Hey guys,

went out for spotting today and here's my first pic. I'm lets say fairly new to this when you compare me to others on here so I'm looking for valuable feedback on how to improve my aircraft photography and getting my images on Airliners.net

I think that this picture: http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=145937&filename=phpXQhIpv.jpeg might need a tad sharpening but I'm not sure as I'm not working on my Photoshop pc but on my work pc.

Thanks for helping me out in advance!

Tom

Quoting Tomskii (Thread starter): might need a tad sharpening but I'm not sure as I'm not working on my Photoshop pc but on my work pc.

Hi Tom,

Composition looks fine although i'd probably crop a little more from the left of the frame to even the amount of blue sky left and right of the aircraft. The front of the aircraft is a little blurry and even with more sharpenig, it's unlikely you'll able to recover that one I'm afraid. This is a common aircraft with lots of photos in the database so standards are a little higher than normal. What aperture / shutter speed did you use? I've not seen the histogram, but the contrast looks like it needs increasing a little too. Other than that, it's not a bad try.

Darren

Hi Darren,

Thanks for the info! I will be uploading more pics soon. As for the histogram and such:
Program (Aperture priority) A
Aperture: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/320s so it's a bit on the slow side, but that's because I've overexposed the pic a bit to keep the noise to a minimum.

Histogram: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/misc/uf/145937/phpQB1nxb.jpeg

EDIT: What do you think about this one? Think my shutter speed might have been a tad too slow as well but I prefer hearing it from someone who has 'the eye'. It seems maybe a tad oversharpened to me but again I might be wrong!

http://www.airliners.net/uf/145937/phpTwDLf9.jpeg

[Edited 2012-02-20 08:39:37]

EDIT2: Or this one?

http://www.airliners.net/uf/145937/phpZqR68K.jpeg

[Edited 2012-02-20 08:48:34]

Maybe that's why the front of the aircraft is a little blurry compared to the rest of the frame. There's no problem in using ISO 200, most dSLR's produce little noise at ISO 200 to give you a little more shutter speed if needed. I regularly use ISO 200 in the winter months when the light isn't as strong so don't worry about increasing it. The histogram confirms the contrast I mentioned above.

Darren

First one is blurry and flat; second one is better, but too high in the frame.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 3):

Thanks darren,

I'm going out thursday morning again for spotting at BRU so. As for know please look at the 2 foto's in the editted msg above. Thanks again for all your help!

Tom

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 5): please look at the 2 foto'

It is soft. You might also want to convert the colorspace for your images to sRGB before you upload, as that's how they will be displayed on the web/when they are screened. Otherwise you are going to be seeing a difference in the colors between what you are working on, and what you upload.

It should already be set to sRGB, as for the 2nd pic. I suppose I should crop until the space below the plane equals the space above.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 7): It should already be set to sRGB, as for the 2nd pic

It is not. It is currently set to Adobe RGB, and when opening the file in Photoshop, the colors are quite different from how they are displayed in the browser.

Allrighty, i'll make sure to change that in photoshop then. As for the picture the flat one was the SN airbus Insuppose and the second soft one is the JetairFly right?

What about this? It's the JetairFly again but recropped it and sharpened it. It is also in sRGB 16-bit. I feel like I might have oversharpened it, or maybe I'm just wrong. I used a guideline to put the plane in the middle but I still feel like (might be wrong again) that it's slightly too high in frame.



Thanks for the help,

Tom

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 10): feel like I might have oversharpened it

It is a little oversharp and too high in the frame.

Darren

Sounds a bit dumb probably but how much should I get the airplane down in the picture. Seems I have some issues distinguishing the right ratio between upper and lower part of the plane at that angle.

Sharpening should be ok, but it is slightly high.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 12): how much should I get the airplane down in the picture.

