Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (MHO) A Rare Bird  
User currently offlineMHO From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 209 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

This rather unisual jet came to rest at my home 'drome. It's a Fouga CM-170 Magister.

I sure hope these shots are up to snuff (or close to), or I may just have to give up. This plane is on the ground, stationary and I can get close to it. If I'm not able to get clear, sharp shots of this, well, I don't know what to do, or what I'm doing.  Confused

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 621kb

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 595kb

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 612kb



It's better to be a little behind than a big ass
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline787seattle From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3098 times:

The first two aren't level.


Student - KELN
User currently offlineDlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3062 times:



Quoting 787seattle (Reply 1):
The first two aren't level.

Yes.

And they are soft. Don't forget, however, that a lot of the 'sharpness' you see here on a.net is a result of the editing process. You might be taking good shots, but if you're not editing them properly, it might be hard to tell (as in this case).

As always, would need to see the full size to tell you if it editable to standards.

Dana


User currently offlineMHO From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

OK, maybe I am too hesitant with the unsharpen mask function. Here are straightened, sharpened versions of the same:

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 618kb

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 588kb

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 655kb



It's better to be a little behind than a big ass
User currently offlineMHO From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3006 times:

Here are links to full size:

http://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad214/mossipov/

http://s937.photobucket.com/albums/a...=view¤t=Fouga1f.jpg&newest=1

http://s937.photobucket.com/albums/a...=view¤t=Fouga2f.jpg&newest=1

http://s937.photobucket.com/albums/a...=view¤t=Fouga3f.jpg&newest=1



It's better to be a little behind than a big ass
User currently offlineDlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2963 times:



Quoting MHO (Reply 3):
OK, maybe I am too hesitant with the unsharpen mask function. Here are straightened, sharpened versions of the same:

You don't need to (and probably shouldn't) blast your photos with USM... the sharpening should be done carefully so as not to overdo it. Your edits looks slightly better, but are too sharp in some places, yet not sharp enough in others.

Quoting MHO (Reply 4):
Here are links to full size:

Those are larger versions, but certainly can't be full-size, unless you've done a lot of cropping. Those are only 1400-1500 pix, but since you're shooting with a a350 they should be something like 4500 pix... plus, they look like they've been edited already. Did you have to crop a lot from the original? That could be a reason for the lower quality.

Dana


User currently offlineMHO From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

I realized photobucket downsizes the pictures to 1 MB. Going to find a different site.


It's better to be a little behind than a big ass
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2342 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2931 times:



Quoting MHO (Reply 6):
I realized photobucket downsizes the pictures to 1 MB. Going to find a different site.

why? images submitted to airliners.net must be less than 1mb too.



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2930 times:



Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 7):
Quoting MHO (Reply 6):
I realized photobucket downsizes the pictures to 1 MB. Going to find a different site.

why? images submitted to airliners.net must be less than 1mb too.

Probably because the originals are larger than 1MB.  Smile


User currently offlineMHO From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

I uploaded full-sized, untouched RAW format files to a Picasa web album:

http://picasaweb.google.com/DKOMHO/Fouga#5362865619282972258

These should be accessible.

michael



It's better to be a little behind than a big ass
User currently offlineDlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2901 times:



Quoting MHO (Reply 9):
I uploaded full-sized, untouched RAW format files

That's not a RAW format file, that's an un-cropped JPEG. RAW files for Sony would end in .arw, .srf, or .sr2, and be 10+MB in size.

That's ok, however, as I took a look at the JPEG (the RAW file would help mainly for exposure, color, etc...), and can tell you the photo is pretty soft. Whether that's because the focus is off, or because of your lens (some lenses are softer than others), I can't say.

The softness, coupled with the fact that there will be a fair amount of cropping needed (down to 2700pix or so) means that to bring this shot up to acceptable standards will involve a lot of work. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'll need to spend a lot of time doing some selective sharpening, as there are some areas that need a little sharpening, and some that need a whole lot. You wouldn't be able to blanket sharpen the whole image, because if you applied the amount that was needed for some areas to all, then some would be quite visibly oversharpened.

So... the level of softness in your shot is something that can be overcome if the shot fills the frame, but because you're going to need to crop 40% of the image, it becomes a lot more difficult to hide.

If you want more advice about what may have caused the softness, or about how to proceed with an edit if that's what you want to do, let me know.

Dana


User currently offlineMHO From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

I had to go back and double check what I uploaded, and sure enough, they were *.AWR files. I can only guess that Picasa converts them to jpeg when posting on the site. There were actually 4 files there, but I neglected to mention that or the forward/backward arrows. In some, the plane takes up more of the image. And, yes, thanks, I most certainly appreciate any advice you might have about sharpening. This seems to be my photographic achilles heel.

Here are direct links.

http://picasaweb.google.com/DKOMHO/Fouga#5362865486107709122

http://picasaweb.google.com/DKOMHO/Fouga#5362865519580339618

http://picasaweb.google.com/DKOMHO/Fouga#5362865592580459186

http://picasaweb.google.com/DKOMHO/Fouga#5362865646118801970



It's better to be a little behind than a big ass
User currently offlineDlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

Send me a private message or contact me through my profile and I'll give you my email address so you can send me one of the RAW files. Doing a proper RAW -> JPEG conversion is an important step that makes later edits a lot easier, and I'll see if I can't come up with a better version JPEG.

Dana


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 (MHO) posted Fri Apr 24 2009 18:05:42 by MHO
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (MHO) posted Fri Apr 17 2009 15:22:05 by MHO
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (Rare Or Not?) posted Mon Jul 20 2009 15:19:30 by Jalap
Photo Acceptance - Pre-screening (PR773) posted Thu Jul 23 2009 20:26:57 by PR773
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (Manc) posted Thu Jul 23 2009 11:50:29 by Manc
Photo Acceptance- Pre Screening (quebec237) posted Thu Jul 23 2009 11:37:17 by Quebec237
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (Stackhouse007) posted Thu Jul 23 2009 11:00:23 by Stackhouse007
Photo Acceptance, Pre-screening (Sulman) posted Thu Jul 23 2009 06:42:53 by Sulman
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (Ayson) posted Wed Jul 22 2009 18:58:42 by Ayson
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening (Luftfahrer) posted Wed Jul 22 2009 06:20:03 by Luftfahrer