The sky is the color it is because of the polarizer. The plane itself, I think, is of the exact color and contrast as reality. Personally, I think it should be accepted. The sky happens to be very rich. The sky was extremely harsh that day so I used a polarzer.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
Hey Phil, looking through those two it seems the contrast between the sky and white of the aircraft is too much. It almost started to hurt my eyes. The white in the CO and especially the AS are too bright. The sky itself looks fine to me. Look forward to meeting you and everyone else at LAX next weekend.
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
If you took that plane...and added it to the hazy sky that actually existed....it would look like shit. The plane is exactly what it SHOULD look like. The ONLY difference is the rich color of the sky. If I didn'tuse a polarizer, you'd see a crappy hazed out blue that woudl get rejected for bad quality or whatever.
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1090 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1928 times:
I really like the deep blue you get with using a Polarizer it is outstanding.
I have a 77mm for my 100-400 and 70-200 and got some excellent results with hazy skies and even on a clear day at really helping bring the blue out in the sky.
It is also excellent at bringing out the underside detail without giving that overexposed look to the top side of the aircraft.
But I think the problem then is to ensure that the darker areas that will be created by the filter (due to the fact it takes 2+ stops off the exposure) are brightened. That is what I see as the problem with these photos - they are, in effect, too dark.
So I would agree with the comments above that the dark undersides need to be brightened.
Hisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1794 times:
Baddark means the whole photo is uniformly underexposed. In this case the upper fuselage is correctly exposed. Adding more light may have resulted in overexposing the upper fuselage. You were dealing with a contrasty situation that's difficult to meter. What's the contrast setting on your 10D? I usually keep it at zero.
Hi Phil! I agree with the first posts, looks too contrasty in my eyes, but I think you can solve that with a different editing and still keep the sky looking good.
I use a circular polarizer with mixed results; I like the way I can pump up the contrast in a lot of situations (not only sky shots, try using it so that the runway appears real dark) but I think quality and sharpness suffers, sometimes so much that it would ruin the shot.
Got several shots from MEX right now in the queue, all of them shot with my polarizer, I hope they make the cut
Norfolkjohn From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 251 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1729 times:
The actual reason for rejection of each shot has not been mentioned although the general assumption seems to be contrast and or dark. I do think the level of contrast is excessive in both shots but I have to say that I would have though the Alaska 737 would have got NOA_Quality. Apart from the contrast issue, what are those white marks below the rear fuselage ? Not to mention the ghost of a winglet between the wing tip and vertical tail fin. It looks to me like some dust spot removal may have gone wrong. Looks even more peculiar if you equalize the shot. I would also say that this shot is slightly over sharpened - jaggies on tail, winglet and top of fuselage.
If you are looking to re-edit this shot I think there are more areas to be looked at than just contrast.
One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning.