Appreciate any help pls since I worked mostly on the comments I received from the 1st post.! another thing what if I leave them in Q and then if they got rejected I will post them in forum for opinion pls?
Thks alot in advance
Malcolm Bezzina
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
Well my quick take on them is the following:
1. Jaggered and bright on this BenQ monitor here
2. Seems ok to me - but may pay to remove jaggies from stipes on aircraft.
3. Seems ok to me
4. Soft
5. Blurry
6. Blurry
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Excellent work Malcolm - that BritishJet still looks very close to a tail strike to me!
Generally I can see improvements in all the edits. Unfortunately I am still not a screener , but with my hyper-critical eye, I would still be less than 100% confident about some:
* IL76 - better than before, though slightly grainy. Still small areas of jaggies, but I would stick with it as it is such an interesting shot.
* 720 - looks a lot better. Hard to get rid of all those jaggies caused by those cheat lines.
* ATR - I think this will stand a good chance now
* Blue Line - still looks a bit soft to me in places - e.g. front and rear
* Phantom - still looks a great shot, but I can't escape noticing slight softness generally, particularly the front quarter of the plane. But with such an interesting image it would be a great shame not to submit it for assessment by the screeners to see if they will give any latitude.
* BritishJet - I really like this capture, but I cannot get away from what I see as quality issues unfortunately. It still looks slightly soft - e.g. tail area - and hence why the sharpening hasn't brought it up just right. I think that can be seen in that jagged registration, which suggests to me that it is very slightly blurred in the original.
I am not a fan of the watermark - though understand why people use it - but I think it looks better when the watermark doesn't cut across the plane so much - e.g in the new version of the 'Blue Line'.
I hope that - as often is the case - I am being too harsh a judge, and that you have some success. Thanks for sharing the photos with us and good luck.
AirMalta From Malta, joined Mar 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1349 times:
Hello
No problem being harsh my friends!!Better take some advice over here obviously if there is a screener comments this will help out very much because ultimately they are going to decide wether these pics will be online or not, I am not saying that other comments are not fruitful...by the way.
Malcolm Bezzina
Sponsor Message: 
From Malta, joined Mar 2006, 394 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, 
, but with my hyper-critical eye, I would still be less than 100% confident about some:
Printer friendly format 
