airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 60 Posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
Hi guys,
Been trying to shoot something different for a few weeks now and below is my latest attempt. It's not prefect yet obviously, but it's decent imo. The thing is, the lens flare I get from the landing lights is kinda killing it. Is there any way I can get rid of that?
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 2, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1831 times:
I don't see anything problematic here. Looks good to me!
Really the only way to remove lense flare is careful cloning or adjusting in layers and masking.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
You can't. It's been my gripe with the 100-400 for years as well. Hopefully, if I upgrade to a prime I'll lose this phenomenon. But with todays Euro, that's not going to happen soon.
airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1753 times:
Ooooh, ok! Another lesson learned
So in that case, let's say the front half of the aircraft was sharp and such, would it be acceptable for A.net? *looks at screeners*
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 758 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
Kas, from my experience with these types of shots and trying to get acceptance, in the dark areas like the nose and from the flaps on each wing to the winglet, you can have dark areas yes, but you can't clip the shadows and lose the dark details. I can't tell unless I look at the histogram, but I suspect you are clipping a lot of the dark areas, which is totally normal for this type of shot, but normally gets rejected.
You have to review the histogram and see what areas are clipping and raise them up with some fill light and exposure. Unfortunately, as you know adding the fill light not only adds noise and loss of IQ and contrast, it also takes away from the actual scene you captured. I have had to do this on many an occasion though to get accepted.
There is always a choice to be made with these types of shots, edit them for the site or for yourself. One of my BA shots comes to mind, where I wanted it on here, and raised the fill light to finally get it accepted. I made another edit for Flickr, SmugMug and other sites without all the light level adjusting and I prefer that darker version much more. That being said, the one on Anet has around 20K views and the darker one on the other sites is about 2K views combined.
Basically, I would think with this one it would be a dark rejection, but could possibly be fixed with adjusting the levels and then adding some more NR to counteract the changes. You did the exact correct capture, likely getting the shot how it looked in real life, slightly underexposing to help with your shutter speed, but you'll likely have to raise the exposure back up for the site standards here.
Hope this helps
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1675 times:
Thanks for the detailed post Ron, certainly helps!
There is of course the possiblity of making 2 edits, 1 for myself and 1 for a.net (like you did). I'm currently at work now, but when I get home tonight, I will post the histogram (of the edited or unedited shot though?).
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 10, posted (4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1671 times:
Great post, Ron. I shoot in these conditions frequently but have never bothered with uploading here. You are right, there is a choice to be made. Shoot and edit according to how it looks in real life or alter the scene and edit to get it accepted here. It's very difficult but if you can pull it off, go for it!
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6502 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
Quoting RonS (Reply 8): I made another edit for Flickr, SmugMug and other sites without all the light level adjusting and I prefer that darker version much more.
That's what I do for most of my shots. Shots I upload to Flickr and Smugmug typically get a good deal less editing than shots I upload here - little to no sharpening, less noise reduction, don't have to resize them, etc.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 758 posts, RR: 29 Reply 13, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
There is a way for the image to show what black area is clipping shadows and what white area is blown out in PS, but I don't adjust levels in PS anymore and couldn't tell you. If you email it to me I can play around with it in Lightroom, it will tell me right away what area is clipped.
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 60 Reply 15, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1488 times:
Ron, I've E-mailed you the JPG file (5,68MB). I have the RAW file aswell of course, but that one is 25,7MB :p
Then I pressed the little triangles in the RAW converter and this is what it showed:
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 758 posts, RR: 29 Reply 16, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1453 times:
My standard procedure is to get rid of any of that blue, the shadow clipping area. Make sure noise is under control and it is relatively sharp and not blurry, then it's in the hands of the screeners. In my opinion, if those 4 critical things are in the range of acceptability, it has the potential to be accepted here.
One caveat, I have had photos rejected (and some accepted) where it met all of the above, but received a personal saying something to the effect that the aircraft can not be distinguished from the background. This often happens with black landing gear blending into a black building or black sky, so adjusting the fill light a tiny bit more should help set those two apart, however remotely. For you, you may have to worry about the wings blending in to the background still, but can probably be dealt with. I'll play tonight if I get a chance!
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1373 times:
Alright, I see what that does. Makes the wing much more visible, with the downside being that the noise becomes more apparent. So regarding the use of fill flash and setting the blacks to 0, should I do both or should I only do 1 of those? And is it still ok to put a bit of contrast over it afterwards?
EDIT: Here's what I came up with.
In the RAW editor, I set the blacks to 0 and fill flash at 10.
I then edited it in "normal" Photoshop, adding 60% noise reduction with neat-image (was that too much/too little?), with some selective sharpening for the brighter parts of the aircraft. The lens flare is more annoying to look at now than before :p
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6502 posts, RR: 29 Reply 23, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 22): The lens flare is more annoying to look at now than before :p
Ahhh, THAT lens flare! I didn't see it in the first image. That would definitely kill it as far as A.net is concerned.
Other than that, I think the new version looks better. There was definitely some detail that was getting obscured by black in the first one.
I also think noise looks pretty good for ISO6400 - maybe even a bit too much NR, as you said. And 1/20s at 400mm....I dream of the day I can get a shot even half as sharp as that!
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4041 posts, RR: 31 Reply 24, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1337 times:
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 22): The lens flare is more annoying to look at now than before :p
Yeah, now I see the flare you were talking about. That's going to be a tough one...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, RR: 60 Reply 25, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1314 times:
Hahaha, yes guys, THAT lens flare haha!
Figured it would be too much for A.net, but hey, I'm still learning how to do this properly
I'm thankful for all the info I've gotten so far about editing shots like this. I too agree that the last edit looks much better than the first.
Does anyone know if there is a filter which I can put on the lens to minimize the effect of the flare?
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 24): Yeah, now I see the flare you were talking about.
Me too now! lol
Yes now you have some noise on the nose area, etc.
And FYI it's Fill Light, not Fill Flash. Using it instead of brightness and / or exposure seems to concentrate it more in the dark areas than globally.
I think I have an idea that I want to try. Hopefully tonight, had to bring the cat to the vet last night. And I had my own ISO6400 shot that I had to put in the Q!
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3764 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 758 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