It's not an exact science, but there are two things that can help: 1) try looking at the thumbnail version to get an idea of the overall centering, and 2) don't forget to consider the tail fin, as it is also part of the aircraft.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 13): It's not an exact science, but there are two things that can help: 1) try looking at the thumbnail version to get an idea of the overall centering, and 2) don't forget to consider the tail fin, as it is also part of the aircraft.

Thanks,

That's where I go wrong I guess: the tail. As for the sharpening: you would bring it down just slightly if I understand you well?

Tom

Sharpening looks ok overall, like I said. I can only see a few jaggies on the flaps.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15): Sharpening looks ok overall, like I said. I can only see a few jaggies on the flaps.

Jep noticed that too. So if I just bring the pic a bit down and upload it to the queue I should be ok right?

EDIT: Wasn't exactly what you'd call nice weather today but hey. Went to the BRU General Aviation area and some Italian diplomatic just arrived in his D'assault Falcon. What do you think?



[Edited 2012-02-23 04:59:15]

Unlevel and very poor contrast I'm afraid.

Both things can be arranged, will post re-edited tomorrow.

How's this? I did a small rotate on the pic CW as I thought the pic was not level (going down) from right to left. Secondly adjusted contrast.



EDIT: Might be a bit low in frame now though, or is it just me?

[Edited 2012-02-24 05:38:59]

And I re-edited OO-JAS the jetairfly 737:

Is this better or did I put it too low in frame now? How's the sharpening?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 19): How's this?

Still needs a tiny bit of cw rotation, and contrast is still not great, though I don't think you'll be able to do much more to improve it.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 20): And I re-edited OO-JAS the jetairfly 737:

Maybe a touch low, and color a bit strong, but might be passable. Sharpening should be fine.

Cheers,

I'll get the colors down a bit and then see how it goes in the queue, do you think it stands a chance?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 22): do you think it stands a chance?

With minor corrections, yes.

Hi again Dana,

Brought the saturation of the colors down a bit and reworked from the original to crop again. This time I lowered it a bit in comparison to the first edit, but it is higher than the second edit.

Color still looks a bit off, but might be worth a try as is.

Well to me the colors are quite right as I see those planes regularly, but I suppose you mean the sky.

Once again thanks for all help, pic has been uploaded,

Tom

Dana again thanks for all your help, has paid off! First acceptance on a.net

2 more pics from today. Tell me what you think. 1st one has received 1° of CW. Second one I wasn't sure.



Not sure if it needs a bit more lighting or not.

Both have very poor (low) contrast. The LH also seems a bit blurry.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 29): The LH also seems a bit blurry.

Mmm weird I would've thought you would've said that about the SN one and not the LH one. Anyways I'll give the contrast a boost of the first one.

How's this?



[Edited 2012-03-10 04:29:02]

I can see you've increased the contrast a lot on both, but to be honest because the light was pretty terrible to begin with, they only look a little bit better. You can try adding more contrast, but the benefit won't be that significant. Better to wait for nicer conditions next time.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 31): I can see you've increased the contrast a lot on both, but to be honest because the light was pretty terrible to begin with, they only look a little bit better. You can try adding more contrast, but the benefit won't be that significant. Better to wait for nicer conditions next time.

Conditions indeed where sh*t, so if I understand you well you think it won't have any big effect if I work on the contrast anymore due to the poor light.

Picture from today (sun was setting) so I don't know if the orangy cast is an issue (as it's the normal lighting of the sun on the plane at this time of the day. Secondly I didn't exactly know how to crop a cockpit picture properly so feel free to give me advice on that  !

And this one:

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 34): And this one:

Dark, and really poor/unmotivated crop.

And the first one? How would you crop it? Exclude the engine and just use the nose till the fwd door?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 36): And the first one?

Crop is better, but also a bit dark.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 36): How would you crop it?

Pretty much any way other than what you did. Why did you crop it like that? Any specific reason, or was that simply what came out of the camera? Take a look through the database at previously accepted images to get an idea of what kind of crop is acceptable. That you can't find any similar to yours would be a good hint that such a crop wouldn't be acceptable.

So if I brighten the LX one up a bit, crop should be ok? Anyways I'll take a look at the db to have an idea how to crop it.  

How's this now Dana?

EDIT: I suppose this one will not be able to make it because of quality/oversharpening? Or am I wrong?



[Edited 2012-03-15 09:56:24]

EDIT2: Not sure about the cropping here and I suppose it might be a bit dark as well?

[Edited 2012-03-15 10:24:15]

And another one: I suppose (after looking up some images on Airliners.net) that this crop isn't good for Airliners.net either? Just want the confirmation  

Also please look at the pictures above, thanks for your help Dana!

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 39): How's this now Dana?

Should have a pretty good chance.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 39): EDIT: I suppose this one will not be able to make it because of quality/oversharpening? Or am I wrong?

Maybe a bit os, but bigger problem is the harsh contrast.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 39): EDIT2

Looks ok

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 40): And another one: I suppose (after looking up some images on Airliners.net) that this crop isn't good for Airliners.net either?

Better than the TAP, but if you want to be really safe, try to avoid cutting the engine.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 41): Maybe a bit os, but bigger problem is the harsh contrast.

Not sure what you mean by os?   I've brought the contrast down a bit:

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 42): Not sure what you mean by os?

os = Over Sharpened.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 42): I've brought the contrast down a bit:

Slight yellow tint, but otherwise looks passable.

Better?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 44): Better?

Should have a good chance.

The LX has been rejected, because I've left too much space on the top of the plane. Oh well, just a small re-edit and done  

What do you think about these:





Not sure about cropping on the last one.

EDIT:

Suppose this one is too high in frame?



[Edited 2012-03-28 09:54:49]

All three are a little soft and flat, but otherwise ok. Third one is a little low, but should be passable. It also has some dust spots.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 48): All three are a little soft and flat, but otherwise ok. Third one is a little low, but should be passable. It also has some dust spots.

So a bit more contrast I suppose. As for the dust spots, only visible on the third?





[Edited 2012-03-28 12:03:47]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 49): As for the dust spots, only visible on the third?

As far as I could see, yes.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 50): As far as I could see, yes.

Two last pics are good now as for contrast and sharpness?

Sharpness is ok, the second one looks a little overexposed now. Light is quite marginal for that one.

Ok thanks! I will bring the exposure down a bit and see what that does.

Ok now?



[Edited 2012-03-29 02:19:04]

[Edited 2012-03-29 02:20:39]
Adjusted a bit of brightness here as well so the nose isn't as overexposed and details are better readable   Tell me if you like the previous version better or this one.


[Edited 2012-03-29 02:40:57]

I removed the dust spots on the JAF and increased contrast a bit. Tell me what you think (and don't forget the previous post of course ^^)

Your links seem to be broken.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 56): Your links seem to be broken.

Do they? I still can see the pics.
Even after a hard refresh.

[Edited 2012-03-29 09:40:42]

Working now. Second should be fine; first is a bit contrasty but will probably be ok.

And what about the JAF? Is that one ok or would you advise not to upload it because of the light?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 59): And what about the JAF? Is that one ok or would you advise not to upload it because of the light?

Contrast is a bit harsh, but I've seen worse, so might as well give it a shot.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 60): Contrast is a bit harsh, but I've seen worse, so might as well give it a shot.

Reduced the contrast slightly. Thanks again for your help! Have I mentioned that the KL E190 made it AND is a first addition to the database because it is new?

Another one:



I suppose it might be a tad too dark and probably it has some other issues, anyways interested in your opinion. I also think it might be a bit low in frame?

[Edited 2012-04-12 11:26:56]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 62): Another one:

A touch soft, but should otherwise be ok.

Really, not too dark or anything? (Lol must be weird to see me surprised?)

EDIT:

Better?


[Edited 2012-04-12 11:47:09]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 64): Really, not too dark or anything?

Well, the front part is obviously covered in shadow, but not much you can do about it now.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 64): EDIT: Better?

Looks passable.

Is this one too low in frame? I wasn't sure but when I look at it, it seems a bit low in frame.






[Edited 2012-04-14 08:56:10]

Last three are a little bright, especially 2 & 3. The TG is a little low, but the light is pretty bad, so probably not worth trying to fix.

I see, will reduce the brightness on the last 2 and increase on the first LH. Light conditions were indeed variable so the TG will have to wait to join my a.net collection  

Thanks again for your valuable feedback.

Hows this? Only made minor adjustments to the brightness of the IB and Transavia as you said a little too bright haha. But the LH has had a bigger increase of brightness.

Not sure why you brightened the LH; the other two look better for exposure.

Oh I misunderstood then. So the LH is ok then (first version)? Will adjust exposure on the other 2

[Edited 2012-04-15 00:19:53]

Better/Worse?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 72): Better/Worse?

A bit better.

Would you bring it down a bit more or should they be ok?

Exposure? Just leave it where it is. The light's not too great (especially on the IB, which if anything looks flat) so just put them through and see how it goes - just be prepared for issues with the IB.

What do you think about this one?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 76): What do you think about this one?

Touch flat, but otherwise ok.

Cheers, will increase the contrast a bit and upload it. Thanks again!

EDIT: This should be better then:



[Edited 2012-04-16 12:45:36]

Hi Dana,

I have been spotting today. I will tell you that it was cloudy, but I still wanted to have some feedback on some pictures. I have editted a first one, a Asiana 744F. I've editted it the usual way but with the sharpening I did the regular one like I do normally and a second edition with the High Pass Technique. Please tell me what you think.

Regular


High Pass


I thank you again for your time and the help you have given me in the passed (My latest pictures were all accepted btw).

Greetings,

Tom

Second one is better for sharpening; both have a slight cyan/yellow cast to them.

Any change? I have the feeling it's too red now, but I might be wrong. What would you suggest to adjust the casts?

This one needs a bit more of CW I think? And if you have other remarks, I will be pleased to hear them of course!  

Hi Tom, the verticals lean to the left, so CW is indeed needed.
I think the aircraft is a bit high in the frame too, given the large tail.
Cheers
Frank

It does need a touch of cw; it also has a yellow/green cast, and is a bit contrasty.

I'll leave the Austrian as it is, as when I took the picture I zoomed in so far on the plane that it resulted in not having enough space to rotate the picture. Anyways thanks.

What do you think of the Asiana re-edit? And I repeat my question, how would you remove the cyan and yellow cast (if it's still there)

Still looks a little cyan, but not too bad. You can usually balance out cyan by adding more red.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 86): Still looks a little cyan, but not too bad. You can usually balance out cyan by adding more red.

That's what I thought, wont I risk having too much red in the pic then though?

EDIT: Added a bit more red:



[Edited 2012-05-10 12:51:42]

I honestly don't see a big difference between the third and fourth versions, but if I had to go with one, it would be third.

New material, tell me what you think! (more coming up as soon (tomorrow probably) as I have done the following edits)







[Edited 2012-05-14 12:20:19]

[Edited 2012-05-14 12:29:38]



[Edited 2012-05-14 12:58:47]

Hi,

First will be rejected for motive, the second two have a yellow/green cast and are partially backlit so will have a difficult time with the light.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 90): Hi, First will be rejected for motive,

Why the first one for motive? Because of the nosewheel that is blocked by the fence?


The other two indeed have a bit of backlit due to the sun that was already almost facing them  . I maybe should've chosen the opposite side of the runway as soon as the sun was backlitting the planes.  

So you guess, both the last pictures would not make it due to the light right? (after removing the yellow and green cast)

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 91): Why the first one for motive? Because of the nosewheel that is blocked by the fence?

Yes.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 91): So you guess, both the last pictures would not make it due to the light right? (after removing the yellow and green cast)

The second would have a bit better chance than the third.

