http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/photography_feedback/read.main/368053/
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-25 13:17:59 and read 2800 times.
Hello,
So I have sent this image which got rejected due to being grainy:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=p1350399687.9106img_6031.jpg
The first 2 rejections were mainly because it was soft, which I corrected by giving it some sharping(to the whole picture).
In my opinion I think it's exagerated because I don't see almost any grain. I would like to ask for some opinion(s) to see what can I do to improve the image 
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-10-25 13:28:13 and read 2797 times.
Quoting riflex (Thread starter):
So I have sent this image which got rejected due to being grainy:
There's a slight amount of noise in the shadows. Should be easy to fix. Noise often get introduced to an image when you sharpen it, so you shouldn't be totally surprised.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-25 18:29:35 and read 2782 times.
Hello,
Thanks for your help! I'm aware that images can get noisy but in this particular case I didn't think it would get rejected because of grain.
So all I have to do is to select the shadows and remove some noise?
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-10-25 18:32:20 and read 2782 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 2):
So all I have to do is to select the shadows and remove some noise?
Yes, that should take care of the noise, but it does also still look a little soft to me.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-25 18:34:52 and read 2783 times.
Hm...I'll give it a little more sharp then and fix the noise in the shadows. Thank you once again for your help!
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-26 07:25:00 and read 2758 times.
Dana, a quick question again about the noise removal:
I've used: Strenght 6, preserved 80% of the details, reduced 5% of color noise and sharpen details are at 25%. I'm note sure if I should be a bit more "harsh" in treating the photo...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/v1351261411.6077img_60312.jpg
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-10-26 08:29:58 and read 2752 times.
To be honest, I don't see much difference between this one and the rejected; on the other hand, the rejected doesn't need much adjustment, so just be sure you don't overdo it.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-26 08:52:42 and read 2749 times.
Right...I've corrected again, this time: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/t1351266654.7713img_60312.jpg
This time I diminished the details a bit more to 55%.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-10-26 14:16:56 and read 2726 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 7):
Right...I've corrected again
You've removed the previous version, so I can't really compare. The difference between this and the rejected seems also slight.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-26 18:14:36 and read 2715 times.
Well...it's getting more challenging than I expected how about this: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/e1351300300.565img_60312.jpg
The link doesn't appear since I'm uploading the pictures again deleting the previous one but I guess the best picture to compare is the first one that got rejected.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-10-26 22:56:19 and read 2700 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 9):
how about this:
I don't see noise being an issue for that one.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-27 02:08:54 and read 2700 times.
Allright then, I'll give it a go let's see the results...thank you again for your help!
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-31 10:39:28 and read 2651 times.
Hello again.
Got this one rejected because it was high in frame and high contrast:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=p1350920165.4716img_4808.jpg
The contrast I agree, the centered reason...it's sort of confusing. The aircraft body is in the middle, I even lowered a bit because of the tail but still wasn't enough.
I also wanted to ask for some opinion about these 3:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/k1351700696.5975img_4875.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/q1351702050.0869img_5867.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/s1351705080.9171img_5948.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-10-31 11:05:58 and read 2647 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 12):
Got this one rejected because it was high in frame
Looks a bit high to me.
Quoting riflex (Reply 12):
I also wanted to ask for some opinion about these 3:
All soft/blurry to varying degrees, especially the second. The first might also not be fixable, as it looks like heat haze.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-31 11:23:57 and read 2644 times.
Ah, now I understand better the centering thank you for showing me that. I'll fix it in no-time.
About the other 3 pictures, I'll eliminate the first 2. The 3rd one...it seems that the nose needs a bit of sharpening. Is there any other area I should fix?
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-10-31 11:38:43 and read 2640 times.
Fixed version of the Air Italy, I had to give a bigger crop or the aircraft would be again high in frame:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/s1351708638.7947img_4808.jpg
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-10-31 14:33:13 and read 2630 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 15):
Fixed version of the Air Italy
Centering looks fine, though the contrast is still harsh, and looking again it might need a bit of cw rotation.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-01 16:54:03 and read 2620 times.
Hello,
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/e1351813789.9148img_4808.jpg
Gave some CW rotation and took care of the harsh contrast.
I'd like to ask an opinion also about this one:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1351706511.4969img_7637.jpg
The first rejection was also because of too much contrast.
Regards
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-04 05:57:55 and read 2597 times.
Hi,
Got this one rejected this time because the sky was noisy and not only the aircraft shadows:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=e1351300300.565img_60312.jpg
Is it worth appealing?
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-04 09:09:34 and read 2586 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 18):
Got this one rejected this time because the sky was noisy and not only the aircraft shadows:
I do see a bit in the sky, but it's not that bad.
Quoting riflex (Reply 17):
Gave some CW rotation and took care of the harsh contrast.
Definitely still needs cw rotation, and contrast still a bit harsh.
