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 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

Advice and opinions on these two please taken today

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 713 File size: 873kb
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 677 File size: 812kb


Many thanks

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

I love the first one Alaister. It needs about 0.25 degrees of clockwise rotation though to level the horizon (sea) and I'd crop it slightly closer to the aircraft. Lovely shot though and nice solid colours. The second needs about 0.4 degrees clockwise to level it and could do with a little extra sharpening on my screen.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3069 times:

Have edited both as advised above, but so far the new versions are not showing in my profile page, I just see the 'Default Image' thumbnails

User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

Here they are now. Strange that the previous two images are still in the system

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 716 File size: 779kb
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 708 File size: 910kb


Do they cut it?


User currently offlineXenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Hi,

I think the first one will get a motive rejection.
Second one seems ok. (maybe a little oversatureted?à

Cheers,

Daniel



AirTeamImages -ATI-
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3014 times:



Quoting Xenon (Reply 4):
I think the first one will get a motive rejection.

On what grounds?


User currently offlineXenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

Wel i think for those guys on the plane.
And maybe a soft rejection too.

Good luck.
Daniel



AirTeamImages -ATI-
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2982 times:



Quoting Xenon (Reply 6):
Wel i think for those guys on the plane.

To me, the guys add to the photo rather than detract from it.

Have you processed them in the same way Alasdair? They now look a bit dark / too contrasty and soft?

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

Attempted an upload of the first one with a tighter crop, desaurated a bit, and straightened

Yes, I thought including the two crew members would add to the shot


User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2945 times:



Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 8):
Attempted an upload of the first one with a tighter crop, desaurated a bit, and straightened

All that needed to be changed was what I mentioned initially. Your second edit are worse than the orginal edit! They didn't need anything else doing to them.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

Opinions on this one please. I know the haze from the exhaust is prominent against the hill in the background, but I have checked and I can't see where it affects the aircraft body

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7743/csc0633.jpg

Good enough to attempt uploading?


User currently offlineSmonkcaptain From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

It's a very special shot, but looks a tad blurry and the cut off ruins it..


Regards, Jimmy Leaman.
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

I cropped it in closer to the aircraft, I could try again without the blades cut off? But then including the blades would mean too much 'empty' space to the left?

[Edited 2009-05-24 10:43:37]

User currently offlineSmonkcaptain From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

It's a very hard one to crop this, but on a personal level, i would say keeping the whole aircraft in frame would be better.

Any other opinions on this one?



Regards, Jimmy Leaman.
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Does it boost my chances that all of the 5 photos of XZ598 in the database are taken in England and this one is not?

User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 2599 times:



Quoting Dazbo5 (Reply 1):
The second needs about 0.4 degrees clockwise to level it and could do with a little extra sharpening on my screen.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alasdair Mulhern



 Smile

[Edited 2009-06-01 04:51:52]

User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

A few more that I would like opinions of

http://img200.imageshack.us/i/csc0177.jpg/
http://img196.imageshack.us/i/csc0255.jpg/
http://img14.imageshack.us/i/csc0267.jpg/
http://img14.imageshack.us/i/csc1013.jpg/

Thanks


User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

What do people think of these for quality and colours?

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5886/csc0255.jpg

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8120/csc0267.jpg

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5116/csc0915.jpg

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/7197/csc0220.jpg

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5078/csc0308.jpg

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8796/csc1081.jpg


User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

1. Could do with a slight increase in contrast and looks a little soft in places
2. Soft
3. Looks good
4. Looks dood, maybe a tad oversaturated colour wise
5. Colours oversaturated and un-natural
6. Soft (blurry) and slightly dark

Try uploading at 1024 pixels wide, this'll increase your quality by covering up minor flaws and reduce the chances of photos being misused.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineAlevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 972 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

1. Qantas - soft in places as noted and also "flat" contrast - wise as noted.

2. Cathay - soft as noted.

3. Easyjet - good.

4. Continental - soft a bit, especially on tail.

5. BA - again as noted, looks unreal, sharpening and saturation.

6. ANA - No chance. Dull and soft.

Seems to me like you have great "subjects" - i.e. heavies, but the light wasn't great. that makes it harder to get good photos, and there is some post-processing overcompensation. The Easyjet is a perfect example - god light and a good shot.

I agree about size - unless you have an awesome close-up that is tack-sharp and you want folks to count rivets, go with 1024 wide.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Tried a different one of the QF A380 from the sequence of shots I got of it where I think it shows a bit more contrast, and I sharpened it slightly and resized to 1024 across

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3623/vhoqa.jpg

Sharpened the CX 747 and the Continental 777

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3037/bhku.jpg

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7742/n78002.jpg

A few others I thought i'd try my luck with. I really had sod all luck last week with decent light conditions when I made trips to Heathrow. Gatwick was great for the U2 A319, and the Thomson 737 below

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1772/gcdzl.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9406/9vswt.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5678/gbygf.jpg


User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

1. Looks good on my screen, but maybe slightly high in the frame. I always measure and ensure the distance from the top of the aircraft to the edge of the frame and the bottom of the tail to the edge are equidistant.

2. Looks better but is too high in the frame as above and check the colours; there's a slight red cast.

3. Sharpness look ok on my screen, but I still think the colours are too saturated.

4. Looks good quity wise, but I'd crop closer and ensure the aircraft is centred as in No1.

5. Soft, particualry towards the front

6. Soft, colours too saturated and too high in the frame.

All this is probably frustrating and sounds petty, but they're the rules. Once you've got your head around them, it becomes second nature.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
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...
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (jalap) posted Tue May 12 2009 13:20:15 by Jalap
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (bustin) posted Tue May 12 2009 01:52:33 by Bustin
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (RonS) posted Mon May 11 2009 22:09:43 by RonS
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (aceairways) posted Sun May 10 2009 21:23:24 by Aceairways
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (RonS) Level? posted Sun May 10 2009 06:52:40 by RonS
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (Nikog) posted Sat May 9 2009 20:14:38 by Nikog
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (SNATH) posted Sat May 9 2009 19:29:42 by SNATH
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (conoramoia) posted Sat May 9 2009 04:47:58 by Conoramoia
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (EnXiAn) posted Sat May 9 2009 04:44:19 by EnXiAn
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (Stackhouse007) posted Fri May 8 2009 20:50:59 by Stackhouse007