ATCme From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 304 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2033 times:
First one seems to be cut off.
Second seems okay to me.
Take my advice with a grain of salt because I don't have any photos in the DB.
ATCme
I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
FlightShadow From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 862 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2030 times:
1) No. Bad motive
2) Has a chance, with proper editing and a little bit of leveling
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2022 times:
Hi Justin,
I like those shots, but I reckon the first one wouldn't make it on here; it's not generally an acceptable motive (although I personally like those sorts of shots).
The 2nd one looks good to me - one problem I see is that you've cropped the tail off; this might not be a problem if you crop tighter outside the engines and raise the aircraft in the frame slightly. Additionally you'll need to give it about 1.5 - 2 degrees of CCW rotation. From a levels point of view the shot could probably do with having them tightened up a bit, and also I think the photo's a bit dark; boost the brightness just a touch, watching out for hotspots.
I530j From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 233 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1995 times:
Hello all im j/w why would the first one not be acceptable?
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1995 times:
I agree that the first is badmotive, and the second should be able to get to proper quality with good editing, however the blown out details on the nose might give you problems.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1991 times:
I530j From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 233 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1984 times:
Hi Justin,
1) as already stated by others.
2) based on the high voltage pylon (in the background), I would use some 1.8 CCW rotation. It seems that there is also a tiny dust spot (on the right of the vertical stabilizer), maybe two (but my eyes need definitively some sleep now...).
I like the angle, certainly the position of the gear and the way you can see the "forces" acting on the tires because of the turn. A small negative remark is the small portion of the red pole with the aircraft warning lights (although it is in the background, it seems to protrude from the aircraft...). Before pushing the trigger, it is advisable to have a detailed view in your viewfinder on how the picture will look two-dimensionally (on paper/on screen)! When looking through the viewfinder, you see your picture, however, three-dimensionally and then - to the untrained eye - you will not notice that something in the background will interfere with your main subject...
I530j From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 233 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
Thanks walter I'm not that good at photoshop so if i give u the photo via email do you think you could help?
Cheers,
Justin
"I love you, I love the kids..." then the phone went dead.
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 31 Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1938 times:
Hi Justin,
I am not a specialist either ! I am learning day by day, by all the good advise in this forum. If you tell me what kind of tool you are using (Photoshop Elements 2, 3 or 4 or Photoshop CS), I could give you some hints of what I would do (I have Photoshop Elements 2 available as well as Photoshop CS (version 8)), but still it is no guarantee to get a shot accepted...
You can e-mail me, of course, and I can see what I can do and I can explain you the steps so that you can do it afterwards and see the effects yourself (because it is your picture)!
IMO, you should use your Digital Rebel in Av mode, not in Auto, as there you can set most of the things yourself. Aparture 7.1 is all right, but I'd go for a little more on a sunny day, then set the Exposure compensation (by pushing the Av button and pushing the four-way controller to the left) two steps lower. I think, then you'll be in good "hands".
I'm interested why there's such grain on ISO 100, can it probably be because the photo was shot at 230mm (x 1.6) and there was heat-haze?
At least Justin thread starter, I don't think this picture will make it:
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1914 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 11): Aparture 7.1 is all right, but I'd go for a little more on a sunny day, then set the Exposure compensation (by pushing the Av button and pushing the four-way controller to the left) two steps lower. I think, then you'll be in good "hands".
Bad advice. You're telling him to compensate by "two steps" (what are "steps"?) and you have no idea what his shutter speed is or what the scene calls for. He would be better off shooting a test frame or two and adjusting via his histogram.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 32 Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 11): Aparture 7.1 is all right, but I'd go for a little more on a sunny day, then set the Exposure compensation (by pushing the Av button and pushing the four-way controller to the left) two steps lower.
Oh dear. Why go to all that trouble? And why go for an even bigger aperture than f/7.1 on a sunny day????
[Edited 2006-06-05 15:08:12]
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
I530j From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 233 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1876 times:
Thanks all a lot
Cheers,
Justin
"I love you, I love the kids..." then the phone went dead.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 32 Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 14): Vivion, I use most often f/11-13 on a sunny day
That is a SMALLER aperture than f/7.1. We are talking at cross purposes. You are talking high or low aperture NUMBERS. I am talking the size of the aperture, i.e. how big or small the HOLE is.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1816 times:
Wonderful, but that advice isn't accurate for every instance.
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 14): The photo will be sharper with the higher f/.
Wrong. It only means more will be in focus. Where did you learn about Photography?
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 14): I do not understand "trouble" here, as bigger f/ = sharper pic. For me, f/7.1 is just nothing... It's really too low number for me.
You can get a sharp image with an aperture of f2.8 The trouble is you are giving lousy advice.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 32 Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1795 times:
Quoting JayDavis (Reply 18): don't argue with JeffM, he is perfect and knows everything about everything; especially when it comes to photography and cameras.
Actually, I was agreeing with him!
What I do not agree with is your gratuitous and unfounded sarcasm, but I'm sure that Jeff will ignore it.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1793 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 16): That is a SMALLER aperture than f/7.1. We are talking at cross purposes. You are talking high or low aperture NUMBERS. I am talking the size of the aperture, i.e. how big or small the HOLE is.
Sorry, I was talking about the size of the number. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 18 Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1752 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 233 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1391 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, 
! I am learning day by day, by all the good advise in this forum. If you tell me what kind of tool you are using (Photoshop Elements 2, 3 or 4 or Photoshop CS), I could give you some hints of what I would do (I have Photoshop Elements 2 available as well as Photoshop CS (version 8)), but still it is no guarantee to get a shot accepted...
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