Quoting riflex (Reply 17):
The first rejection was also because of too much contrast.
Also still a bit dark/contrasty.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-04 09:42:04 and read 2585 times.
Hello,
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/g1352050399.0421img_4808.jpg
Used one of the buildings to try and line-up the horizont, still I'm not sure if it will work. I had to give a negative contrast.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1352050830.4247img_7637.jpg
Less contrast, more light!
Thanks for your help so far Dana!
Regards
[Edited 2012-11-04 09:43:07]
Username: dazbo5
Posted 2012-11-04 09:52:21 and read 2581 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 20):
Used one of the buildings to try and line-up the horizont, still I'm not sure if it will work.
It still looks to need some CW rotation to me.
Quoting riflex (Reply 20):
Less contrast, more light!
but unlevel and needing some CW rotation.
Darren
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-04 16:56:49 and read 2574 times.
Hi,
Thanks for your reply Darren!
Corrected the B737 again:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/o1352076785.8645img_4808.jpg
About the A340, I'm not sure because I lined the horizon according to the airport lamps, it was the best reference in the picture.
Fixed noisy sky, I think this time it's ok.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1352080410.9584img_6031.jpg
[Edited 2012-11-04 17:55:14]
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-05 00:11:25 and read 2563 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 22):
Corrected the B737 again:
Level still off, and looking flat & soft now.
Quoting riflex (Reply 22):
Fixed noisy sky, I think this time it's ok.
Should be ok.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-05 07:13:42 and read 2562 times.
Hello,
Gave more CW rotation but now I'm not sure if it's the right level...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/c1352128320.6431img_4808.jpg
There's an antenna close to the nose of the aircraft, should I use it to line-up the horizon?
Username: dazbo5
Posted 2012-11-05 07:43:45 and read 2563 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 24):
Gave more CW rotation but now I'm not sure if it's the right level...
Are you sure you gave it CW rotation? It looks like you gave it CCW rotation to me. It needs to be rotated more to the right, not left.
Quoting riflex (Reply 24):
There's an antenna close to the nose of the aircraft, should I use it to line-up the horizon?
That, and the buildings in the background.
Darren
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-05 08:00:07 and read 2564 times.
Hello,
Using the antenna to line the horizon, the photo turns out like this:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/d1352131019.7769img_4808.jpg
I was rotating to the right(CW) in the previous fixes. With this fix the photo got a slight CCW.
Username: dazbo5
Posted 2012-11-05 11:54:54 and read 2580 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 26):
the photo turns out like this:
That looks much more like it level wise.
Darren
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-05 13:28:08 and read 2580 times.
Allright! thanks for your help! I just hope it's not too soft.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-06 08:14:18 and read 2580 times.
Hello,
Would like to ask about this photo:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/p1352218106.7073img_8179.jpg
Not sure about: sharp, nose soft, heat haze.
Regards
Username: dazbo5
Posted 2012-11-06 08:19:26 and read 2578 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 29):
Not sure about: sharp, nose soft, heat haze.
This doesn't have the quality for here. There's heat haze and it's quite soft towards the front.
Darren
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-06 09:45:32 and read 2580 times.
I was afraid of that. Well...instead of that one, I'll try this:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/h1352223830.8523img_8132.jpg
Thanks for your help again Darren
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-07 14:33:41 and read 2578 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 31):
I'll try this:
Quality is ok, but verging on being backlit.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-07 15:11:15 and read 2582 times.
Hello Dana,
I had that in attention, I chose the photo with most light possible(the reflection of the piano keys of the runway in this case). Let's see if it makes it
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-09 14:59:54 and read 2577 times.
Hello,
Would like to ask an opinion on this picture again:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1351709125.1321img_5948.jpg
Got rejected due to being oversharped and dark.
I only did one modification on this photo since the previous rejection(rejected for being soft only) which was a bit more sharpness in the nose zone.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-09 16:47:43 and read 2576 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 34):
Got rejected due to being oversharped and dark.
Oversharpened? Can't see that. It's not dark so much as the contrast is a little harsh (which makes certain areas look darker). Try reducing the contrast a little, and also brightening just slightly, and see how it looks.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-10 07:11:27 and read 2578 times.
Hi Dana,
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/j1352560173.5157img_5948.jpg
Done the corrections on the contrast and gave a bit of bright to the picture.
Would like to ask about this one I forgot:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=m1351707125.7118img_7474.jpg
Also rejected because it was oversharped and dark(I may agree with this last one).
To finish, do you think this one has a chance?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/j1352563421.3308img_6101.jpg
First time I uploaded it was rejected only because it was soft(I only sharped the aircraft), at the second time I sharped the whole picture and the rejection reasons increased: blurry, dark, soft, etc...
Regards and thanks for your help again
[Edited 2012-11-10 08:07:03]
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-10 18:08:25 and read 2576 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 36):
Done the corrections on the contrast and gave a bit of bright to the picture.
Still seems a bit dark.
Quoting riflex (Reply 36):
Would like to ask about this one I forgot:
Again, the 'dark' rejection comes from the poor light/contrast, not necessarily underexposure.
Quoting riflex (Reply 36):
To finish, do you think this one has a chance?
No, sorry, quality looks quite poor.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-10 19:21:35 and read 2574 times.
Hello,
Fixed the 757 with more bright, I just hope I didn't exagerated this time:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1352603763.2387img_5948.jpg
Also for the Turkish same thing, more bright and a bit less of contrast:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/s1352604013.2358img_7474.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-11 10:32:50 and read 2572 times.
Like I said above for both: it's not really the exposure that is the problem, it's the poor contrast. I think the first is more fixable, but you will be able to do that by adjusting the levels/contrast more than by just increasing the exposure.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-11 17:04:14 and read 2572 times.
Hello Dana,
Well, instead of increasing the bright, I used the levels as you said:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/q1352682215.0774img_5948.jpg
Tried not to exagerade since it was only needed a small correction
Regards!
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-12 02:04:03 and read 2569 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 40):
I used the levels as you said:
Contrast/exposure is better, though I can't really compare to the older versions as you seem to have removed them. This one is also starting to look a little soft & noisy.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-13 09:18:10 and read 2567 times.
Hi Dana,
Made a few corrections to the 757, this time we can compare
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9001755...182570943/in/photostream/lightbox/
Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...84.2414img_5948comsharpnomotor.jpg
I fixed the noise below the wings and in the sky and added an extra sharp to the engine with the titles but not sure if there's anything missing.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-13 13:08:26 and read 2568 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 42):
Made a few corrections to the 757
Should be ok now.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-14 08:30:34 and read 2568 times.
Thanks for your help on the 757 Dana
Would like to ask about this one, I'm still a rookie in night pictures: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...29420.307519dejaneirode2011031.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-15 14:42:57 and read 2567 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 44):
Would like to ask about this one
It's soft and noisy.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-16 14:27:04 and read 2567 times.
Hello,
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9001755...192069994/in/photostream/lightbox/
Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...04633.497619dejaneirode2011031.jpg
Removed the noise from the sky and added more sharp.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-16 22:25:34 and read 2566 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 46):
Fixed version:
Don't see much difference. On second look, it could also be brightened a bit.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-18 19:24:46 and read 2567 times.
Hello Dana,
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8192069994/lightbox/ (I forgot to save the picture that I fixed after this one)
Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...95224.632419dejaneirode2011031.jpg
Also would like to ask if you think this one has any chance or if it's possible to fix: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1353293626.1412img_5174.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-18 19:32:52 and read 2566 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 48):
Fixed version:
This one looks noisy and blurry/oversharpened.
Quoting riflex (Reply 48):
Also would like to ask if you think this one has any chance or if it's possible to fix:
Don't think so, the quality looks quite poor.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-18 19:51:31 and read 2567 times.
Well, I think I'll give way to other 2 pictures in that case. Thank for your help!
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-19 09:37:14 and read 2565 times.
Hello again,
A quick question about this picture: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...2259largadanuno30marode2011320.jpg
I had no other chance than cutting the tail on this one, is it acceptable?
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-19 22:22:05 and read 2571 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 51):
I had no other chance than cutting the tail on this one, is it acceptable?
Looks pretty sloppy. It is ok to crop the tail, but generally only if it serves a purpose. Yours looks like it happened by accident.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-20 18:28:50 and read 2569 times.
Hello,
I'll try another picture then.
I got this one rejected: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21120_b1352828649.5543img_5930.jpg
I didn't receive any e-mail confirming the rejection but I came here to the website and the reasons were: "needs CCW rotation level personal"
What does the personal mean?
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-20 18:32:26 and read 2564 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 53):
CCW
= Counter Clock Wise (rotation).
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-20 18:46:50 and read 2562 times.
Ah, allright thanks!
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1353465850.3892img_5930.jpg
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-20 23:29:57 and read 2552 times.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-23 18:05:23 and read 2520 times.
Hello,
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21123_z1353089536.6303img_8350.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21123_r1353091196.8829img_5912.jpg
Both rejected due to needing counter-clockwise rotation. The second one was firstly rejected because it only needed more contrast and that's what I did, there was no level rejection. Do you think it's worth appealing?
Regards
Username: DL747
Posted 2012-11-23 22:00:22 and read 2504 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 57):
Um, I agree with the screeners. Both look leany to me. I think the second also has some quality issues. The first is pretty subjective, though. Anyway, nice pics, especially the first one, I like the smoke a lot.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-23 22:44:22 and read 2504 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 57):
Do you think it's worth appealing?
No, they both do seem to need a little rotation, look at the vertical references.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-24 07:17:44 and read 2499 times.
Hello,
Thanks for your replies and I'm glad you like it DL747
Here's the fixed version of the MD-11:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1353769831.2414img_8350.jpg
I double-checked with the buildings and the lamps if it was alligned and it seems ok to me now.
Also wanted to ask about this other 2:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1353733018.5811img_8391.jpg
I cropped a bit of the runway since I think it's an interesting perspective, still I'm not sure if it will be enough.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/r1353733298.6133img_8605.jpg
Not sure about the quality...
Regards!
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-24 09:07:37 and read 2490 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 60):
Here's the fixed version of the MD-11:
You appear to have rotated it clockwise, not counter clockwise.
Quoting riflex (Reply 60):
Also wanted to ask about this other 2:
First would be rejected for dark/soft/centered, and the second for grainy/soft/blurry/dark/contrast/etc...
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-24 09:37:24 and read 2488 times.
My bad about the MD-11, here's the fix:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/y1353778229.8697img_8350.jpg
Here's the helicopter one, more croped:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1353778550.0258img_8389.jpg
I think it's a bit soft tho, but wanted to ask for your opinion first Dana.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-25 01:58:53 and read 2471 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 62):
My bad about the MD-11, here's the fix:
Better, maybe even a little too much now.
Quoting riflex (Reply 62):
Here's the helicopter one, more croped:
Yes, quite soft, almost blurry.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-25 07:42:29 and read 2465 times.
Hello,
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8216467859/in/photostream
Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/d1353857164.0929img_8350.jpg
Made a slight correction in clock-wise.
About this one:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/h1353858051.9797img_8403.jpg
The former helicopter pictures were too dark and too far, I think it would be dificuld to fix them.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-25 14:07:24 and read 2449 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 64):
Made a slight correction in clock-wise.
Level should be ok.
Quoting riflex (Reply 64):
About this one:
This also is dark, and really there is no need for a 3:2 ratio, a 4:3 crop would get rid of some of the empty space on the sides.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-25 18:41:39 and read 2443 times.
Hello,
Helicopter picture:
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8219674328/in/photostream
Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1353897575.4867img_8403.jpg
Tried the 4:3 ratio and you're right, much better now.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-26 01:43:09 and read 2433 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 66):
Fixed version:
Soft, and not the best light.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-27 03:08:51 and read 2411 times.
Hello,
I'll try and fix the helicopter later.
Wanted an opinion on these 2:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=v1353266540.0051img_3770.jpg
Rejected due to quality(heat haze), grainy and overexposed. If I crop a bit less and give it a a fix with the noise and light you think it's aceptable?
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=h1353294330.4079img_6059.jpg
It first got rejected because of the level, now it got rejected due to softness and quality.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-27 12:08:02 and read 2400 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 68):
Wanted an opinion on these 2:
First is still marginal from the haze, but I don't see noise being a problem. First also still marginal soft/quality, again looks like from some heat haze.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-27 16:40:48 and read 2390 times.
Hello,
Relative to the first image in the previous post, I decided to use another one which seems less afected by the heat haze:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...g/ready/d1354063035.44img_3774.jpg
The second image tried to improve it by adding some sharp:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/u1354061727.8344img_6059.jpg
Also would like to as about this one:
Old version: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/....681330dedezembrode20091121200.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b....938730dedezembrode20091121200.jpg
It first got rejected because of overexposed, grainy and oversharped. I corrected for the first two, I don't think it's too sharped.
Regards and thank you.
[Edited 2012-11-27 16:44:06]
Username: DL747
Posted 2012-11-27 19:12:10 and read 2383 times.
To me, the first still looks awfully heat hazy. The second also seems to be of lesser quality. I think the third is better now, although it could be a bit too dark. It semms a tad heat-hazy, but I think it's okay. Nice photos regardless
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-28 00:44:28 and read 2372 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 70):
Relative to the first image in the previous post, I decided to use another one which seems less afected by the heat haze:
Better, should be ok.
Quoting riflex (Reply 70):
The second image tried to improve it by adding some sharp:
Still borderline, but not worse.
Quoting riflex (Reply 70):
Also would like to as about this one:
Tough light, aircraft in the back are still blown out.
Quoting DL747 (Reply 71):
It semms a tad heat-hazy
No, it is not.
Username: DL747
Posted 2012-11-28 06:31:27 and read 2362 times.
Apologies, guys. For my opinion on the haze I was referring to the second. It could just be the jetwash, though.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-28 18:40:01 and read 2336 times.
Quoting DL747 (Reply 73):
It could just be the jetwash, though.
How could jetwash be affecting the aircraft?? Are you implying there's another aircraft taking off directly in front of the EasyJet we can't see? I highly doubt it. In any case, jet wash is rarely a cause for rejection, so it would be a good idea not to confuse it with heat haze.
Username: DL747
Posted 2012-11-28 19:18:03 and read 2331 times.
No, not what I was saying. I think the grass in front of the aircraft towards the wing looks a bit hazy, but it could be that the jetwash is giving it that effect.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-28 19:44:17 and read 2329 times.
Quoting DL747 (Reply 75):
No, not what I was saying. I think the grass in front of the aircraft towards the wing looks a bit hazy, but it could be that the jetwash is giving it that effect.
Sorry, that's even more confusing..you're saying the jetwash is somehow traveling in front of the aircraft? In any case, not much point in debating something that has no relevance to the quality of the image.
Username: DL747
Posted 2012-11-28 19:58:58 and read 2341 times.
Okay, once again, sorry for the confusion. I was saying behind the wing on the left looks hazy. In front was a brain lapse, I typed where I was looking at the time. Let's just forget that, since as you said, it doen't affect the image.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-29 13:57:13 and read 2323 times.
Hello,
DL747, thank you for your compliment and for giving your opinion about the pictures don't worry, we're here to learn and since I've been in this forum asking for help and advice I've learned a lot in how to work better my pictures and to pay more attention to the details.
So, for today I have:
Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r....681330dedezembrode20091121200.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b....842630dedezembrode20091121200.jpg
I think that if this one doesn't work, it's no use. The exposure in the aircrafts behind is too strong, I tried to lower as much as I could but it would get too dark.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1354226023.4759img_6059.jpg
Gave it a bit more sharp.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...3196.122521e22dejulhode2011163.jpg
Not sure about the horizon, also in the cropping I decided to include the antenna.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54225029.13811dejunhode2011017.jpg
Well, I think that this one would get rejected because of the interference of the propeller but since the aircraft in the middle shows the nose pretty well I wanted to ask if it's worth to leave it in the queue.
Username: DL747
Posted 2012-11-29 15:00:27 and read 2318 times.
First looks too dark for me, anyway. Nice idea, though. Easyjet looks okay, but tough for my beginner eyes to tell. Third has a bit of a funny crop in my opinion. I like it though. The fourth is jaw dropping. It might get rejected, as you said for the prop in front. Other than that, it looks fine to me.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-29 15:52:25 and read 2315 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 78):
Fixed:
Highlights are still quite blown out.
Quoting riflex (Reply 78):
Gave it a bit more sharp.
Still a bit soft, and some noise visible.
Quoting riflex (Reply 78):
Not sure about the horizon, also in the cropping
Needs a little ccw rotation, but the quality softness is quite poor, so doesn't really matter.
Quoting riflex (Reply 78):
Well, I think that this one would get rejected because of the interference of the propeller
Would be rejected for motive, the crop isn't very good.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-29 19:19:13 and read 2301 times.
Hello,
About this one in the previous post:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54225029.13811dejunhode2011017.jpg
By bad crop you mean I can for example include the 3rd aircraft in the back or I have to cut the propeller in the 1st one(the closest in the bottom of the picture) so that only the engine of the aircraft in the middle appears?
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-29 20:22:43 and read 2295 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 81):
By bad crop you mean I can for example include the 3rd aircraft in the back or I have to cut the propeller in the 1st one(the closest in the bottom of the picture) so that only the engine of the aircraft in the middle appears?
The out of focus aircraft in the foreground is the problem. It's blocking the main subject. Without it, you would be fine.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-30 07:34:27 and read 2287 times.
Hello,
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54289142.82892dejunhode2011321.jpg
I hope that the aircraft in the foreground isn't with too much exposure...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54289399.16391dejunhode2011045.jpg
I think it's still a bit soft but wanted to check if there's anything else that should be fixed.
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8232771312/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...9562.264821e22dejulhode2011163.jpg
I gave some CCW and tried to fix the softness.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-30 18:25:12 and read 2266 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 83):
I hope that the aircraft in the foreground isn't with too much exposure...
Unfortunately, it is blown out.
Quoting riflex (Reply 83):
I think it's still a bit soft but wanted to check if there's anything else that should be fixed
Yes, still soft.
Quoting riflex (Reply 83):
I gave some CCW and tried to fix the softness.
Also still soft. Looks like it was shot at a distance, as the haze is noticeable.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-11-30 18:50:46 and read 2262 times.
Hello,
I'll skip the first photo in the previous post and try another one later.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1354330065.7634img_8772.jpg
Wanted to ask about this one, looks a bit soft to me but I don't know if the lights from the aircraft are the best.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-11-30 19:35:03 and read 2260 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 85):
Wanted to ask about this one,
Blurry, noisy, and color. Probably not fixable because of the blur.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-02 07:11:06 and read 2237 times.
Hello,
Got this one rejected because of level, says it needs CCW but honestly I think the level is fine:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=i1353784437.7487img_6486.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-02 11:58:12 and read 2221 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 87):
honestly I think the level is fine:
Yes, level looks ok.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-03 16:30:27 and read 2198 times.
