JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1640 posts, RR: 3 Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
I've found that when I try to push the "Mother Nature" conditions things usually don't stack up well for me. I really wanted to get a shot of the new Airborne Express/DHL 767 flight into Hartford/Bradley Field last week and got up quite early to do so - FBOWeb called for its arrival at around 7:30 a.m., which would have been perfect light. It was a crystal-clear morning, couldn't ask for better photography weather. I got to the airport with plenty of time to spare, but was shocked to hear the ABX flight being cleared to land at about 6:50 a.m. Ordinarily it would have been no big deal since I was prepared, but the sun had other ideas - it was barely above the horizon at that hour.
The resulting set of images of the 767 were, not surprisingly, quite dark and I had to raise the brightness/contrast significantly in Photoshop to get a result that looked about right to me. I have no idea what other bad results doing that can do to an image, though. Long story short, my submitted image was rejected for "NOA_Quality", the proverbial kiss of death. Is there any hope for this one? The color is very reddish due to the sunrise, but I kind of like that effect. The image seems sharp enough to my eye, and I don't think I'd want it any brighter. There is a rather nasty shadow on the forward part of the fuselage that may be the culprit - if so, this image is toast for this site, I guess, as every one of the 8 or so shots I took in the sequence has the same shadow. What do you think?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1545 times:
Quoting JohnJ (Thread starter): The resulting set of images of the 767 were, not surprisingly, quite dark and I had to raise the brightness/contrast significantly in Photoshop to get a result that looked about right to me.
John, that doesn't even look close to natural. Sometimes 'ya just gotta let go....this looks like one of 'em.
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1640 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1464 times:
Thanks for the feedback. At DLKAPA's request I've made the original available at the link below. It is very dark, hence the liberal use of bright and contrast in my modified photo. The only other processing I did was to sharpen it and touch up a dust spot along the bottom. Ordinarily I'd have dumped this one in the hopper a lot sooner, but I was surprised at the sharpness and detail of the image in the low light conditions and thought it might be salvageable.
Propellix From Austria, joined May 2005, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1457 times:
Nice shot actually, BUT ...
I found a few flaws that perhaps irritated the screeners as well:
Rotate the image, so the line of trees in the background are level. In your picture the approach attitude looks very unnatural for a 767. (Perhaps not for a CRJ). Apply less brightness than in your submitted photo, and definitevly select dawn/sunset shot. That will put it in a different category and help with the low light. Do not overbrighten (that happened in your submission)!
Crop the picture tightly! Screeners love that! Be very careful on that!
Just my ideas.
Any typing errors found, can be kept!
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
It's not a bad shot considering the light. Certainly not a lost cause. Just note that you should not use Brightness to make the photo brighter. You should first adjust the levels and then make it brighter with curves instead of brightness/contrast. Then apply some Unsharp Mask. I'm no expert (far from it) but doing the above and nothing else produced much better results that should be acceptable or at least working towards acceptance.
before and after: (links to full size/larger photos belows):
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1640 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
The wonders of Photoshop! I agree both JeffM and Mikephotos versions look far better than mine. I'd like to try tinkering with the shot to see if I can get it to look as good as these using levels/curves vs. brightness/contrast. Thanks a lot for the help with this one!