Thanks I'll work on the second one then to remove the yello and greenish cast

Thanks for your time again!

Hows This:

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 94): Hows This:

Color slightly better; light is still marginal; I've also just noticed there is some relatively strong vignetting in the corners.

Would this one have any chance? (taken today)


And then I have another picture which I am unsure about wether the motive is enough to let it pass. (I also noted that, due to the distance the plane is quite hazy, but maybe the motive is more important. Anyways thanks)

And would this be able to make the cut?



PS: Don't forget about the two previous pics when answerring to this post  

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 96): Would this one have any chance?

A bit too bright and heat-hazed, so probably not.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 96): And then I have another picture which I am unsure about wether the motive is enough to let it pass.

No, not sure why the pole would be motive for such a crop.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 97): And would this be able to make the cut?

No, quality is just not there unfortunately.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 98): No, not sure why the pole would be motive for such a crop.

Not the pole, but the people sitting on the right  

How's this then, (I've included a 1600px version and the regular size I do thus 1200px, tell me if the 1600 would make the cut or not  )



Large:



I have the feeling they are both still a bit soft and need some sharpening.

Tom

[Edited 2012-05-20 01:40:58]

(This is the re-sharpened version of the 1600px wide one)

Large 2:

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 99): Not the pole, but the people sitting on the right

Hardly enough to justify the off-center & distance.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 100): tell me if the 1600 would make the cut or not

It would not, and neither would the 1200.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 102): It would not, and neither would the 1200.

Due to the light/Contrast? (although the sun was shining (in periods :p))

The light, but more importantly the fact that it is very soft.

Also the last version? But I suppose I do not have to put any effort in the picture because of the lighting (although the sun was actually there).

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 105): Also the last version?

Yes.

The sun is shining it's 28,5 °C and I went spotting. Results are below. Please tell me what you think, and of course what needs improvement/is ok.















[Edited 2012-05-23 09:25:10]

All have a cyan cast & heat haze. You might be able to hide the haze at 1024, but other than that, there's not much you can do.

Any comments on this? Mind that the green reflection is due to the grass below, which you should be able to see in the reflection of the plane.  

Whole image (not the reflection on the belly) has a cyan tint.

Thanks I'll counter that. Looks like I'll need to check my camera/photoshop settings as you have been telling me on a lot of pics that there is a cyan tint :s.

Added +15 red

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 114): Added +15 red

Color still looks off.

Ok it has been a while again but I have 2 shots for you, hope these are not cyan tinted.




Suppose the second one is a bit too soft?

[Edited 2012-06-16 02:19:00]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 114): Ok it has been a while again but I have 2 shots for you

3 shots, no? All three have issues with color and contrast.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 117): 3 shots, no? All three have issues with color and contrast.

Yes, 3 shots lol :p I suppose they have a cyan tint and the contrast is a bit too high(?)

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 116): I suppose they have a cyan tint and the contrast is a bit too high(?)

Exactly. A little cyan, but might also be a little oversaturated.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 119): Exactly. A little cyan, but might also be a little oversaturated.

mmm yes I did add like +5 of color saturation, might be that. I'll do a -5 for the saturation, and if the cyan is still there afterwards I'll counter that as well.

This should be better, all three have had a -10 in saturation, just to make sure. Tell me if the cyan tint is still there and if the contrast is still too high now  





Thanks again!

Tom

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 121): Tell me if the cyan tint is still there and if the contrast is still too high now

Don't see much difference, contrast & color still off.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 122): Don't see much difference, contrast & color still off.

Could you, maybe if you have the time just download one of these pics and edit the colour and contrast like you would do it in Photoshop? Show the final picture and then eventually tell what you've done, cause I am a bit 'walking in the dark' if you know what I mean at this very moment :s

EDIT: Any better this? https://dl.dropbox.com/u/33281487/DSC_0076%283%29.jpg

[Edited 2012-06-17 03:20:29]

If you want to send me one the original RAW files, I can do an edit from that. No point in doing it from one of the versions posted above.

