DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
Hi Kevin,
I like the effect, but the shot seems a little "awkward". Not quite qualifying for a nose shot, but at the same time not showing the whole aircraft. Have you tried a closer crop of the front end of the fuselage?
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, RR: 22 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
Hey Kevin,
Nice shot, the only thing is you cut off the tail... that will cause the motiv rejection... as far as the soft.. this image could use some sharpening, just a little, but, its boarder line over exposed, have a look at the engine... and the white of the body is close...
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
It's a great shot.
That photo is no where near overexposed. Sometimes I think people are so used to underexposed shots that theydon't know what to do when a proper exposure comes a long. "Close" is where white is supposed to be.
LOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1896 times:
Quoting Gmonney (Reply 2): Nice shot, the only thing is you cut off the tail... that will cause the motiv rejection
Thanks for the replies. This was my point, it wasn't rejected on the 1st time around for motiv, so I took the time to re-edit it based on the assumption that it had ducked the motiv stick for whatever reason.
My motiv was to show the long trail of burning rubber and also leave the series number in frame, but I understand it is off balance and/or akward.
I didn't think it was overexposed?
Thanks again!
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
Hi Grant,
On second glance, I wouldn't upload a closer crop as a "nose" shot. I have a couple of shots of the front end in the DB that include the wing like that, which aren't uploaded as such.
Where do you draw the line as to what is and isn't though? This one is a side-on shot and I would say shows the first 1/4.
Knighty From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 207 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
Exposure wise - I'd say it's spot on! Like Jeff said, white is supposed to be close to being overexposed - not a washed out grey!
Motiv - I thnk if you'd cropped it behind the left gear it would seem more balanced while still showing plenty of smoke.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4538 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1816 times:
Quoting Gmonney (Reply 2): as far as the soft.. this image could use some sharpening, just a little,
MORE sharpening? That shot looks way over-sharpened on my screen. Jaggies all over the flaps, the top of the fuselage and the nose gear doors.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Woody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 4): That photo is no where near overexposed. Sometimes I think people are so used to underexposed shots that theydon't know what to do when a proper exposure comes a long. "Close" is where white is supposed to be.
Jeff is bang on with this comment.
I have had my acceptance ratio drop from something like 85% down to 56% now. The majority of rejections I have had were Exposure, the images were bright, clear and spot on according to both Capture One and Photoshop.
I use a CRT that is calibrated every week, how many screeners can say they calibrate their monitors?
In my view things are getting daft around here now.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1740 times:
Hi Kevin,
Well, you definitely have a good image there that will eventually make it into the DB!
Grant gave you good hints on why it was rejected, but I have to say that like Jeff and the others pointed out, I have a hard time finding any overexposure on it (hard to find a few 255s). There are a couple of small parts where some selective sharpening wouldn't hurt (engine cowling, fuselage underside), while others are almost oversharpened (mostly high contrast lines). Overall, if it wasn't for the motive (and maybe even with the motive) I would appeal.
If you want to try a reedit, then just go for a very little less contrast (will help you with the oversharpened lines), crop closer to the left main landing gear (or better, if you have a frame with the full tail in it, include that one), and you should be ready to go - good luck!
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1719 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Kevin.
Such a crop is always borderline motiv, when I screened it I noted the motiv, anytime you have 2/3s or 3/4s of an airframe it will be borderline.
I gather that the shot was screened on a CRT monitor??
Of course it was, we screen on CRTs. And, it is jaggie on my monitor, the trailing edge of the wing looks like:
The whites look really "hot" around the wing root.
I use a CRT that is calibrated every week, how many screeners can say they calibrate their monitors?
Mine is calibrated. Wanna come over and have a peek? I will even buy you lunch.
The majority of rejections I have had were Exposure, the images were bright, clear and spot on according to both Capture One and Photoshop.
And how does Photoshop tell you exposure is spot on? Examples please!
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1613 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Ian - that first shot is very washed out. Look at the trees, no way the scene looked like that given the sun was to the rear of your shooting position.
The second shot seems okay, exposure wise, but looks a little soft and has a bit of a blue cast.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1561 times:
Quoting Woody001 (Reply 11): I use a CRT that is calibrated every week, how many screeners can say they calibrate their monitors?
There is no relation between monitor calibration and the exposure of any given photo.
A monitor is just a output device which does not have any effect on the histogram calculated by PS or any other program.
All you need is this little levels window:
to see that the highlights(albeit just) as well as the dark tones are off the scale which means there is to much contrast put into it.
The use of "auto levels" and/or "auto contrast" will give you the same result in many cases.
So reduce the contrast somewhat with "Layer" , "New Adjustment layer" , "Brightness/Contrast" (as one of the possibilities) and go from there.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1549 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
In fairness to Kevin your Levels Window ("Histogram") has the Airliners.net copyright bar, which is pure black, and thus why your seeing "dark tones are off the scale" (your words).
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1543 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18): In fairness to Kevin your Levels Window ("Histogram") has the Airliners.net copyright bar, which is pure black, and thus why your seeing "dark tones are off the scale" (your words).
Oeps..... forgot about the bar but apart from that it does not chance the theory.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3770 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 207 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
