HQ Pics — Aviation Photography Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

HQ Pics

Schiphol From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 38 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 963 times:

Hello,

I've a question about taking photo's and how to save them.
I've been to Schiphol, took some photo's and thought that I finaly could upload to A.net. First uploaded them to my computer and liked the result. In my opinium HQ shots.
But the screeners were thinking different. No pic was added to the database. The photo's were to low in quality. And I have to agree with them. My pics can't compare with other photo's from other grapher's.
Just look at these pics. Such a good quality:

Click for large version

Photo © Gary Watt

Click for large version

Photo © Chris Sheldon

Click for large version

Photo © Andrew Hunt

Click for large version

Photo © Chris Sheldon

I know these photographers are PRO, but do I something wrong???

Take Chris Sheldon. Lovely pics take with a Canon Eos-D30. It has 3.11 million effective pixels
My camera has 2.6 million effective pixels.

Does 0.5 million pixels makes such a big difference???
How did they do that, to get such a great quality?
Did they save them in a special way, or add something to the photo?? (layer or something).

Or is it maybe the way how I took the pictures? I used the autofocus, but I read in a review that it didn't seems to work on the F505V.

This are the pics that were rejected:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=639971&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=639975&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=639964&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=639978&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=639981&size=lg

Thanks you for your time,

Best regards,

Stefan W

8 replies: All unread, jump to last

Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 826 times:

It's not just the number of pixels, but the quality of the pixels, and of the lens.

What camera are you using?

Charles

EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 820 times:

Interesting angles on your shots..keep at it...

It could be you're trying too hard to get action shots.

0.5 million pixels makes such a big difference?
No, so long as the original shot is sharp as possible and clear.

The photonet shots say JAn Jansen but you sign yourself at Stefan W?

You are the same person?

Gerry/EDI

EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 805 times:

Your problem looks like resolution and size. Try putting the cameras settings on to highest quality picture, and the biggest picture size (which should be around 1800x1500..), and minimize the amount of compression when you save your photos.

At the moment, the file size of those photos are low, and they are not high enough to be on A.net.

Dan Smile

Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 798 times:

Hi Stefan. Your shots look typical of early Schiphol shots of many people (including me).
#1: you notice it looks hazy. That's because at Schiphol humidity is often quite high and can ruin your shot. Composition is excellent IMO (though a.net does not like that angle a lot) but it looks a bit fuzzy. A good 1A or 1B (skylight) filter might have prevented that. You might be able to do something in PSP or Photoshop to make it stronger.
#2: somewhat similar. Looks like your depth of field is not quite good enough (fuselage is in focus, the winglet is slightly blurred).
#3: same story, maybe somewhat overexposed too.
#4: camera somewhat tilted, and again the Schiphol haze making the sky look grey on a clear blue day.
#5: see #1

I get similar results on many occasions:
ttp://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=318074
Very poor weather (and highspeed film partially ruined by a broken printing machine): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=328321

I wish I were flying

Schiphol From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 782 times:

First thanks for the reply's.

Well, I will start at the beginning:

The camera I'am using is an Sony DSC-F505V with a Carl Zeis lens. so we couldn't blame the lens.

About the action shots. I think Gerry is right. First day photographing, try to get TOO beautiful shots. I noticed in the newest additions to the database that there were a lot of "standard" shots. (taxing planes ect.) I think I should start like that.

About my name: A bit funny, but I used Photo.net as a tempory webspace to show you the shots. So Jan Jansen = Stefan Wittenberg Smile

The file size I used that time was 1280x960. So next time I will using 2240x1680 and than crop to 1024x...
The only bad thing is that I could make less pictures at one day (64MB memory stick)

JWenting, thanks for you photo by photo command.

But what should I do the next time when I visit AMS? (behalve the picture size)

Thanks again for you commands

Bye Stefan

EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 773 times:

Watch out.. if your camera has 2.6 million effective pixels, and you change to 2240x1680 , sounds like you might be interpolating?

My 3.3 Sony DSC-P1 best resolution is 2048x1536.
Isn't the Sony 505 better than 2.6meg, surely?

Gerry/EDI

EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 767 times:

I checked the tech spec on the Sony DSC-F505V.
2048 x 1536 is the recommended setting.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505v/

Gerry/EDI

Schiphol From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 738 times:

Gerry,

thanks for you search work.

I've read the review and I think the best settings are:

1856 x 1392 (2240x1680 was indeed interpolating)

Thanks again,

Stefan

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: