Cxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
I have to say Thomas, I think that is a corking shot; great timing with the smoke from the tyres and the reversers just opening. I can only say it's a shame about the fence being there but hey, great shot nevertheless. Not sure quite what they were referring to with quality.
Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
It looks nice, but I´d be more concerned about the crop here. It deserves a 'distance' rejection, rather than 'quality'. I like the light on the fuselage, coming from behind. Nice atmosphere.
Good luck with it.
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1730 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
For a quality rejection, I'd say try to back off on the JPEG compression a bit. I see some artifacting going on in the blues. Some might quibble about some sharpening halos around the painted graphics. There's also a tinge of purple fringing on the sun highlights on the engine and tail. Some highlights are blown out too (the smoke). These are all very nitpicky things - it is no fault of your photo taking. It's a fabulous picture.
Even if you rectified this, they'd probably nail you on motive because of the fence and the fact that it's not cropped extremely close to the plane. The fence doesn't bother me because it's out of focus, there's no birds/signs/leaves/misc stuff junking it up.
Just lower your compression a bit and crop it a little closer and I think it would probably get in.
ThomasW1974 From Austria, joined Jun 2005, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
First of all, thank you all for your comments and hints.
A few thoughts from my side:
The fence, well yes it's there - but not really a problem. I had other pictures
accepted from the same spot with the fence visible. I know its not the best
way to catch an aircraft motivwise, but well...
I understand that a tighter crop would be necessary, but than the quality rejection is not right.
I might rework it cropping tighter. Regarding the Jpg compression mentioned by Dvincent i'm a bit lost. Shot was taken in RAW format, edited
with Photoshop 7 and saved with highest setting (12).
When the overall quality is not there for A.net standards, i will better leave
it in my personal collection.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1408 posts, RR: 32 Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1770 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Regarding the quality, I would have to agree here with the screeners decision. Not that the overall quality of the picture is bad but rather that something went wrong during the editing process.
I think your picture is slightly soft/blurry/out of focus (front landing gear, wings, windows,etc), and at the same time there are some parts oversharpen (titles, flag, reg). All this indicates to me that you tried to compensate the soft look with a tad too much sharpening. Additionally, the contrast is a little off (compare areas in light with the ones in the shadow, does not look right), and maybe you even applied some brightness adjustment. In this case, all this would also explain the 'artifacts' or JPEG compression issues that has already been hinted to (they come from playing too much around with brightness/contrst/sharpening, so it's not really a JPG compression issue).
I hope this comments help you when you reedit this one, which I sincerely hope you'll do since it is a very nice one!
[Edited 2007-02-05 15:49:41]
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
ThomasW1974 From Austria, joined Jun 2005, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
you are right about the contrast/brightness. The position of the sun was a bit
difficult that moment, light was coming a bit from behind leaving some ares
overexposed, while the front was quite dark. I had to do some serious adjustments to levels and brightness/contrast to get a halfway good exposure on all areas.
Your comment about this issue is maybe the key to the quality problem.
I will have a look at the original again, but i'm afraid the big contrast between
bright and dark will give me no other choice to come up with something like