Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejects With New Lens  
User currently offlineManc From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 344 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

Alright chaps

Had a few rejections with my new lens the 70-200 IS L F2.8 compared to when I use my 100-400. I agree with the oversharpened rejections as I had a bad day at the office (so to speak) and just did my usual workflow and not paying to much attention to details! My rejections are posted below with my new edits for comments.

Its really surprising how much sharper the 70-200 is and how that is reflected in the need to change workflow methods.

Here we go rejections

1 - Oversharpened

and heres my edited update - any better?

2 Oversharpened

and heres my edited update - any better?

3 - This one got a quality but I'm not sure if its worth an appeal? screener comments welcome.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ig/20061105_JA8902_291006_LHRa.jpg

4 - This one quality and oversharpened, I think the heat haze may have killed the quality?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20061104_JA8902_291006_LHR.jpg


No URL in signature please
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4452 times:

The second oversharpened looks like it has improved. Might be worth another shot.

User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Ian.

You now have a very enviable range of lenses there!

I agree with the rejections - those first two are definitely oversharpened. You have definitely improved on that in the newer edits, but I would still watch out - The NZ lighting is not great and still the wing leading edge looks a bit oversharpened.

As regards the others, there is little detail in the forward fuselage of the first JAL, plus the black lettering has jaggies. In the second, despite the jet efflux, I think there are other issues - the red winglet looks oversaturated and has grain, and there looks to be some artifacts of editing in other areas - e.g. nose area and engines. Did you select the plane here? If so it appears like a problem with feathering - the edges look a bit too soft for the engine, and jagged for the nose/flightdeck.

Take care.

Paul


User currently offlineLasham From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4416 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Psych (Reply 2):
The NZ lighting is not great

No sun no fun!

Tony



No sun no fun
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Quoting Manc (Thread starter):
Had a few rejections with my new lens the 70-200 IS L F2.8

Well give it to me. Your problems will be solved


User currently offlineManc From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

Hey Paul,

Aye I have zero in the bank account aswell! I've taken to begging  

Thanks for the comments as usual.
I uploaded the ANZ as DARK so I figured this was alright and I think your right about the edge of the wing, I'll sort that.

The JAL close up I think I'll bin as the cropping make it a bit noisey.

heres the JAL side on, tried to get a bit more detail at the front

http://www.iesphotography.co.uk/JA8902_291006_LHRb.jpg

Tony, should I skip the ANZ ?

Phil.....not the lens mate its me!

[Edited 2006-11-05 20:07:51]


No URL in signature please
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4395 times:

Quoting Manc (Reply 5):
Phil.....not the lens mate its me!

And we know why don't we.
Old scary AND posh spice within 17 hours.
You bad lad  Wink


User currently offlineManc From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

Quoting Lasham (Reply 3):
No sun no fun!



Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 6):
And we know why don't we.
Old scary AND posh spice within 17 hours.
You bad lad

 Wink ......

OK I'll give the World Airways a shot and scrap the rest.



No URL in signature please
User currently offlineLasham From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4331 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Manc (Reply 5):
Tony, should I skip the ANZ ?

Yes skip the NZ (your get it better one day soon)

The JAL & WO are good shots, so lets see them back on soon.

Tony



No sun no fun
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

Quoting Lasham (Reply 3):
No sun no fun!

Ohh, Tony!!!

I'll get ya tomorrow.  stirthepot 


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Results With New Lens posted Sat Sep 2 2006 23:31:06 by Psyops
Help Processing With A New Lens! posted Sun Jul 16 2006 11:48:38 by Dazbo5
Help With A New Lens posted Sat Dec 2 2000 17:40:26 by LGW
First Shot With New EF 70-200 F4 L Lens posted Sun Feb 19 2006 17:00:24 by Linco22
My First Photo With My New Lens! posted Sun Sep 24 2000 10:53:07 by Lauda 777
Two Shots With New L Glass posted Sun Nov 12 2006 09:37:57 by Sinkrate
Thinking About A New Lens. posted Fri Oct 27 2006 07:52:50 by Avsfan
First Shots With New Camera! posted Wed Jul 19 2006 01:14:27 by ANITIX87
First Photos With New Equipment, Guidance Please posted Sat May 20 2006 19:49:17 by Cosmic
New Lens Help: Canon L 300mm Vs. 400mm posted Wed Apr 5 2006 13:42:45 by Danpio