Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1918 times:
Hi,
Suggest you don't post reduced size versions, as it will be very difficult to say anything regarding the quality, in particular sharpness.
AFAIK, photobucket allows bigger size images?
Cheers,
Andres
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
WILCO737 From Greenland, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 8533 posts, RR: 78 Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1905 times:
Quoting Alasdair1982 (Thread starter): Note, that's a compressed version on photobucket, not the full size version
As Andres said, use the full version not a compressed one. You can upload your image in your profile as well, then everybody is able to see the full version of the picture.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3240 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1870 times:
As Codeshare said, it is a bit overexposed with a little too much contrast. Also, you'll probably get a distance rejection even though the aircraft fills the frame. There is a lot of stuff in the foreground.
Try a 3:2 crop instead of this weird one you're using now, which is between 3:2 and 4:3.
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
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3240 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Better, but you have a lot of heat haze, and some quality issues. It's not too big, funnily enough. I would say size it around 1024 pixels across with a 3:2 aspect ratio.
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
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1838 times:
Just a small tip, shooting around noon produces photos that are lit overall from the top, and as in your photo, the belly is darker. But sometimes the interesting stuff comes at bad times dont they?
KS/codeshare
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
Alasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1801 times:
Quoting Codeshare (Reply 8): Just a small tip, shooting around noon produces photos that are lit overall from the top, and as in your photo, the belly is darker. But sometimes the interesting stuff comes at bad times dont they?
Can understand, but if that is how screeners see it, it would be rather unfair if pictures taken only at certain times of the day when the belly and undercarriage is be lit up, are preferred?
Alasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1795 times:
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7): Better, but you have a lot of heat haze, and some quality issues. It's not too big, funnily enough. I would say size it around 1024 pixels across with a 3:2 aspect ratio.
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 67 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 9): Can understand, but if that is how screeners see it, it would be rather unfair if pictures taken only at certain times of the day when the belly and undercarriage is be lit up, are preferred?
We dont have a "bad light" rejection but those photos can come with more problems than those shot in better light
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3240 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
Yes and no. The dimension across is correct (1024 pixels) but now the image is too narrow. The 3:2 thing means that the ratio of width to height must be 1.5. Therefore, since your image is 1024 pixels across, it should be 683 pixels high. As of right now it's a tiny bit too narrow since it is 631 pixels high. In the application you use to crop, there should be an aspect ratio option, which you can select to hold it constant while you choose your crop.
Also, now that you've shrunk it, the quality has improved a little bit but the image is far too sharp. If you want to send me the original I can see what I can do with it, if you'd like.
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
Alasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1755 times:
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 12): Therefore, since your image is 1024 pixels across, it should be 683 pixels high. As of right now it's a tiny bit too narrow since it is 631 pixels high. In the application you use to crop, there should be an aspect ratio option, which you can select to hold it constant while you choose your crop.
Third and final attempt at 1024 x 683
A couple of others to ask your opinions of at the same resolution
Alasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1674 times:
Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 15): Both the Koreans are soft when enlarged
Did a bit of sharpening to both 777's and uploaded them to my profile, deleting the two previous versions. But I just get the 'default' image' thumbnail
Koryo From Vatican City, joined Feb 2009, 285 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1530 times:
To be honest i don't know if it will affect you in a positive or negative way but the sky under the Blue Angels definitely has more yellow hue than the sky above them.
This forum is as good as you make it. Never post a message in anger. Take the high road and others will follow.
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 461 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
From Greenland, joined exactly 9 years ago today! 
, 8533 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3853 posts, 
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3240 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1209 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Feb 2009, 285 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
