Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 4): If I fix the grain and the jaggies, what would the chances be then?
Of course it's a nice shot. Besides the grain and jaggies, if this shot could be increased a little bit contrast by Curve function, that would be more desirable as now it looks slightly flat, caused by the cloudy day's unideal light. Just my thought.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1552 times:
Some good points raised here.
For me on first viewing the key issues are the indistinct transition between the top of the fuselage and the sky, and also the grainy/undersharpened underside to the wing. I think that is enough to explain the quality rejection.
I don't see a very significant 'jaggies' issue. In fact, to my eye there are areas that could do with a little extra sharpening. For example, that tail logo looks a bit soft.
Thanks for the help there Tim. Always like to hear from you. I'll have a go at fixing it. Main point to get the shot in was the US rego. Here, we don't get much "interesting" traffic so when this came in, I was hoping I could share with everyone!
It was a dark and gloomy day so the noise came from that as it needed to be lightened a bit.