Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Good Quality, But Motive...  
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

I believe these two shots are great quality however there could be a motive reject

1. http://www.airliners.net/uf/536924396/1172451315ayrsYL.jpg

2. http://www.airliners.net/uf/536924396/1172450524OSVZcW.jpg

Need some tips on editing, particularly cropping.


"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Although I like the close-up, the Airbus is blurry and the 757 is out of focus.

Ivan


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

The quality is not great. Both shots are soft - the Airbus might be salvageable but the 757 is a case of camera shake and cannot be saved.

The Airbus would be rejected for motive - the crop s awkward and, for example, cuts a slice off the engine intake for no good reason.

When you crop, the boundaries of the cropped shot should be coherent, i.e. little bits of the aircraft should not be accidentally cut off.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

I think the motives are fine. The main problem is these are apparently off the stick shots. You should at lest try to do some editing before having them looked at...

User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

Hi

On the Aer Lingus shot the light won´t be in your favour, since the backlit issue may cause grain when sharpenng. On other aspect I think it´s blurry, but may be saved with a proper edit. As for the motive, I think it doesn´t stand a chance. Like Viv said, the engine is cut and also I guess it wouldn´t be that nice if you left only the forward fuselage section.
The AA shot is too blurry (out of focus) and I don´t think it can be saved. You may be lacking some contrast here, too.

It would be better if you posted your edits instead of the original versions next time. You might get better tips in order to improve your editing skills.  Wink

Hope it helps.  Smile

Cheers!
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 2):
The quality is not great.

Agreed, but they look to be originals however, so they won't do any good in their current states.

I've had a quick play with them. The 757 is not good. Its too overexposed, the other is backlit, and has a blurry nose area.

Better luck with your next shots.


User currently offlineFlugnord From Iceland, joined Feb 2006, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Oh, I just have to say this. Mella, as stands on the Airbus means a whore in Icelandic...
I actually started crying because it was so funny. Well, now you know.


Hehehe.  rotfl 


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4714 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2320 times:

Quoting Flugnord (Reply 6):
I actually started crying because it was so funny. Well, now you know.

I guess this is one of those 'you must have been there' moments



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2315 times:

Its OK, He'll come right eventually!

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Thread starter):
I believe these two shots are great quality however

not 'great'....more like O.K.

What wb setting did you use to get a turquoise sky? You were right about the poor motive.


User currently offlineTom3 From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2004, 240 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Hello

Did a quick edit of the AA 757

http://www.airliners.net/uf/536884424/1172709733AgEFbZ.jpg

For me it looks not so bad..


Cheers

Tom



Tom Mousel - Lap
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...
Space Shuttle Launch Pics - Quality & Motive posted Wed Jul 5 2006 19:37:38 by ElpinDAB
Not Good Enough, But I Like It! posted Thu Jun 23 2005 07:25:11 by StealthZ
Sigma 170-500mm...good? (quality) posted Fri Oct 8 2004 18:44:29 by DRAIGONAIR
Good Quality Zoom Lenses Canon posted Thu Jul 1 2004 00:17:14 by MNeo
Nikkor 35-80 F 4.0 Good Results But... posted Fri Apr 25 2003 09:15:05 by Lugonza_2001
Got Good Pictures, But ... posted Tue Jan 21 2003 08:30:13 by Lugonza_2001
500mm Mirror Telephoto Lens,good Quality? posted Sat Dec 15 2001 12:33:31 by Lugonza_2001
Konica Film, Good Quality? posted Tue Nov 13 2001 20:50:18 by Lugonza_2001
Bad Quality, But Interesting posted Tue May 1 2001 12:12:46 by Cfalk
Quality/Motive Rejection... posted Wed Jan 24 2007 16:56:42 by AirKas1