Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
Yes, some more contrast, and that reflection is a little distracting. I guess it will depend on what screener you get that will determine whether it is too distracting.
Xenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
DLX,
Indeed, most of the lightsource is in the 'back' of the picture; thats why the
back is so strong lighted.
I guess that you can't have a correct exposure with such picture!?
It was a 20s exposure. (sportmetered in the B767 fuselage)
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
Definitely better. I'd expand those highlighs even more. But I just noticed you have a grass problem. Personally, I like the grass, but I know that other shots have been rejected for motive when they had their wheels partially obscured by grass.
Avro85 From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 236 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1340 times:
The second try is much better than the first one Daniel.
Although it's a difficult shot it's definitely worth trying to edit it You don't get the Air China every day in Brussels :p I saw it today but couldn't take a picture unfortunately.....
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
This is a very impressive attempt Daniel - well done.
If you feel I may be able to help at all, just send me an email. I can imagine how much you want to get this one accepted - you have put a lot of effort in, both at the time you took the photo and in the edit, by the sound of it.
9V From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
I'm sure you could help him Paul. It's shot in RAW but unfortunately I have never done RAW in my life! (yes, I know I should but don't know where to start). I'm sure someone on here can help. I really like it.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1155 times:
Hi Daniel.
I have emailed you earlier on, but just in case you didn't receive it I will post here.
Here is a first attempt at your photo.
Alternate version of Daniel's Photo
As you will see, I have made quite a change to the 'temperature' of the shot. This is more in keeping with my personal preference - to me it looks more 'realistic' and less 'cold' than your linked version above, which looked rather blue overall to me. However, if that was the 'feel' that you were trying to achieve, just let me know.
I still think there are some other issues with the edit - the overexposed areas, sharpness in the nose area and flare particularly. But I wanted to check out your - and others - views regarding the overall feel of the shot in this edit before proceeding further.
Domokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1151 times:
Quoting Xenon (Thread starter): after several hours(!) working on it, it looks that I can't have it "correct"...
I seriously hate that feeling. Your second attempt looks better, though I think the photo is honestly more work than it's worth. Some areas in the photo are really underexposed while some areas (the background) are overexposed.
You could fix them but it'd take awhile.
I really like the shot though, it's a pretty interesting angle