A Few Rejections. Could You Help Me With Them? — Aviation Photography Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

A Few Rejections. Could You Help Me With Them?

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Hello guys,

Could you help me with some rejections?

If so, here are they:

This one was rejected for quality:

This one was also rejected for quality:

And this was rejected for jagged:

A friend of my edited this photo again, and this was the result:

Do you think the edited one is good enough for a re-upload? I'd really like to get this one into the database. Smile

Thanks!
David Silly

12 replies: All unread, jump to last

Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi David.

First shot - I would recommend uploading at 1024, as that always helps with quality issues. But when you do open the shot up there is some softness, and the contrast issues mean that a lot of the image is just a bit dark.

Second - Overall a better one than the first, but I think the flat lighting didn't help you. There are some jaggies on the livery stripe on the nose and towards the tail, and the top and nose highlights are slightly burned out.

Third - I think the second version is a bit better, but those jaggies around the registration and particularly the black edge of the white stripes are noticeable. I think the screeners will think you can erase those a bit more.

All the best.

Paul

P.S. David - if you want me to try a 1024 edit on the Fokker just let me know.

[Edited 2006-04-24 18:56:22]

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Hi Paul.

Thanks for the reply.

I tried the Fokker shot in 1024, but it was useless. 1200 pixels is the smallest I can. Otherwise, jaggies will appear.

-David

9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Great shots and definately salvageable with some expert editing. Smile

I'm no expert but feel free to drop me a line.

9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

David,

Thanks for the originals. As regards the first shot, I'm afraid the original is way too dark. One look at the histogram shows everything on the black side. And also the original is sharp. Check your in-camera settings and try to leave the sharpness at neutral if you can. However I think this is better but still unfortunately not anet quality.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 781 File size: 716kb

As regards the second shot, same thing again. The histogram is all over the place on that one. I don't think it can be improved enough for anet although I didn't crop it so tightly and a great shot to keep for yourself. There are also a few dust spots on it too.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 730 File size: 88kb

The third shot is my favourite and maybe ok with better expert editing - I really like it. Here is my attempt although there is some kind of mark on the runway I noticed.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 746 File size: 801kb

Keep an eye on those histograms and check the camera settings for optimum shooting.

Hope this helps. Smile

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2089 times:

Hello guys.

Mick Bajcar tried to edit the photo, here comes is work. Is this maybe A.net-quality? And would you crop tighter to the fuselage so the plane would look like it is hanging in the air?

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 727kb

Here's a similar photo that Paul Markman took:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman

9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Wow Mick! You did a much better job than moi! That's pretty cool photoshopping there!

I still don't understand all this layers business. I guess at some point I'm gonna have to though. Smile

[Edited 2006-04-24 22:26:39]

Lufthansi From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

For me your pictures look stunning! You really have some nice ideas! I would keep that in mind and put some more attention on this fact than on the qualtity (which is far better than mine!)

Life starts at take-off!

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

Thank you Ian and Stephan.

I think it's time to upload the photo again.

Best regards,
David

PS: I hope this photo will not ruin my very low 68% acceptance ratio... Sad

[Edited 2006-04-24 22:39:52]

Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

Hi David.

I think Mick has done a good job there with the Fokker. I still see a little softness and some very slight jaggies on the lettering, but it's pretty minor. Having said this, there are plenty of imperfections in my shot that you kindly featured.

I was thinking - that is a very nice motive you have there biggrin

.

Paul

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

Thanks Paul.

Do you think you could do something with the Pitts Special photo?

Regards!
David

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Hey guys.

The Fokker (JMM) picture and Pitts (TOY) are now queued, JMM edit by Mick Bajcar and TOY edit by Paul Markman. I give big thanks to them.

Here are their edits:

TF-TOY

TF-JMM

I know the TF-TOY shot is a little soft, but with more sharpness, it'll become too jagged. I hope the screeners will understand this shot. Smile

The Fokker shot wasn't cropped more in the sides because Mick Bajcar said that it does look to un-natural. Oh well, it is fine. Smile

Best regards,
David Silly

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1955 times:

Hello guys,

I here want to thank you for helping me with the photos, one of them has been accepted!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Alfred Eliasson - Reykjavik Spotters

The TF-TOY photo is now in screening, I hope it will be accepted, and it wouldn't suprise me, because Paul Markman, a good editor, edited the pic. Smile

Regards,
David Silly

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: