Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JFK Screening - Help!  
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2220 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hey, guys. Had a chance to shoot with NIKV69 again at JFK and had a great time. We shot from the Boston Market area as they were using the 31s, and then when they switched to the 22s I went over to the Mounds and shot from there a bit. The sun was low, making for some interesting (read: not so great) lighting. I did get to see quite a few interesting planes, including a Virgin American flight and a Finnair MD-11.

Here are the best 16 of the more than 200 I took. These are already post processed but I can put the full-size ones up as well if someone wants to give them a go.

I have pretty much the same questions for all of them, so I'll write down all the issues I'm concerned about.

Dark or not?
Motive (only for some, and this includes the centering, too)
Sharpness (by FAR my largest concern as my screen seems to be doing silly things lately)

The only things I changed with these shots were some Levels, Brightness/Contrast, and Sharpening.

http://www.tisdigital.com/1.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/2.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/3.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/4.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/5.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/6.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/7.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/8.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/9.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/10.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/11.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/12.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/13.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/14.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/15.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/16.jpg


Let me know what you guys think! I'm really looking forward to some feedback and hopefully some good shots now that my ratio is getting better!!!

TIS

[Edited 2007-10-09 20:08:41]


www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5724 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Tis,

One thing, if you want feedback it might be an idea to post one or two photos at a time, 16 pics seems to overwhelm.
I think even with the lower view numbers the forum seems to be experiencing right now you would have likely had more response by now if you posted few pictures.
Now for some feedback.
The first few seem dark to me, many of the others IMHO are a little tightly cropped(even by Anet standards) and on the screen I am using right now most seem to have some softness issues.

Cheers

Chris



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2159 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 1):
One thing, if you want feedback it might be an idea to post one or two photos at a time, 16 pics seems to overwhelm.

Ok, Chris. I will keep that in mind. I risked putting many up because, as you can see, I have multiple shots of some aircraft, and once I can narrow each aircraft to one image, there will be far fewer.


As for the softness, another person I asked for feedback thought all the shots had a few too many jaggies. On my screen, I have to agree with you, they look a bit soft, but every screen is different. I will sharpen them a bit more selectively.

After going through them again and based on feedback from yourself and others, I think I can say the following. Let me know if you agree.

The first American shot is a bit blurry, something I can't do much about.

Virgin American one is ok, maybe a bit dark. But is the darkness ok because of the low, late-afternoon light?

The JetBlue one is a bit soft, and also maybe a bit dark, but quality is pretty good.

British Airways one is grainy on the underside of the plane and overexposed a bit. This may not be salvageable.

Delta 737 is soft and far too dark.

Emirates shot looks good all-around. Do you think it's still a bit soft? On my screen is looks slightly so.

Of the 3 LH ones, the first one is the best angle and light? I feel it's not soft and well-exposed, but I'm biased because I love that angle on the 346 and don't want to think it's a bad shot, haha.

The first Qantas one is better quality-wise and sharpness-wise, but again very dark. Correct?

TAM A332 may have some sharpness issues (jaggies on the engines) and is a bit dark but quality is good.

Second of the Virgin shots is the better one, but is a bit bright on the bottom part of the fuselage and has some jaggies on the paint near the tail.

Both Finnair shots are overexposed but the second one seems to be the easier one to save.


I have come up with those analyses based on various feedback, and if there is some sort of consensus I will go back and look at all the shots again. Anybody else? I love criticism, I'm only here to improve my photography! Don't hesitate to be harsh at all!

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 1):
One thing, if you want feedback it might be an idea to post one or two photos at a time, 16 pics seems to overwhelm

 checkmark  Yep Tis it's better to post no more than 2 for feedback as a courtesy.

Here is the only shot I may upload from that day. The light for 31R is starting to get nice again.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/905683/n250myjfknik.jpg

I'll take a stab at yours.

AA - Exposure is fine but blurry and soft.

Virgin America, B6 and Delta 738 are slighty dark and soft.

Speedbird is good but slightly low in the frame.

