JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2383 posts, RR: 56 Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1227 times:
Hi Guys i have been asking some friends to tell me what they think of the sharpening on these shots i would like your opinions on the sharpening of these shots to determine if I'm there yet or still need to experiment.
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3883 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
Keep in mind, the following appraisals are my opinions, based on my own experience. I am no expert- I only have 1 photo on the database, so don't take this advice as absolutely compelling without input from others as well...
Given that, here are my appraisals:
First pic: soft on the top of the fuselage, I've had a couple of pics rejected because of that. Second pic: I see no problems on that one... Third pic: It starts getting grainy and soft near the nose, I think that'll probably kill it... Final pic: like the first one, the top of the fuselage is questionable, but it isn't as egregious as the first one... I can't call that one...
9VSPO From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 60 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1192 times:
Quoting San747 (Reply 1): First pic: soft on the top of the fuselage, I've had a couple of pics rejected because of that.
Second pic: I see no problems on that one...
Third pic: It starts getting grainy and soft near the nose, I think that'll probably kill it...
Final pic: like the first one, the top of the fuselage is questionable, but it isn't as egregious as the first one... I can't call that one...
Agreed. First one also looks like it needs slight CW rotation to me also. Second one is also soft around the reg and flag.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1212 posts, RR: 42 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Alan,
Just my personal comments as a non-screener:
1. Agree with San747 and 9VSPO, big issue here is sharpness of top fuselage.
2. Here I agree with 9VSPO, overall picture looks kind of soft, particularly visible on "Quantas", not the (already for A.net) usual top-sharp one.
3. For me same problem, too soft.
4. I don't know, but I do not see same issue as with first picture, for me this one could make it.
Hope to help you a little bit!
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2664 posts, RR: 65 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1106 times:
Hello Alan.
I still think something is not quite right here in the editing - they all look a bit soft to me.
Here's some individual feedback:
Brunei - I agree the top of the fuselage looks wrong - almost indistinct. That looks like an editing issue.
Qantas - Generally looks a bit on the soft side - it's that lettering again.
Tahiti - This is a great shot - I love the sky, the tree and the overall lighting. But it is soft overall - particularly those titles and the forward fuselage. Send the original along if you would like - this deserves a spot on the database.
BA - A bit high in the frame for me (though very subjective call), but the softness is again there - a little bit this time, but those titles on the fuselage draw the eye.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2383 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1073 times:
Thank you very much guys i really appreciate it and overall I'm very disappointed in this monitor that i got .
I cant even get a picture to look sharp after almost 2 years of uploading here i never had this problem until i took the dip and got this monitor which now i regret.
Once again i thank you all for the opinions and help.
Sam747.Ian,Andres,Paul
Cheers
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 2706 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1064 times:
your gonna hate me for saying this, but they look a bit jaggy on the imac im using right now to view them! :S
Not like really bad, but soft and jaggy at same time!
Sorry!
Chris
Canon 5D2 + 1D2 with other bodies and lots of L glass.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2383 posts, RR: 56 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1060 times:
Chris.
No need to be sorry mate Thats what I'm asking and i appreciate the opinion from you and the others which has prompted me to sell this monitor and go out and get a new one.(AGAIN )
Thank you for the help once again and to the rest.
A friend has done some edits on his monitor what do you gusy think of these now.compared to my edits.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 2706 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1056 times:
Go buy yourself a 20" Mac Screen or a 20" Dell Ultrasharp TFT!
Chris
Canon 5D2 + 1D2 with other bodies and lots of L glass.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1212 posts, RR: 42 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1042 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Dear Alan,
Definitely better, but (sorry )...
1. Still some issue here with contrast/gamma? To my (already tired) eyes sharpening looks ok.
2. Way too dark/underexpossed. Using white or black spot?
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2383 posts, RR: 56 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 10): Will drop you a line tomorrow Alan, seems you are having some similar problems to myself at the minute with these.
Hey Tim was nice to hear from you as always.
I have had some success with Paul's help and everyone that chipped in here thank you guys i really appreciate it.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2383 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3883 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 60 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1212 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 2706 posts, 
)...
Printer friendly format 
