ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3114 times:
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.
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1291 posts, RR: 30 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3076 times:
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...
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1291 posts, RR: 30 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3030 times:
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: 52 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3006 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, 3139 posts, RR: 30 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3002 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
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 22 Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2885 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.