Hello,
#1
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8242111625/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/t1354579483.5669img_6059.jpg
Fixed the noise in the sky and add an extra sharp, tried not to exagerate.
#2
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8242133337/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...54580019.51721dejunhode2011045.jpg
Gave more sharp to the picture
#3
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8242133245/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...0303.044821e22dejulhode2011163.jpg
Some posts behind you said that it seems that this picture was taken from a distance and you're right. I gave it some sharp but since the background is not focused is there a problem?
#4
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/t1354570786.5974img_1859.jpg
When I took the picture I didn't managed to get the front wheel of the A340 in the background, for that I'm not sure if the crop will work.
#5
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/l1354566181.3452img_2982.jpg
Not sure about the exposure.
Hope it's not too many pictures, sorry in advance if I'm pushing it.
Regards and thank you.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-05 14:50:29 and read 2159 times.
Hello,
Would like to ask to ignore my post above, I exagerated in the number of pictures and I apologize for that.
#1
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ilename=d1354063035.44img_3774.jpg
Rejected because of: Quality, soft, overexposed and category(with the comment Bussiness category). I can't remember if I selected it or not but anyway apart from that I think the rejection is a bit exagerated.
#2
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=g1354062319.5125img_4837.jpg
Rejected because of: Quality, soft, over-sharpened and contrast. This one got me confused...soft and over-sharpened?
#3
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=k1354058756.7291img_8245.jpg
Rejected because of: Soft, dark and contrast.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-05 17:08:26 and read 2147 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 90):
#1
A bit bright and soft, but probably fixable.
Quoting riflex (Reply 90):
#2
Again, not too bad, but the contrast is a little harsh. May be fixable with better edit.
Quoting riflex (Reply 90):
#3
This one is probably the worst of the three; some haze and poor light, I'm not sure if you could fix this one.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-08 18:18:02 and read 2121 times.
Hello,
#1:
Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0121205_d1354063035.44img_3774.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/l1355018494.2543img_3774.jpg
Less brightness and a bit more sharpening.
#2:
Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21205_g1354062319.5125img_4837.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/v1355018740.1074img_4837.jpg
Less contrast.
#3:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21205_j1354056137.3011img_8212.jpg
I forgot to put this one a few days ago. Got rejected because of overexposed(I think it's a bit exagerated) and dirty(dust spot in the left up corner). That "dirt spot" is actually a bird, I forgot to mention that.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-09 02:40:39 and read 2111 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 92):
#1:
Too dark now, still soft.
Quoting riflex (Reply 92):
#2:
A little dark.
Quoting riflex (Reply 92):
#3:
A bit bright, but I would have said within reason.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-09 12:21:04 and read 2091 times.
Hello,
#1
Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0121205_d1354063035.44img_3774.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/l1355082481.7239img_3774.jpg
I'm using the first version of this photo, the previous one (2nd try)was dark and still a bit soft, I corrected for those two(3rd try).
#2
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8257953055/in/photostream/
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/z1355084123.6855img_4837.jpg
Added more light to it.
#3
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/d1355022943.7808img_7815.jpg
Would like to ask if this one is ok, previously was having trouble because of the horizont level.
I decided to try and appeal the photo of the 737 (#3) in the previous post.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-09 13:40:49 and read 2086 times.
Exposure is better for the first two; third is a bit dark and needs ccw rotation.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-09 16:54:11 and read 2082 times.
Hello,
#1
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8258722715/in/photostream/
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/g1355099772.8232img_7815.jpg
Gave more CCW and a bit more bright.
#2:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/u1355023313.8509vora188.jpg
Not sure about the light and if it's sharpen enough.
#3
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/o1355022339.1598img_8276.jpg
Wanted to ask if this one is ok also.
A quick question about this one:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21205_j1354056137.3011img_8212.jpg
Do you think it's a bit high in the frame? It got rejected because of that but I thought it was low in the frame.
Regards
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-16 17:06:21 and read 2005 times.
Hello,
Would like to ask an opinin about this pictures:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/s1355705011.6376lppr084.jpg
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1355700611.0609img_2982.jpg
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/d1355701220.6884img_3062.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-17 13:29:49 and read 1972 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 96):
Fixed:
Looks a bit dark/soft
Quoting riflex (Reply 96):
Not sure about the light and if it's sharpen enough.
Link broken.
Quoting riflex (Reply 96):
Wanted to ask if this one is ok also.
Should be ok.
Quoting riflex (Reply 96):
A quick question about this one:
Maybe a touch high, yes.
Quoting riflex (Reply 97):
#1
Bit os/contrast, but maybe passable.
Quoting riflex (Reply 97):
#2
Really poor light. A bit dark, but the top of the fuselage already looks blown out.