First LH shots are dark and blurry.

Qantas is a little dark

Second Cosmic girl is better I think.

Both Finnair shots are slightly overexposed.


User currently offlineIlikeflight From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

#'s 1-3 are dark and blurry

#4 looks fine

#5 is a little too dark

#6 looks fine

#'s 7-8 are blurry

#'s 9-11 are dark

#12 is blurry and dark

#13 is blurry and overexposed

#14 looks fine

#15 is blurry

#16 is oversharpened



Think Different
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2091 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):

Here is the only shot I may upload from that day. The light for 31R is starting to get nice again.

Nice!

There seems to be a deadly trend of blurry shots. Which angers me because the histograms on all my shots are pretty much spot on!

I'll look at them again and re-edit, hopefully improving exposure and sharpness. If anyone wants to take a look at the full-size ones, let me know, and I'll put them up for you to download off my website.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Tis I told you the mounds would be tough. That light gets low and though you think there is enough light your shutter speed will slow and if you are not holding the camera perfectly steady and your ISO is set low it's blur city. Have a go at it and post some here.

User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5724 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 5):
There seems to be a deadly trend of blurry shots. Which angers me because the histograms on all my shots are pretty much spot on!

Can someone please explain to me the link between a histogram being spot on and blurryness.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 5):
the histograms on all my shots are pretty much spot on!

With all due respect, Certainly not some of the ones I looked at!



Cheers

Chris

[Edited 2007-10-10 18:24:47]


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Tis, hi there!

I´m going to give a little feedback on your pics:

1) AA 767 shot - Very nice light, but pic is too blurry. You should be careful with the jaggies in some areas also.
2) Virgin America shot - Better on quality, but still a bit soft. Some small jaggies here and there as well. However, I think it has chances. A bit dark maybe? Also there´s som kind of greenish cast, if I´m not wrong.
I would have cropped tighter on the left and not so tight on the right of the a/c.
3) JetBlue shot - Borderline. It´s a bit blurry, if I´m not wrong. Some jaggies here and there also. A bit dark as well, isn´t it?
4) BA 747 shot - A bit overexposed I think, and needing a tad of contrast, I believe. Quality is not that bad. Maybe a bit soft.
5) DL 738 shot - Soft in some areas (windows and reg, for instance), but pretty jagged on the titles and on the wing and flap edges as well.
6) Emirates shot - Not that bad. Needs some more contrast. Jaggies can be seen on the paintings on the tail. I´d have left more 'breathing' space near the nose.
7) 1st LH A340 shot - It´s a bit soft. I would have left more space on the right, when cropping.
8) 2nd LH A340 shot - Blurry, I´m afraid.
9) 3rd LH A340 shot - Too much contrast here. Quality is not that bad, but a bit jagged in places. Don´t crop so tight on the nose, next time.
10) 1st QF 747 shot - A bit oversharpened in places. A bit too dark as well.
11) 2nd QF 747 shot - Oversharpened, specially the aft part of the fuselage.
12) TAM shot - Not bad. Be careful with some oversharpening here as well.
A bit too dark, maybe?
13) 1st VS 747 shot - Overexposed and maybe lacking some contrast. Quality is not that bad, I believe.
14) 2nd VS 747 shot - Overexposed. A bit soft/blurry in some places.
15) 1st Finnair MD-11 shot - Way overexposed.
16) 2nd Finnair MD-11 shot - Again: way overexposed and grainy.

Well, hope this helps.  thumbsup 
I agree that you shouldn´t post so many pictures in a row. Select a batch of 2 or 3 that you think are the best and post them. This will help getting more feedback, since giving an opinion on so many pics can be a bit tiring. Also, if you post fewer pictures, you´ll allow for each feedback to be deeper, more detailed and more precise.

Good luck with them. Big grin

Cheers  Smile
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

I think they're all good photos even with the minor flaws in a few. Sometimes people here a too picky. I upload photos here, but not enmasse. Flickr is a great way to share photos and network with other photographers - something to look into perhaps.

