Upcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
I hope this one makes it in... a friend commented it was still soft but I don't have the guts to hit it again... although in the end it may get ditched for small errors and just too darn common...
Spent a fair amount of time post processing in LR and CS3, fun stuff. Since it's my first week using both programs I know I probably didn't use them to their max.
777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
1) I agree on being soft. (Looks like a shallow depth of field) I don't think the awkward crop helps any.
2) Sun reflection is least of your worries. The entire image is blurry. Heat from engines or completely out of focus.
Upcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
First image has no crop, that's the full size as it was taken. So I should crop it?
As for the second being soft, I've stared at it so much in Lightroom and CS3 that I don't see it. Maybe after some much needed sleep I'll agree. Guess I'm saying it's a lot sharper than it was to start with.
TupolevTu154 From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2119 posts, RR: 31 Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1362 times:
I don't think there's any chance for the first one. The crop is simply too awqward. The tail's been chopped, not to mention both engines. Stuff like that shouldn't be chopped really.
As people have said, the second is very blurry/out of focus.
Upcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1333 times:
*scratches head* I guess I'm going to have to handle a few more rejections until I learn the limits... after 24 hours I agree the second is soft, I wouldn't say *very* blurry... but then again being new my standards are probably a lot more loose than they should be.
Anyway, thanks for the honset replies and taking the time to look at my sub standard (for now) work.
777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
I'm glad you asked for opinions and decided to leave them in the queue. Especially after receiving dismal opinions. At least you won't be wasting too much time of the screeners. 10 seconds a shot to mark just the obvious rejections.
Quoting Upcfordcruiser (Reply 5): to have to handle a few more rejections until I learn the limits
Why upload if you know they are going to be rejected? Why ask for opinions then leave them? Why not ask for specific help on editing?
Upcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 1295 times:
How about you just not reply to my threads from now on since you obviously cannot post anything helpful or useful. But I respond to your arrogant comments.
As for wasting the screener's time, it's called a re-edit and re-upload. There are second chances, right?
Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 6):
Why upload if you know they are going to be rejected? Why ask for opinions then leave them? Why not ask for specific help on editing?
A.) I didn't know, that's why I asked.
B.) I planned on uploading new edits this morning, but I'll just go ahead and delete them because you deem them unworthy.
C.) I have. Been practicing with Masterclass techniques but as everyone knows, it takes lots of practice.
As as far as which part of the picture was sharp, I would say the aircraft itself (in my opinion) was in focus and not that blurry. I'm going through the large library of accepted photos in the same catagory (sunsets) and seeing what I'm obviously missing.
777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 1284 times:
Quoting Upcfordcruiser (Reply 7): I would say the aircraft itself (in my opinion) was in focus and not that blurry.
If you honestly feel that the sunset shot is in focus and not blurry you should do one of two things. Get your eyes checked or take a class on photography. Obviously you have no clue.
Upcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 1272 times:
Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 8): If you honestly feel that the sunset shot is in focus and not blurry you should do one of two things. Get your eyes checked or take a class on photography. Obviously you have no clue.
Last time they were checked, vision was 20/20. I've never seen a vision impairment make an out of focus picture look sharp, that's a new one on me...
Maybe you're the one that needs a class on tact and respect for others. That'll get you much further in life than a sharp, focused photograph, my young friend.
777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
Quoting Upcfordcruiser (Reply 7): As as far as which part of the picture was sharp, I would say the aircraft itself (in my opinion) was in focus and not that blurry.
3 people give you an honest opinion and you disreguard what they tell you. You insist the image is sharp. At that point I lost any and all respect for you.
Yes. Which is why it might be considered a little off when someone who comes on with little experience of the agonies of editing for a.net doesn't listen to good advice:
Quoting Upcfordcruiser (Thread starter): Spent a fair amount of time post processing in LR and CS3, fun stuff. Since it's my first week using both programs I know I probably didn't use them to their max
But you've taken enough flak for now... Upload the originals to a site like Photobucket, so that we can see if they're salvageable, if you are very keen on getting those in the db.
Scotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 546 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1232 times:
Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 1): 1) I agree on being soft. (Looks like a shallow depth of field) I don't think the awkward crop helps any.
Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
Upcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
777Mech, I have not disregarded anybody. I just simply said I wasn't seeing what the experienced eyes are obviously seeing. Yes I will put the image back into LR and see if there's any hope, but it's doubtful. The KLM will be pulled as soon as I respond since most feel the angle/zoom (I don't want to say crop, since it's not cropped) damages it's chances of getting in. I have other shots with more detail since that's what is desired.
I thank those for giving a tactful, honest response. 777Mech, I suggest you read those responses and learn how to give constructive, helpful feedback rather than harsh criticism.
Upcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
Metroliner, acceptance has never been an issue with me. I share my photos knowing some will enjoy and some won't, but I upload for those that enjoy aviatiion. It was the structure of 777Mech's responses I do not appreciate.
I would upload the originals to my PB site but the sunset image was taken before I was shooting in raw, so it's more than likely not salvagable. The KLM is obviously not liked for many reasons, so no bother.
777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1198 times:
Quoting Upcfordcruiser (Reply 13): 777Mech, I suggest you read those responses and learn how to give constructive, helpful feedback rather than harsh criticism.
Hmmmm
Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 1): 1) I agree on being soft. (Looks like a shallow depth of field) I don't think the awkward crop helps any.
2) Sun reflection is least of your worries. The entire image is blurry. Heat from engines or completely out of focus.
Just my opinion, yo.
Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 3): 1) Looks a bit soft, and I see some jaggies one the cheatline
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 102 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2119 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1058 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