Sent you an email via the contact funtion  

Pretty easy to come up with better colors from the RAW file, so whatever you're doing wrong, you're doing it when processing the image. Compare:

Your original edit -



My edit -

I think it might be related to my screen, as your edit appears to have a bit of red to it on my screen.  

Any tips on calibrating my screen?   I have a Samsung 2333HD

How's this btw

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 128): How's this btw

It would be rejected for color and contrast; same problems as above.

How about this?
Not sure about the contrast


And I suppose this one suffers too much of heat haze but I wanted to see what you think.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 128): Not sure about the contrast

Contrast ok, level not.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 128): I suppose this one suffers too much of heat haze

Yes. Would be rejected for soft & contrast.

How would you level it as the angle at which it was taken of course causesa little optical illusion  

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 130): How would you level it as the angle at which it was taken of course causesa little optical illusion

No optical illusion, it's severely slanted to the right.

How's this? 3° CCW. Does it need more? I've also included a 1600px version, just wondering if it would need more sharpening at that size? (or would it even make the cut?)



Large Version:

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 134): How's this? 3° CCW.

Better, but still might have issues with level. Not sure why you are so keen on 1600 pix, your chances of acceptance drop exponentially when you try images at that size.

4 degrees CCW now, should be good I suppose now as the numbers on the ground appear to be completely level now.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 134):

Level should be fine.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 135): Level should be fine.

No other things that might be an issue?

Here are another few new pics.





And I suppose this one would be subject to a 'motive' rejection due to the airstairs?



And this one mainly for lighting (and I suppose due to the distance that heat haze might be an issue as well)

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 136): No other things that might be an issue?

Not the best light, but should be passable.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 136): Here are another few new pics.

Generally look ok.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 136): And I suppose this one would be subject to a 'motive' rejection due to the airstairs?

Yes.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 136): And this one mainly for lighting

Very poor, will be a dark/contrast rejection.

And another one for you today, I have the impression I might have cropped it a bit too low in frame.



In meanwhile, the Portugalia has been accepted and the two other ones will be screened tomorrow probably.

[Edited 2012-07-07 08:07:07]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 138): And another one for you today

A little soft, but otherwise ok.

Better?


[Edited 2012-07-08 09:33:58]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 142): Better?

Yes.

I'm not giving it a lot of chances but I thought it might be considered as a airport overview submission? Anyways odds are it is either not showing enough of the airport, or if you think the focus is on the plane holding short I suppose it wouldn't stand a chance either?  

Tom

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 142): I'm not giving it a lot of chances but I thought it might be considered as a airport overview submission?

Not enough of the airport visible for that.

3 for you again.





I feel like I have oversharpened them a bit?

Anyone willing to answer?

Any comments on this one please?  

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 146): Any comments on this one please?

A little dark, and personally I think the angle is terrible.

Added just a tad of exposere as I thought it would be overexposed otherwise. Can't change much about the angle since well yeah the pilot flew right over me. Thanks again for your help. Could you also check the 3 pics in my previous post and see if any have a chance? (personally I do not think so)

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 148): Could you also check the 3 pics in my previous post and see if any have a chance?

They're a little on the dark and/or soft side, but should be fixable.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 149): They're a little on the dark and/or soft side, but should be fixable.

Thanks, I'll work on them after the weekend since I'm going on a weekend with some friends. Thanks once again for the help, and about my remark in another topic the other day: I should've rephrased myself better as it seemed I was insinuating that screeners have little or no knowledge.

What do you think about this:



[Edited 2012-09-09 09:40:39]

EDIT: Suppose I shouldn't even ask due to the lighting but still going to do it:



[Edited 2012-09-09 09:42:13]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 153): What do you think about this:

Generally ok.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 153): Suppose I shouldn't even ask due to the lighting but still going to do it:

A bit noisy & flat.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 152): A bit noisy & flat.

