting Benyhone (Reply 5): I'm wondering if you had waited for the full side-on shot (main landing gear lined up with your lens), the aircraft would have slowed down a little more and your panning may have been more 'in sync' with the aircraft's motion...?
Yeah, I have some side-on shots of it, when the plane was almost idle on the runway, and the quality out of the camera is slightly better. You're right when you suppose the quality isn't the best straight out of the camera (for the shot I uploaded that is). I just thought the shot I uploaded would be more interesting since you see the tower and some other details you wouldn't see in the side-on shot.
Thanks for the help and advices guys. I appreciate that.
FlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 3): Are you familiar with the duplicate layer technique?
Hi Fergul,
I just ran into a little jaggie problem myself after resizing a photo of a Varig 777 at FRA from 6.3MP to the usual 1024x683. Jaggies started to show up at the leading edge flap. I have no idea whatsoever how to get rid of these guys. I remembered reading somewhere about that duplicate layer thing but I couldn't find it anywhere. Could you, or somebody else please fill me in on that. A link to where it is explained will totally do.
Cheers,
Sebastian
Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
FlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1878 times:
Thanks for the quick help Fergul. If you want to convert a .doc to a .pdf you will need to have Adobe Acrobat installed, not just the Acrobat Reader. Then you should automatically have a printer installed, with which you will be able to print your .doc to a .pdf file. I will check on my computer though since I don't have Acrobat on this one.
Cheers,
Sebastian
Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
FlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1875 times:
Ok Fergs,
I just checked on my computer and you will be able to either do it the way I told you in the above post. BTW the printer is called Adobe PDF. Or when I open up my Microsoft Word, there are three buttons in the upper right corner, where one of them says "convert to Adobe PDF". It looks just like the symbol for an Adobe PDF file. But the most important thing would be for you to have Adobe Acrobat installed. Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Sebastian
Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Thanks Sebastian,
A nice chap from down under, Chris, aka, StealthZ came to the rescue and converted it for me. I will have to get the full version of Acrobat some time, thanks Chris
Quoting FlyingZacko (Reply 8): I just ran into a little jaggie problem myself after resizing a photo of a Varig 777 at FRA from 6.3MP to the usual 1024x683. Jaggies started to show up at the leading edge flap.
I have to admit, I can't remember if I have ever had that problem with down sizing.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 204 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3026 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 206 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2971 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
