Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2862 times:
I was at LAX for a short time yesteray, and came up with these. I'd like your opinions on any/all, especially with advice on how to improve them. I've started toying around with editing layers, instead of just an original, and I hope this has improved the end result. I finally just got shot of a moving plane accepted, so I hope it's a sign of what's to come
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2860 times:
I scanned through all the shots and right now I don't think any would be accepted. Some are closer than others, but the overall quality still seems to be lacking. Most of the pictures had a soft appearance to me, and some could use some brightness/contrast adjustments. You are on the right track though.
-Matt
AirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3848 posts, RR: 57 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2853 times:
1. Soft
2. Blurry
3. Not a bad attempt, but also a bit blurry?
4. Nose is blurred
5. Good one! Dunno if it will pass the screening though
6. Soft, blurry engine
7. Quality
8. Soft/Quality
9. Looks ok...
10. Crop it more
11. Dunno about the nose..
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2832 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
1. soft, light heat haze
2. soft
3. slightly soft
4. soft, front part blurry
5. looks ok, a little dark though
6. slightly soft and dark, color cast (greenish)
7. soft
8. soft
9. slightly soft, dark
10. dark, front part soft
11. soft, dark
I'd say N° 1, 5, 6 and 10 are saveable but the others will be quite difficult to get accepted due to their common nature.
All in all your editing looks ok; try to improve your sharpening (avoid sharpening the sky).
But most important try to get your shots as sharp as possible while taking them (increase aperture, if you have a good zoom try to get some more distance to the planes as they pass by); also try to avoid taking such shots while the sun stands so high in the sky as you'll always have lighting issues with the planes being bright on the top but very dark on the bottom.
Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2821 times:
Thanks for the comments so far!
As for sharpening, I have been selecting the sky, then doing an inverse so as to only sharpen the plane. I then use unsharp mask. Is there a way to get the pictures a little sharper right off the bat other than an increased aperture? These were shot with either 5.6 or 6.3, I believe. Let me know how much higher I should go
Regarding the sun, it was actually quite low--these were taken around 6:30/7PM, and the sun was setting (a bit to the right of the nose of the plane if traveling in the direction of the plane), so the sun wasn't really very high.
With respect to zoom, these were taken with an 18-55mm lens, and the larger planes (737 and up) are usually taken without full zoom. From this side, I don't know if it's possible to get a good view further away--these were shot maybe 20-50 feet to the side of the center guiding lights. When the light is on the other side of the planes, I can shoot with a 70-300 lens, but the planes are higher, and give less of a side-on view.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
Have a look at your accepted one.
To be honest they don't compare - the others listed are very soft and the contrast is a bit out on some. Your accepted one is really good so I'd be using that as a guide for sharpness.
Quoting Airplanenut (Reply 4): Regarding the sun, it was actually quite low--these were taken around 6:30/7PM, and the sun was setting (a bit to the right of the nose of the plane if traveling in the direction of the plane), so the sun wasn't really very high.
Then you should really try to get some more distance between you and the plane so as to open the angle at which you're shooting and/or try to get them further down the glide so as to not get as much of the bottom onto the picture. Increasing the distance will also help you somewhat with bluriness issues as you don't have to move your camera so quickly as the plane passes by.
Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2741 times:
Quoting GOCAPS16 (Reply 7): Besides the Air France T7 shot, how come all of your other shots are just standard domestic airlines?
I got to the airport last Sunday after the heavies came in. My shots from the other two visits--many of which I haven't processed yet--are more exciting airlines
Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
Hi,
I've made a few recommended edits... what do you think?
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2708 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Air Tran
ATA: better but it still looks a little greenish and you've jaggies on the nose below the cockpit windows; eliminate these and lighten up the image a little bit and it should go
Soutwest1: better but the bluriness on the front part kills it (unsaveable I'd say)
Southwest2 if you eliminate the small jaggies on the nose gear doors
Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3848 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4298 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
