Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 31 Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Hi all,
Here is another bunch of shots that I would like some advice on. Conditions made some of these shots tough to edit, and my eye is not good with jaggies and sharpness so I would like some advice.
Aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2530 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Carl,
Atlas one doesnt look level,maybe soft aswell.
Bombardier BD700 (N520E) looks good,doesnt look level though....nice looking Bizjet though.
Other Bombardier N167GX looks under exposed and abit jaggy on nose.
VH-PDL-looks soft and dark aswell.
F9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 2):
What point of reference do you best think will give the shots as level?
Tought question...telephone poles are worthless, and the fence is not much better. Just using the concrete horizon, I would say you need a hare of CCW rotation, maybe .15 or thereabouts. See how that looks to you.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2477 times:
Montey,
- number one looks good to me.
- number two : I'm not that good to spot jaggies neither, but under the tail of AtlasAir it looks some have appeared...Apart from that shot looks good and promising.
- number three : a bit oversharpened I would say...
- number four : a little bit overshaprened as well, but it's a question of 0,3 pixels !
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 31 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2463 times:
Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 3): Just using the concrete horizon, I would say you need a hare of CCW rotation, maybe .15 or thereabouts.
The reason I initially didn't use that is that it has a natural downslope, but I also see that it left the rest of the shot as looking unlevel in its current form. I will try as you suggest and see how it comes out. Thanks for the help.
Quoting LIPH (Reply 4): - number one looks good to me.
- number two : I'm not that good to spot jaggies neither, but under the tail of AtlasAir it looks some have appeared...Apart from that shot looks good and promising.
- number three : a bit oversharpened I would say...
- number four : a little bit overshaprened as well, but it's a question of 0,3 pixels !
Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2438 times:
Hi Carl
The Pionair shot is unlevel (needs CW) and is slightly oversharpened. It might get a rejection for being dark, too.
The Atlas shot is oversharpened and is unlevel (needs CW by checking on the 'factory' behind the CX aircraft).
The Global Express is very nice but it´s quite oversharpened. It´s not unlevel, I believe. I´m checking this not with the unreliable poles but with the brown/reddish door in the background.
The last shot (N157GX) is dark and oversharpened. I don´t know about leveling, since there´s not much of a reference out there. Overall the shot feels level, but if any rotation should be applied, I´d give it a tad CW.
Hope it helps.
Cheers!
Lanas.-
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 31 Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
This one of the Atlas any better?
I re-levelled according to the rear factories, re-applied USM in lower values erasing as I went and re-jigged the crop slightly. Is it db worthy in its new form?
Montey,
shot looks nice but I personally still see some jaggies under the tail of Atlas...Unfortunately the blue colour its made, with a white background (Malaysia) is not that easy to deal with...
Apart from that, now I note : the light poles *could* lead to a motive rej, because they partly cover the back part of the planes, and so could do the back part of the Atlas stabilizer partly covering the tail of the Malaysian...I don't know it's a tricky evaluation...I would wait for a screener post if there will be any...Personally I would not upload it.
As always, just my
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 31 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2396 times:
Quoting Philthy (Reply 10): Well I like that tails shot, Carl. Go for it!
Thanks Phil. Might be a case of having to be realistic though. I can't fix the jaggies and concede that the tail stands will probably warrant a motive rejection given the amount of those I have had lately. Might just be one for the personal collection.
MidEx216 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 651 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2358 times:
I say go for it. The worst they can do is reject, and if they do, no harm. I don't think the motive rejection would come into play, but the jaggies need to be dealt with a bit
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 31 Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2310 times:
Quoting Philthy (Reply 10): Well I like that tails shot, Carl. Go for it!
Quoting MidEx216 (Reply 12): I say go for it. The worst they can do is reject, and if they do, no harm. I don't think the motive rejection would come into play, but the jaggies need to be dealt with a bit
Fair point... Would anyone be willing to help me edit it?
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
