ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6 Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4049 times:
I've posted here a couple of times before about some shots I took in rather unfavourable weather, none of which have been accepted. The advice I received from all you kind sirs tended to focus on finding some good weather. Today I had the good fortune of some breaks of sun at BRS and here's the result:
Sorry for the long list! Would love to know if maybe one of these makes the grade...
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3008 posts, RR: 59 Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
Sorry to be the bearer of unfavourable feedback, but I would have to say that none of these are going to meet A.net's exacting standards.
There are quality issues with all the shots, which makes me think that this may have something to do with the equipment you are using. Also, I note from the files that they have been filtered. Was this to deal with grain in the original files? In fact this may not be helping your cause with overall quality.
I would be interested to know what camera you are using and how you have edited the shots. If you want any help with another edit please do let me know.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3008 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4018 times:
Tom - that makes sense. I feel that you can often tell when a shot is not taken with a DSLR, as generally there is a quality difference.
However, there will be plently of people who will be able to point out photos successfully uploaded with non-DSLR cameras, so don't give up hope. My initial feeling is that the closer you are able to get to your subject, the better, as the lens quality issues will become increasingly apparent the longer the focal length.
If you want to see another edit of an original let me know.
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4008 times:
Next to the quality, I personally find it difficult to get shots accepted that show only (say) half of an aircraft. It seems to me the preference is for close-ups, or full aircraft fuselages (wings may be cropped under some angles), but not half planes, although I personally find these shots quite nice.
I do believe some of these pics have potential though, with just some extra tweaking perhaps. Drop me a line through the contact info in my profile if you want me to give it a try? Especially the first Easyjet and the SN could be good candidates, as I really only see some noise in the sky at first sight.
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3990 times:
Edoca, I'll be in touch
I used NeatImage on some of those images, but, wary of the common problems associated with it, toned down the settings somewhat. A lot of the shots were taken on ISO64 which is a nice feature for a cheap camera, but some areas are still noisy nevertheless.
One more I found; is this any good? (I know it needs a little CW rotation)
F4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3940 times:
Aviation photography is like trying to solve a multi-variable equation. Try to starting out with sunny day, static or still subject, and little or no telephoto. If you don't have access to a general aviation airport, try an aviation museum. Once you get comfortable with the quality of those images, you can progress to panning, zooming to telephoto, while balancing f stop and shutter speed.
I caveat all of this as my suggestion for getting your images accepted on Airliners.net. It is not meant to keep you from expanding your personal collection of aviation photography. What I have uploaded here is a small percentage of the images I enjoy in my collection. Don't underestimate your equipment. I use an Olympus C750 for a lot of my photography, especially when the Canon is too cumbersome to carry. I just recognize the limitations my point and shoot camera has.
Cottage Grove, MN, USA
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3905 times:
Thanks for that Gary. I won't argue for a second that I'm an experienced photographer - I've only really been trying since last summer However if you were to see the originals of some of these shots you'll see how much is down to photoshop and just how little I have to work with. One day I'll find the money for a decent DSLR...
EDIT: Any feedback specifically relating to those last two would be appreciated, not that the more general comments aren't!
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3891 times:
The Easyjet in reply 6 has some noise in the sky. Just set the eraser tool to a low-strength setting and run over the clouds with it (but try to stay away from the cloud edges). I also see jaggies on the cockpit windows and the wing trailing edges, especially the notorious narrow gap between the wing and the flap. These are easily fixable problems and it seems to me you're close with this one.
The one in reply 7 looks to me like it needs some CCW rotation (but not to the point where the runway is level -- that would be going too far) and the halos round the fuselage titles might or might not do you in. But I'd still say it's worth a try.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
FlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3874 times:
IMHO the shot in reply 6 is way to dark on the bottom of the fuselage. However I see potential in all of your shots. I believe that you might actually have a chance with the BAe 146 RJ if with any. If you'd like to send me the original I'd have a go at it, no promises though. Contact me via my profile.
Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3874 times:
Quoting FlyingZacko (Reply 12): IMHO the shot in reply 6 is way to dark on the bottom of the fuselage.
Thanks Sebastian. Fortunately that's most likely a result of me increasing the contrast too much - I believe the original isn't too dark on the underbelly. I'll send it to you tonight when I get home. Thanks very much for all your help you wonderful people!