Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Comments Please  
User currently offlineThowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 363 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2320 times:

It's been a good while since I uploaded anything, however, I have started going through some of my remaining better shots and trying to get up to standard once again.

Having taken on board some of Jeff's ideas, I have processed this shot using some of the mask actions, and using some other things I learned on a recent PS course. Please feel free to comment. All is greatly welcome. Question is do I pull it from the queue and try again, or am I getting close?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/EIDEA-052609-AMSa.jpg

Cheers

Andy

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

I'd say it looks very soft and slightly out of focus.

[Edited 2006-04-25 23:36:37]

User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Andy.

Interesting lighting in this one. Unfortunately it is looking rather soft and won't make it as it is. The editing looks a little wrong to me.

If you want me to take a look at the original feel free to get in touch.

All the best.

Paul

P.S. I think you may also be suffering with a factor that has affected many of us when following a plane either side of perpendicular to your position. Something technical is going on whereby the point of your focus may be fine, but either end of the aircraft is slightly out of focus - here the tail end I think.

The best bet for this kind of shot to minimise the likelihood of this is to capture the plane directly opposite you, if at all possible, so there is no difference in the relative speed of either end of the plane (relative to your point). I recall a thread some time ago where Ed - IL76 - explained this properly.

[Edited 2006-04-25 23:50:15]

User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

This one is slightly out of focus and most likely can't be saved!

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineThowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Thanks, looks like the pull, though I do like the composition and the cloudy background.

Ok, round 2, what about this one? I think there are some jaggies on the leading edge, now I have looked at it closely.

I always sharpen insufficently. It's the last thing I do after resizing down to 1024 x 683. I have used 500, 0.2 on these 2. Is it not enough???

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/PHKZK-052509-AMS.jpg

Cheers

Andy


User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting Thowman (Reply 4):
Ok, round 2, what about this one?

I don't know what you have done to that one but I can only say from first impressions I don't like it.  Sad


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Quoting Thowman (Reply 4):
Thanks, looks like the pull, though I do like the composition and the cloudy background.

Ok, round 2, what about this one? I think there are some jaggies on the leading edge, now I have looked at it closely.

I always sharpen insufficently. It's the last thing I do after resizing down to 1024 x 683. I have used 500, 0.2 on these 2. Is it not enough???

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/PHKZK-052509-AMS.jpg

Cheers

Andy

Andy,

I see something strange under the fuselage. It's black, and doesn't look right. I don't know if I can call it halo, but something similar to that.

It has to do with over-sharpening....

By the way: The photo rocks in motiv!

Regards,
David


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

I agree there's sharpening halo's under the fuselarge. Theres just to much USM going on and quite a lot of areas need work. Also the contrast seems a bit to dark to me . Check the histogram. I like the motive also but if was editing the photo i would lose a bit of the sky at the top. Of course you need to remove a bit of ground at the bottom to keep the aircraft in the centre of the photo. With some work i think this one stands a chance.  Smile


Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineThowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Right, I think I have been getting a tad carried away with the editing. A little knowledge is very dangerous.

How's this for the second edit?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/PHKZK-052509-AMSb.jpg

Reduced the contrast and not used so much editing.

Andy

Oops. forgot to save with the sharpening layer visible.

[Edited 2006-04-26 01:12:38]

[Edited 2006-04-26 01:13:48]

User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 6):
I see something strange under the fuselage. It's black, and doesn't look right. I don't know if I can call it halo, but something similar to that.

That is the shadow from the wing.

The second edit is now too soft.

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2226 times:

Quoting Thowman (Reply 4):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/PHKZK-052509-AMS.jpg

Hi Andy,

I have to agree with Chris. I prefer the second to the third edit. As I've said many a time though, these motion blur shots are hard to master. I must say though, the detail is there but it looks like you lucked out in terms of bad weather.

I have taken shots from the spot you took this at. It's excellent for motion blurs, so I'm sure you're going to get some brilliant shots. Upload only your very best.

Screening wise this is a borderline case. Remove the third edit from the queue (I see the first is already removed), by using www.airliners.net/myphotos. Leave the second edit in the queue and see how it goes.

I can't promise anything, but I can only say that it might not be an open and shut case. The shot has promise and there is a slim chance that it might be accepted. I only say this because apart from a lack of colour/saturation, you've actually managed to maintain some detail in the aircraft; something that the rejected motion blur shots typically miss out on.

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineThowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

Guys, thanks for all the constructive comments. They're much appreciated. I'm not so bothered as to whether or not they are accepted as it was really an exercise in getting my anet workflow up to scratch. I uploaded them as it's the easiest and cheapest way of sharing them with everyone.

I have spent the last 8 months or so concentrating on landscape photography, so I need to re-learn my anet stuff. I have also been "playing" with JeffM's actions.

The thing I always struggle with on here is sharpness, as I tend to sharpen to what I would normally do for printing and landscapes, and these always get rejected as being soft on here. It is now always the last thing I do to an edited photo, and always after resizing the shot to the final size, but I still struggle to get it right. I'm going to have another go at it this evening and I'll redo the sharpening layer and use some higher settings than the 500,0.2,0 I used for this.

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 10):
it looks like you lucked out in terms of bad weather.

True, it was a poor couple of days weather wise. I have already had some similar shots accepted from this trip, including the below, however, the accepted versions are some of the few where the sun actually came out briefly that afternoon:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thowman
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thowman



I took an awful lot of panning shots that day, and most of them are not useable - as expected. Perhaps as low as a couple per hundred shots. However, I liked the detail on this one.

Thanks once again.

Andy


User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Quoting Thowman (Reply 11):
True, it was a poor couple of days weather wise. I have already had some similar shots accepted from this trip

I had a similar trip to Taiwan. A whole day of shooting resulted in me keeping the entire day worth just for my personal collection. I doubt I'll get anything accepted.... and if I try, I'll end up editing each shot for probably far longer than it's worth.

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Comments Please On This Old Bird posted Sat May 6 2006 18:43:59 by BrianW999
Comments Please posted Tue Apr 25 2006 23:31:24 by Thowman
Your Comments Please? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 19:23:13 by Cxsjr
My First Attempt - Your Comments Please posted Wed Mar 29 2006 14:29:22 by Rodge
Quality Reject--Comments Please? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 01:17:02 by C133
Clueless, But Willing To Learn - Comments, Please posted Mon Sep 5 2005 20:10:33 by EDDM
Comments Please posted Sat Feb 26 2005 18:36:35 by JetJock22
Rejections, Comments Please. posted Wed Jan 21 2004 19:48:56 by MerC
Badmotiv, Comments Please. posted Fri Jan 2 2004 00:00:31 by Jofa
Some Fun - Witty Comments Please! posted Fri Jul 4 2003 23:04:29 by Granite