Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Good Enough?  
User currently offlineScottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 11
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Originally rejected for being grainy and uncentered. I sent it through NeatImage and recropped it. Think it makes the grade?

http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/2041/n68051ab0er.jpg

Thanks

-Mike

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1812 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am too new to be a good judge of quality. All I can say is wow a nice shot from SAT. I recognize the buildings around the airport. What a small world.

-Erick


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1812 times:

I see some water-color effect from the Neatimage on the belly and a bit of JPEG artifacting, but I'm not sure if that is enough to get it rejected.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

Hi,

I don't know if it's just me or if the photo is lacking sharpness on the top of the fuselage. The composition is really nice though.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineGlobalpics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 216 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1764 times:

Lovely action shot yo have going on there, well done. I feel though the photo is slightly over exposed especial the middle of the fuselage.The rear seems a little soft with the front being preety nice and spot on, if you want send me the original and I'll have a go at it for you.  veryhappy 

User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

It's a lovely capture, but in it's current state it will be rejected I would say. The fuselage seems slightly overexposed, so if the image has been lightened, re-edit and be more gentle. Also, the image is a little bit soft, especially to the rear of the aircraft. I think resizing to 1024x683 would benefit it.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 5):
I think resizing to 1024x683 would benefit it.

I second Tim's comments.

When starting out, don't aim too high. Start at 1024 width and work up. 1600x res shots reveal their flaws far more easily.

NOTE to those uploading 1600x shots.... If you have a high reject rate, then please, please reduce the size of your shots.



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineScottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

Thanks for all the comments, and I apologize for my late reply.
I reworked the image in both 1600 and 1024, so you can compare the two.

1600
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9937/n68051a4xx.jpg

1024
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/9923/n68051b1ez.jpg

I personally like the 1600 better because of the detail you can see. But which do y'all think has the better chance getting accepted? Thanks for the help!

-Mike


User currently offlineFlyingzacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1637 times:

I'm not sure which one has the better chance to get accepted but I personally like the 1600 better as well. Usually when it's 1600px wide it's gotta be really good to get in though, because the flaws are easier to spot, but I think your photo might have what it takes.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1614 times:

In my opinion, the 1600 pixel version is better. The 1024 version looks strange...

-David


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...
Sea Harrier On Deck Photo- Good Enough? posted Wed Feb 14 2007 17:44:55 by Opso1
Plane At Gate In SFO: Good Enough Or Not? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 18:15:14 by Whappeh
Are These Good Enough On Quality And Motive? posted Fri Feb 2 2007 17:59:34 by Vice911
Is This One Good Enough? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 14:12:14 by Whappeh
Good Enough? posted Sat Jan 6 2007 00:11:47 by FighterPilot
Good Enough? (or Better Delete It...?) posted Tue Nov 14 2006 19:16:49 by JetCrazy
A380 Crosswind Photos. Good Enough? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 21:07:43 by BaldurSveins
Is This Good Enough? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 00:05:06 by Pavvyben
Turkish Coastguard Helicopter - Good Enough? posted Sat Sep 16 2006 13:53:04 by Dazbo5
Good Enough For A.net? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 15:44:06 by RuudOnline