Shutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2577 times:
Hi guys.
I'm new here at the forum, but I've been around quite some time reading threads regarding what most of us like so much: aviation photography. I've been doing it since the mid-80's but never at a professional level, but after a while I retired and now since digital photography has taken over, I made a comeback. I have a couple of pics taken at SJU that I would like to get some feedback on how they look. Although I'm a graphic artist/photo retoucher for more than 10 years, from what I have seen here, it has been a whole new learning curve as to what can be done to a digital pic in post-processing. Some of the tricks I have read here I know, but others dont, which I think will come very handy in my edits. So, that being said, please take a look at my pic of one of the few tri-holers still making schedules visits to SJU. Thanks very much and keep the good shots coming.
PS: Hi Lanas, I hope you read this thread and have a look at it. Many Thanks.
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Welcome to Anet!
I'm still getting used to a new screen here, but from what I can tell, this photo has some excellent quality. The whites on the top of the fuselage are a bit bright, but not enough to warrant rejection. The only other thing is to warn you that uploading at 1600x is more challenging than the minimum 1024x, and I think this shot might be a tad soft for 1600x. If you have some trouble getting it accepted, resizing to 1024x should help a lot. Again, excellent shot, and welcome to Anet!
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2512 times:
Quoting Shutterbug (Reply 4): Will this affect quality when I resize it at this dimensions?
When the photo is a smaller dimension, less detail can be visible, but this also means that it's harder for screeners to see any flaws in the photograph, so you have a better chance of getting it accepted.
Shutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
Hi Mike.
Just a question in regards to bringing the shot to a new width.
Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 5): When the photo is a smaller dimension, less detail can be visible, but this also means that it's harder for screeners to see any flaws in the photograph, so you have a better chance of getting it accepted.
Should I constraint the proportions, or leave the resolution as it is, and only change the width/height ratio? Because when you do that in PS, the image looses some quality. Is that what we are aiming to?
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2474 times:
Quoting Shutterbug (Reply 6): Should I constraint the proportions, or leave the resolution as it is, and only change the width/height ratio?
You'll be changing the resolution. The width/height ratio will remain 3/2, but the image size, as in the number of pixels, will be reduced, which technically worsens the quality. However, for this site, it's actually easier to get accepted that way. So, you'd change the image size from 1600x800 pixels to 1024x683 pixels. You don't have to... if you can get it accepted at 1600pixels wide, good work. It's just much more challenging to do so.
Shutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2422 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 9): You didn't. The first shows up at 1300 wide, the second at 15 something.
Well actually the first is at 1300 wide, and the second should be 1024. I did 2 settings to see which turns out best. I'm still lost. Can I place pics from PS detailing what am I doing, so you guys can help out?
Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 977 posts, RR: 15 Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2422 times:
Javier
Welcome to the forum!
Your shot is very nice. You should try to upload at 1024 pixels, which will give you some advantages while taking the first steps. What you should also be careful with is the aspect ratio, that in your pics is over 1.5 (should be between 1.333 and 1.5).
I agree that you should crop tighter on the tail and that the heat haze around the nose gear might bring you some trouble. On a smaller size you can have that issue saved, maybe. Also beware of jaggies in your pic. I´m looking now at your 1300 px edit and you´ve got it a little oversharpened (jaggies on the titles, logo, nose contour, horizontal stabilizer and the lines on the tail livery).
Hope it helps.
Cheers
Lanas.-
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
Quoting Shutterbug (Reply 10): Well actually the first is at 1300 wide, and the second should be 1024.
Nah, the second shot's more than 1024 pixels wide. Feel free to post screenshots from PS...
In PSelements, i click image>resize>image size, that brings up a box. At the top of the box is a section marked as "Pixel Dimension". In that box I change the pixel width from whatever it is originally to 1024. If the photo's a 3:2 ratio, it should be 1024x683.
Also, one more thing I hadn't noticed yet, I think there's a dust spot by the top of the frame, almost directly above the wingtip... you'll wanna clone that out.
Shutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
Well guys, now i'm really lost.
Quoting Lanas (Reply 11): What you should also be careful with is the aspect ratio, that in your pics is over 1.5 (should be between 1.333 and 1.5).
