Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (Alasdair1982)  
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

Is that correct for the new individual thread format?

Would like peoples opinion on this one which I might attempt an upload of. Note, that's a compressed version on photobucket, not the full size version

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bob_van_belgium/G-CIVC.jpg

Looks straight to me, red looks red, blue looks blue etc etc. Sharp enough?

Thanks

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2557 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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!
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9069 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2544 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Alasdair1982 (Thread starter):
Is that correct for the new individual thread format?

Perfect  thumbsup 

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.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineAirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 4003 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2527 times:



Quoting Acontador (Reply 1):
AFAIK, photobucket allows bigger size images?

Yes.

Your shot is not centered btw, it's low in the frame.


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

..and looks a bit overexposed and contrast is too high. Shot around noon?

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2493 times:



Quoting Codeshare (Reply 4):
Shot around noon?

Just after 1pm local time

Thanks for the tips so far, dunno how much better this attempt is?

Big version: Width: 1551 Height: 1000 File size: 612kb


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2477 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 ?
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2440 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?

I don't follow this 3:2 aspect ratio thing


User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2434 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.

is this more what you are suggesting?

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 631 File size: 645kb


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2414 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 10):
is this more what you are suggesting?

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
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Overexposed, with ugly foreground.


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2394 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

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 652kb


A couple of others to ask your opinions of at the same resolution

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 445kb


Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 463kb


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1327 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

G-CIVC is over-exposed. Both the Koreans are soft when enlarged.

User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2313 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


User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Here is the Korean 777 with a bit of sharpening

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 753kb


Would like opinions on this shot of the Blue Angels

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 436kb


Thanks again


User currently offlineKoryo From Vatican City, joined Feb 2009, 285 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

The Korean Air's right wing looks quite hazy and there is also haze in the quite a few other places.

As for the Blue Angels, there is something funky with the color of the sky.
Hope this helped,
Koryo



This forum is as good as you make it. Never post a message in anger. Take the high road and others will follow.
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2191 times:



Quoting Koryo (Reply 18):
As for the Blue Angels, there is something funky with the color of the sky

is that meant to be a good or bad thing?  Smile


User currently offlineKoryo From Vatican City, joined Feb 2009, 285 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2169 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.
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Just noticed it myself, I really don't understand how that happened

User currently offlineKoryo From Vatican City, joined Feb 2009, 285 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Possibly there was some low lying haze the day you took the picture causing it be be yellowish only on the bottom?


This forum is as good as you make it. Never post a message in anger. Take the high road and others will follow.
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 For A Photo Newbie posted Wed Apr 12 2006 04:50:40 by Elcableguy77
Photo Pre-Screening...Opinions Needed posted Fri Oct 14 2005 15:39:47 by Flyfisher1976
Pre-Screening Thread Number 7 posted Wed Feb 4 2009 11:29:33 by Moderators
Pre-Screening Thread Number 6 posted Mon Dec 22 2008 03:19:37 by Moderators
Pre-Screening Thread No. 5 posted Mon Oct 20 2008 09:28:51 by Moderators
Pre- Screening Thread No. 4 posted Sun Sep 7 2008 05:27:50 by WILCO737
Pre-Screening Thread No. 3 posted Mon Aug 25 2008 22:29:52 by Flynavy
Pre-screening posted Fri Mar 7 2008 15:35:06 by Thetford569
Pre-screening Help posted Sat Mar 1 2008 17:56:49 by Carloscane
Pre-Screening Please posted Mon Feb 11 2008 23:43:07 by Carlos