Thowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 359 posts, RR: 3 Posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1222 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?
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1205 times:
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.
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1166 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.
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
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1141 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
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...
Thowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 359 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1089 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:
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.
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 56 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1062 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...
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 359 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
