Dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Aussie18 (Reply 1): Rear looks quite sharp but forward part of fuselage looks soft,Jetstar.com titling for example looks quite soft.
That's funny, I would have said the tail is where it's soft, especially the APU exhaust cone and the stabilizers. I guess it just goes to show everyone's eyes see something different.
As to exposure, I do think it would stand to benefit from a little bit of brightening.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
Thanks guys.
Koryo, your version looks to me quite a bit washed out and low contrast, just look at the dry grass in the front, it looks nothing like that in reality.
Dlowwa, your version looks better, what tool did you use?
As for "soft", I see that there is no consensus .
I didn't want to brighten the shadows too much; the light was quite bright and "contrasty". I remember Mick Bajcar suggesting in one of the threads here not to brighten the shadows up too excessively, otherwise you end up with a completely unnatural look, like in Koryo's edit.
Dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 4):
Dlowwa, your version looks better, what tool did you use?
Image ---> Brightness/Contrast tool in Photoshop. I think I did something like +12-14 or thereabouts for brightness and maybe +2 for contrast. It didn't need much, but I think a little boost improved it a bit.
As for playing with the shadow levels, easy rule: don't. Otherwise, you will get that washed out look mentioned above.
Aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1611 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Dlowwa (Reply 3): That's funny, I would have said the tail is where it's soft, especially the APU exhaust cone and the stabilizers. I guess it just goes to show everyone's eyes see something different.
I take back what i said,looking at the back of the aircraft it does seems soft aswell so overall its soft,JET Titling and star aswell.....eyes not focusing too well today
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1367 times:
Quoting Dlowwa (Reply 5): As for playing with the shadow levels, easy rule: don't.
It depends on how to apply it. If carefully, keeping in mind possible side effects - no problem, makes for a useful tool. It is just people often tend to overuse it.
Lufthansi From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
First of all: I really like your shot!!! It's something different because of all the spectators in the background. And you seem to be an insider as you've been on the other side (the dark side ). Well I tried an edit as well in gimp. If you save it together with your version that you presented in this thread you can easily switch between the two versions in the windows photo gallery for example. I set the black and white points and I sharpened a bit. In my eyes your picture was not soft anywhere but OK. I'm not a screener. I hope the sky is not to bright now... Here you go:
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1325 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Andrei - I think the biggest issue is that it was shot in really poor light. In my mind no amount of post-processing is going to fix that.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
Royal, what exactly do you mean by "poor light"? I don't quite understand. What' was wrong with it? Bright day light, two o'clock in the afternoon... I've taken fairly good photos in much pooper conditions.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1304 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
High, mid-day sun is terrible. It creates poor exposure and harsh shadows.
On the shot you have linked to it looks like the sun was behind a cloud in the foreground, but not in the background, which was much brighter, and your camera tried to split the difference, hence the dark (and noisy) areas in your photo.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1279 times:
OK, Royal, I see your point.
Just had a look at the original - the contrast seems uniformly on the low side, foreground as well as background (partly because I have the contrast in my camera set a notch down), I had to give ir a boost while post-processing, and the background doesn't seem to be lit any brighter than the aircraft.
Anyway, unfortunately, at the airshow at Avalon, if you look for a perfect light you end up taking no pictures at all . The light in the morning is very harsh and high contrast. After about an hour of so into the flying program, the sun moves behind the runway, and all your aircraft are backlit. The only place they are not is in the taxiway where this A320 was...
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Feb 2009, 285 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, 
.
From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, 
). Well I tried an edit as well in gimp. If you save it together with your version that you presented in this thread you can easily switch between the two versions in the windows photo gallery for example. I set the black and white points and I sharpened a bit. In my eyes your picture was not soft anywhere but OK. I'm not a screener. I hope the sky is not to bright now... Here you go:
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}