Quoting riflex (Reply 97):
#3
Dark & oversharpened.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-17 17:12:57 and read 1965 times.
Hello,
What does os/contrast mean?
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1355020223.7077img_8252.jpg
Got rejected because of quality, grainy(I don't think there's much grain), and oversharpened.
#2 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8283034018/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/i1355792915.9848img_3062.jpg
Gave more brightness and less sharpness.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/v1355700425.7333141.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-17 18:58:15 and read 1961 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 99):
What does os/contrast mean?
os = Over Sharpened
contrast (should have been contrastY) = contrast too harsh
Quoting riflex (Reply 99):
Got rejected because of quality, grainy(I don't think there's much grain), and oversharpened.
Yes, looks like it.
Quoting riflex (Reply 99):
Fixed:
Better, but light is still marginal at best.
Quoting riflex (Reply 99):
#3
Do you have a question about this?
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-17 19:16:07 and read 1962 times.
Yes, sorry I forgot to put the question about #3
It got rejected before because it was soft, I gave a bit more sharp, do you think it's ok?
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-17 23:55:23 and read 1954 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 101):
I gave a bit more sharp, do you think it's ok?
No, still quite soft.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-18 19:33:14 and read 1936 times.
Hello,
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1355082481.7239img_3774.jpg
It got rejected for being soft but I think I've posted this picture here a few days ago. Wanted to ask if beside soft do you think I should give a bit more bright.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=z1355084123.6855img_4837.jpg
Rejected for being soft and dark. I think this one is a bit harsh, personally I think the sharpness and light are ok. Worth an appealing or a fix?
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-20 02:08:24 and read 1909 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 103):
do you think I should give a bit more bright.
No, exposure looks passable.
Quoting riflex (Reply 103):
Worth an appealing or a fix?
Looks a touch dark, but I don't think soft.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-20 17:04:53 and read 1898 times.
Hello,
#1 Old version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21217_g1355099772.8232img_7815.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/i1356049335.0062img_7815.jpg
Got rejected because of grain and softness. Corrected for both.
#2 Old version: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=z1355084123.6855img_4837.jpg
Fixed http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/t1356050524.0853img_4837.jpg
Fixed the brightness in this one.
#3 Old version: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1355082481.7239img_3774.jpg
Fixed http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/v1356051239.7058img_3774.jpg
Corrected for softness.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-21 01:04:36 and read 1886 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 105):
#1
Still a bit noisy/soft/dark
Quoting riflex (Reply 105):
#2Quoting riflex (Reply 105):
#3
Should be ok.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-21 12:08:56 and read 1877 times.
Dana, in the #1 picture ( http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/i1356049335.0062img_7815.jpg ) you mean the noise is more visible in the aircraft? I've already take care of the noise in the landscape and sky.
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8293178176/
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/z1356054935.0913img_3062.jpg
Gave a bit more bright.
Regards
[Edited 2012-12-21 12:14:47]
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-22 03:01:46 and read 1863 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 107):
you mean the noise is more visible in the aircraft?
Yes, but not too bad.
Quoting riflex (Reply 107):
Fixed:
Looks partially backlit, so not much difference.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-28 14:39:29 and read 1802 times.
Hello,
Got a few rejections that I would like to ask for an opinion, the last 2 pictures I had already posted here in the thread asking for advices:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=r1356052935.7892img_4003.jpg
First it got rejected because it was soft(corrected for that only), now the most recent rejection is because it has a yellow cast and still soft.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=v1356051239.7058img_3774.jpg
Grainy, soft and dark. The only thing I may agree with is the grain, still I think it's not too bad.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=t1356050524.0853img_4837.jpg
Soft and dark.
Regards and thank you
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-28 22:35:49 and read 1785 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 109):
#1
Color borderline, but agree it's still quite soft.
Quoting riflex (Reply 109):
#2
Don't see it as dark, but noisy and soft I can see.
Quoting riflex (Reply 109):
#3
This one looks ok.
Username: riflex
Posted 2012-12-31 12:16:47 and read 1745 times.
Hello,
Thanks for the help in there Dana,
Would like to ask for an opinion on these:
# 1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/k1356983210.4612img_4935.jpg
# 2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/c1356984048.2851img_5464.jpg
# 3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1356908922.4795img_3715.jpg
Also happy new year and may 2013 be a good year for everyone
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2012-12-31 15:49:17 and read 1736 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 111):
Would like to ask for an opinion on these:
A bit soft & dark, but should be workable. The ZB might have a bit of heat haze too, so that one might be a bit trickier.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-03 07:39:27 and read 1700 times.
Hello,
I'll skip the Monarch picture.
#1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8342470090/
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1357227319.6346img_4935.jpg
#2 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8342470254/
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/s1357227066.8818img_3715.jpg
Fixed those 2 photos for softness and dark.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1357171754.3787img_7443.jpg
Would like to ask an opinion about this one.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-03 16:00:16 and read 1690 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 113):
Fixed those 2 photos for softness and dark.