And I suppose due to the lighting that it wouldn't really help if I increase contrast? Or would it?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 153): And I suppose due to the lighting that it wouldn't really help if I increase contrast?

You could try.

Hi there Dana,

Would this airport overview stand any chance? If yes how do I upload it (because I do not have to select any airplane)?

For motive, the distance and fence kind of kill it for me. Also seems a bit dark and soft.

Is it just me or did I oversharpen this picture?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 157): Is it just me or did I oversharpen this picture?

Sharpening looks passable, but it is quite dark.

It seems like SN just doesn't like the camera's lol. If you look up SSQ's pics or any other SN plane the 'brussels airlines' in the front always looks quite bad.

Hows this?

EDIT:

[Edited 2012-09-19 09:48:59]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 161): Hows this?

Would likely be rejected for dark/harsh contrast.

I can still bring the contrast down, yet would the dark remain a problem you think?

If it is still underexposed, yes.

Hey Dana,

Just found this one left on my HDD, any good?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 163): Just found this one left on my HDD, any good?

Noisy, but otherwise should be ok.

After a long while I finally found the time again for some spotting, please tell me what you think Dana:



Not sure if this one would be allowed


Nor this one


Greetings,

Tom

First is dark/contrasty, and is pretty common, so you'll need to have it near perfect. It's also got some pretty obvious dust spots. Second is an awkward crop, but might be acceptable. Third would be no for the crop on the left, and would be double with the second anyway.

Was pretty sure about that last one that it wouldn't get past, I'll leave the first one and add it to my personal collection and I'll give the second one a go.

Awkward crop is due to the building where the 9W was sitting, Would've liked a spot where it was in the same position yet without that building on the left :P

Too harsh on contrast this one I suppose?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 168): Too harsh on contrast this one I suppose?

Too harsh? Too low if anything. Also needs cw rotation.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 169): Too harsh? Too low if anything. Also needs cw rotation.

Lol I thought it would be too harsh (maybe it's just my screen) will edit it again and repost it.

EDIT: How's this?



[Edited 2012-11-01 04:27:47]

[Edited 2012-11-01 05:08:42]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 170): How's this?

Looks better.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 171): Looks better.

Still needs to a bit or is it ok?

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 174): Still needs to a bit or is it ok?

More contrast? No, contrast should be fine.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 173): More contrast? No, contrast should be fine.

Allright thanks,

Think my English (or writing skills) have gone out the window with that last post lol

Hi there again Dana,

Would this stand any chance?





Doubt this one but just trying


Greetings,

Tom

[Edited 2012-11-02 17:53:52]

[Edited 2012-11-02 17:54:25]

First would be rejected for grainy, oversharpened, quality, and maybe centering for the crop. Second is a bit dark. Third would be rejected for blurry and dark.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 176): First would be rejected for grainy, oversharpened, quality, and maybe centering for the crop. Second is a bit dark. Third would be rejected for blurry and dark.

Would've expected that for 1 and 3, I'll just make #2 a bit lighter and it should be good  

Hi Dana another one for you to check:



and this one:



[Edited 2012-11-26 10:43:41]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 181): Hi Dana another one for you to check:

Slightly soft and noisy, but otherwise ok.

How's this, I added some USM to it from the original RAW file (I always start again from the RAW)

And I've done some Noise removal as well



[Edited 2012-11-27 13:15:43]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 181): How's this,

Looks slightly oversharpened now.

I've set a lower amount of USM yet I do not see much difference once resized (Or is it just me missing out small details)

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 185): I've set a lower amount of USM

Just go with that one and see what happens.

Allrighty thanks, if it gets rejected for OS I'll have to reduce the amount to the point where I actually see a difference lol. Once again thank you Dana.

Hi Dana,

after a few busy months Im back at it. How is this picture? (I know it suffers a bit from the humidity)



And this one:



[Edited 2013-01-22 07:19:05]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 188): How is this picture?

