Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4140 times:
First pic: I think the nose is fine, the brightness is a result of the direct sunlight that the rest of the aircraft doesn´t get. What I see here is that you´ve got some soft parts, for instance the nose landing gear. I see it a bit blurry.
Second pic: Very nice livery, I agree. I find it blurry on the landing gear and slightly oversharpened on some edges within the livery or the window frames.
Hope it helps.
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
Globalpics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 216 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4124 times:
With the photos, when adjusting your Levels try moving the middle point a little to the left to lighten up the midtones,don't go too far though as this will emphasise any grain or noise that is visible.If you want drop me the origianals and I'll see what I can do.I'm no magician but I might be able to help
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3074 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 days ago) and read 4007 times:
I think there may be a few issues with that first shot. The nose does look a little blown out, but that might be in part a consequence of editing. I would have to see the original - but potentially can be improved. More of a concern would be that it does not look sharp in all areas - slight blur in fact. Take a look at the wing root area - here the lines of the livery are a bit soft, as is the wing leading edge, that light and the wheel. My guess is that you might struggle to improve this in an edit. It will look better at a smaller size though. My personal preference would be to sit the aircraft slightly lower in the frame - but this is a very subjective thing. Get in touch if you feel I can help.
As regards the second, again the nose is slightly blown out, and selective sharpening may help the overall feel. This photo looks more promising.