This is my original file size.
Remember that I work in advertising, and perhaps what I think is the best in terms of quality for the different media, it is not for A.net, regarding this particualr shot. I'm working in inches, and my original dpior resolution regardless of the dimensions is 180 DPI. If i set it to 1024x683 size wise, do i leave the resolution(180) as it is, or what should be the best resolution in the 1024x683 size.
DM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2357 times:
When setting for 1024 x 683 i ussually have it at 300 dpi
Shutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
Quoting DM (Reply 14): When setting for 1024 x 683 i ussually have it at 300 dpi
See, thats where I get confused. Should I start from the begining in that size, or work from the original camera file and then resize at those dimension, or open it up thru Camera Raw at a fixed resolution or work at whatever size I have now, create a new document at that 1024x683 300dpi size and drag a copy to it and export for upload?
Sorry for so many questions, but I'm trying to get the best advice as how to edit my pics, from the ones with the expertise.
Shutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2342 times:
Well I did another edit,
Quoting Shutterbug (Reply 10): I agree that you should crop tighter on the tail and that the heat haze around the nose gear might bring you some trouble.
Crop is a litle tighter at the tail,
Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 12): Also, one more thing I hadn't noticed yet, I think there's a dust spot by the top of the frame, almost directly above the wingtip... you'll wanna clone that out.
I could not find the dust spot you see. I have a 15in monitor at home and a 22 TFT at work. Perhaps if you can point to where it is, could help, but honestly I dont see it.
I dont know if the heat haze could go by in this new edit. Anyways as always, feel free to comment.
DM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
What i do is open up my photo editor (Adobe) and paste in my photo that i want to edit at the file size it was taken on the camera. Then i resize my pic to 1200 x 800 and 300dpi (in your case its 1024 x 683 and 300 dpi) and start editing, after i have finished all my editing i save and I'm done.
Edit: Why i say resize first is because when i used to edit my photos before i used to resize after i edited and if i had sharpened it would look really different at the new resolution
Shutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2334 times:
Quoting DM (Reply 17): Then i resize my pic to 1200 x 800 and 300dpi
Would pasting the original camera file to a 1200x800 at 300dpi file size be the same? And should I use this aspect ratio for my shot, or stick to the 1024x683?
DM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
I would just go ahead and stick with the 1024 x 683
DM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2326 times:
Quoting Shutterbug (Reply 20): What would actually be a high quality pic for A.net standards?
Very nice. Quality is fine but beware with the jaggies I previously commented on:
Quoting Lanas (Reply 11): Also beware of jaggies in your pic. I´m looking now at your 1300 px edit and you´ve got it a little oversharpened (jaggies on the titles, logo, nose contour, horizontal stabilizer and the lines on the tail livery).
Also some areas on the wing may be a bit soft but I don´t think they will cause you that much trouble.
Cheers
Lanas.-
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
Coninpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi again,
IMO discussing about the number DPI is a non-sense for a photo decidated to be viewed on a screen. A screen only displays pixels. The number of DPI intervenes only for printing.
About when and how to resize, I have made some tests. Camera Raw seems to resize badly (introduces jaggies and artefacts). So do not play with with resizing in CR. In CR I use the cropping tool at 3:2 ratio and do a first rough cropping and levelling, letting some space around the plane for further adjustments in PS. Then I open the photo at its original size in PS and resize there.
Hope it helps.
Cheers
Patrick
Patrick De Coninck
25 Shutterbug: Do you prepare a blank document at the 3:2 ratio (i.e. 1024x683) at what resolution and insert the original camera file? And then after you finish ed
26 JeffM: Not exactly.... Screen resolution is measured in DPI as well. But I agree that there is no need to save your image at 300 DPI for uploading here, as
27 Garry: Is this correct Jeff? Surely it's only a printer that produces dots while a monitor and scanner produce pixels. Photoshop will always refer to an ima
28 Coninpa: Hi Jeff, With all respect, I believe it does not matter on a screen. In Windows XP => Poperties => Settings => Advanced, the DPI parameter only affec
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, 
) but this is what makes the value of this site.
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 977 posts, 
Quality is fine but beware with the jaggies I previously commented on:
Printer friendly format 