Point is take opinions here with a grain of salt and keep up the great work.

What kind of equipment did you use out there?


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 9):
I think they're all good photos even with the minor flaws in a few. Sometimes people here a too picky.

That's the way I like it, to be honest. I don't expect these to automatically be good enough. In fact, I'll be beyond pleased of three of them are uploadable, but I'm here to see how I can improve and the harshest criticisms are what I'm looking for. Nitpickyness is something I'm expecting.

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 9):
What kind of equipment did you use out there?

I use an Olympus Evolt E-500 and for these I used my Zuiko 40-150 (80-300 equivalent) with a UV filter and f8 or so. (I know, I know, Nik, I should switch to Nikon. When I have money I'll upgrade to Canon or Nikon, so quiet, haha)

I'm going to edit pictures soon and post some more this afternoon for you guys, and I promise there will be far fewer this time.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 10):
I use an Olympus Evolt E-500 and for these I used my Zuiko 40-150 (80-300 equivalent) with a UV filter and f8 or so. (I know, I know, Nik, I should switch to Nikon. When I have money I'll upgrade to Canon or Nikon, so quiet, haha)

LOL, there is a D80 right next me and it's saying "Tis buy me! buy me!"

I shot the Max with a D200. 80-200


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hey, guys!

After conglomerating ALL the advice I was given, I've narrowed down my 16 shots to 5 new edits.

Since exposure and sharpness seemed to be my biggest issues, some shots of the same aircraft are completely different, as I looked carefully at histograms and blurriness before choosing one from a string. Here are the new shots.

http://www.tisdigital.com/17.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/18.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/19.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/20.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/21.jpg

http://www.tisdigital.com/22.jpg

Let me know what you guys think. I don't know which of the LH shots is better. I feel the 3/4 view looks better but the side-on view is better composed and such.

I apologize for hitting you with so many shots to begin with. I love when I get a good day out of spotting, and I got a little bit carried away and a little too hopeful. Forgive me? Smile

Looking forward to all the feedback, positive and negative, which ever is appropriate!

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sorry for the double post.

Have suggested deletion. The forum bugs led to a double and I don't want to slow loading times.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

They look much better Tis. First two are clean. The rest are ok but on this work monitor they look a little soft. Have to look at them on my lap top.

User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 14):
They look much better Tis. First two are clean. The rest are ok but on this work monitor they look a little soft.

Thanks. It's funny, on my laptop they all look oversharpened a tiny bit.
I like your signature. It's pretty much how our conversation went Monday afternoon.

Any screeners want to chip in who aren't too busy fixing site bugs?

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All 5 got rejected.

Were all rejected for soft, which I was afraid of, but they were also all rejected for EDITING and PERSONAL. The only problem is, I haven't received any e-mails about the rejection!

Anyone know what could have led to the EDITING rejections?! All I did was levels, sharpening (apparently not enough) and brightness/contrast. After advice I received last time, I didn't play with saturation or shadow/highlight at all. I also ran some grain reduction.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
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...
Pre-Screening Help posted Mon Sep 24 2007 03:42:23 by Flamedude707
Reedited For Soft: Pre-re-screening Help Request posted Wed Aug 29 2007 06:22:23 by D L X
Pre-screening Help Please posted Sun Jul 22 2007 18:50:28 by Opso1
Pre-screening Help Please posted Sat Jul 14 2007 02:51:31 by Opso1
Been Awhile - Pre-screening Help Please... posted Fri Jul 13 2007 23:33:32 by SEAchaz
Some Pre-Screening Help Please? posted Sun Dec 24 2006 20:07:54 by FighterPilot
Pre-screen Screening Help posted Thu Nov 23 2006 13:36:03 by Brett
Pre Screening Help posted Tue Nov 21 2006 02:48:17 by JetJock22
Pre Screening Help Please posted Fri Aug 11 2006 01:16:34 by Norspotter
Pre- And Post-screening Help Requested posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:55:15 by Walter2222