Very poor contrast, and the quality overall is not great. Doubt you can fix them.

Thought so, weather was ok sun was shining but there was a lot of low level humidity as you can see.

Going back tomorrow, hope the moisture/humidity will be gone then.

Hi there Dana,

3 pics I would like an opinion on:

Aaaaand... another one:

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 189): 3 pics I would like an opinion on:

Noisy, oversharpened, harshly contrasted, and generally lacking the quality for the size. Fence also rather prominent in a couple.

Woops I see I resized them to 1300 instead of 1200 my bad. In the first series I did not do any NR as I shot the pics at ISO 100 since the conditions were good but after having zoomed in on the RAW file I saw there was indeed still a bit of noise on the lower part of the plane.

I've set less contrast (I suppose the good weather doesn't require me to add the amount I usually set) I've also redone sharpening to set it to less. About the fence: Well I can't change much about it but I cropped them slightly different so the amount of fence in the picture is less.

Tell me what you think  

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 192): Tell me what you think

Betterm though the 67 looks a bit soft, and the 320 maybe blurry now.

Added some USM:



And here is another one I would like an opinion on:

Would this have a chance Dana?



Also please check the 67 which I have re-sharpened, and the KLM above.

Thanks once again,

Tom

I can't speak for Dana and I'm not a screener, but to my eyes the EY A330 looks soft.

The 767 looks pretty good - maybe just a touch oversharp in some spots, but not too much. If it were me, I'd upload that and take my chances.

The F70 looks somewhat oversharp in spots and a touch soft in others, and maybe has a bit of grain in the shadows. Not a huge amount.

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 196): but to my eyes the EY A330 looks soft.

Hi here Cargolex, thanks for your feedback.

I've added a bit of sharpness to the EY, very subtle though 100% of unsharp mask, you should see a slight change. I was afraid of OS'ing it otherwise? (you should see the difference notably on the tail)



Could you also take a look at this nose close-up?



[Edited 2013-02-05 10:37:55]

[Edited 2013-02-05 10:40:16]

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 197): I've added a bit of sharpness to the EY, very subtle though 100% of unsharp mask, you should see a slight change. I was afraid of OS'ing it otherwise? (you should see the difference notably on the tail)

I definitely see the change, but you should try putting some parts in a separate layer and sharpening them separately - the titles and fuselage sides need more than the cockpit windows or the stripes on the forward fuselage, for example. Smart sharpen won't discriminate these areas over others that may not need more sharpening. Some people use Photoshop elements, which doesn't allow for many layers. I'm a Photoshop CS4 user so I don't know much about elements. The tail and cockpit windows are, in my opinion, getting closer to oversharp, but the middle of the fuselage is still soft.

On the SN, the exposure looks a little hot. You could probably stand to take that down just a bit. If you shoot in raw this should be pretty easy, I don't ever work in JPG but you might be able to fix this there too. The high contrast areas on this shot seem sharp, the low contrast areas seem less so. The static port near the Q seems a little soft, almost blurry, not sure. The Star logo and the text on the white area also indicate a little softness there, but the high contrast logo and titles are fine as is, IMO. I shot my very first Brussels Airlines A330 recently and oversharpened it, primarily because of those high contrast titles.

Hi Cargolex,

Thanks for the valuable help. I use PS CS6 so layers shouldn't be of any problem. In my original of the SN the nose area is indeed a bit softer than the rest of the fuselage. I'll try to work it out in meanwhile. However I am not familiar with smart sharpen as I use USM. Any good tutorial you know of?

EDIT: Oh and yes I shoot in RAW so I'll bring the exposure a bit down  

[Edited 2013-02-05 17:03:07]

EDIT2: Oh darn I just saw I cropped a bit of the top off. The white antenna was sticking out and I did not see that in the original. (bloody eurowhite schemes :P)

[Edited 2013-02-05 17:04:50]