They look better.
Quoting riflex (Reply 113):
#3
Dark/harsh contrast and maybe a little bit of blur.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-03 17:40:24 and read 1684 times.
Hello,
Thanks for the help once again Dana. Would like to ask about this ones
#1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/c1357229714.2187img_7532.jpg
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/z1357228874.0803img_7414.jpg
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/b1357159102.226img_5518.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-04 00:33:29 and read 1675 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 115):
Would like to ask about this ones
First two not that great, but the third might have a chance with a little less contrast and a touch of cw rotation.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-04 06:57:24 and read 1669 times.
Hello,
I'll skip the first 2 then
1# Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8345210897/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/j1357311008.751img_5518.jpg
Corrected for CCW.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=i1356625453.1372img_2191.jpg
At first it got rejected because of blue cast, I corrected for that and now it got rejected for: grainy, soft, dark. I think it's exagerated, specially the grainy part.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/c1357160460.1197img_5616.jpg
Would like an opinion on this one.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-04 12:54:51 and read 1653 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 117):
1#
Better.
Quoting riflex (Reply 117):
#2
Color and light would be a problem for me as well, and the tail is a bit soft. Don't see noise as being an issue.
Quoting riflex (Reply 117):
#3
A bit soft/dark.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-04 16:18:14 and read 1648 times.
Hello,
Do you think this photo is soft and overexposed?
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=h1356626889.9745lppr162.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-04 16:24:00 and read 1647 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 119):
Do you think this photo is soft and overexposed?
Soft, yes; overexposed, no.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-06 18:28:14 and read 1632 times.
Hello,
Thanks, I'll correct the picture for softness then.
Would like to ask:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=v1356905059.3929057.jpg
Rejected because it needs ccw. IMO I think the horizon is fine.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-07 01:47:18 and read 1621 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 121):
Rejected because it needs ccw. IMO I think the horizon is fine.
Level is fine.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-07 04:38:48 and read 1619 times.
Thank you. I Decided to appeal that picture.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=n1356908113.2403031.jpg
This one was rejected due do softness. Maybe a little bit more sharpness could be added but I want to ask an opinion first.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-07 10:18:43 and read 1612 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 123):
This one was rejected due do softness.
Yes, just a little soft.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-08 11:06:11 and read 1601 times.
Hello,
#1 Old version: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=n1356908113.2403031.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/q1357668292.4357031.jpg
Correced for softness
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/v1357671362.7112img_7815.jpg
Corrected this one for dark, softness and hopefuly the noise isn't much.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/h1357670446.5572lppr162.jpg
Corrected for softness
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-08 13:12:33 and read 1591 times.
First two still a bit soft; third borderline, but maybe passable.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-11 17:34:59 and read 1586 times.
Hello,
#1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8372126466/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/n1357954059.1812031.jpg
#2 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8372140124/in/photostream
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/f1357954365.0199img_7815.jpg
Corrected this first 2 photos for softness.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=e1357262009.8448img_7657.jpg
Got this photo rejected because the nose is soft. What do you think?
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-12 19:09:34 and read 1559 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 127):
#1Quoting riflex (Reply 127):
#2
Don't see a big difference.
Quoting riflex (Reply 127):
#3 Got this photo rejected because the nose is soft. What do you think?
Yes, a bit soft.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-14 14:24:32 and read 1545 times.
Hello,
I got 2 rejections by reasons that I don't agree much:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=j1357311008.751img_5518.jpg
This one because of overexposure and over-sharpened which I asked for opinions a few posts back.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=b1357313058.0512img_5710.jpg
Rejected for overexposure.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/w1358202206.5953img_7657.jpg
Corrected this one for the soft nose.
Regards
Username: DL747
Posted 2013-01-14 16:07:26 and read 1542 times.
1. Looks very over-exposed towards the nose and a bit oversharpened.
2. Not too far off, but could be a bit less brighter in the rear.
3. Kind of hard to tell, but the nose looks a bit blurry to me. The rest looks oversharpened to me.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-15 12:25:18 and read 1514 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 129):
This one because of overexposure and over-sharpened which I asked for opinions a few posts back.
Quoting riflex (Reply 129):
Rejected for overexposure.
Think exposure should be passable, but can see a bit of oversharpening on the first (and the second for that matter).
Quoting riflex (Reply 129):
Corrected this one for the soft nose.
Not sure you'll be able to make it any better without losing quality, so maybe try this version, and if it's a no-go, just put it aside.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-15 19:14:56 and read 1500 times.
Hello,
Thank you for both answers. I'll skip the first two and post in the next reply.
Would like to ask for an opinion on those:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/m1358305461.3647img_8942.jpg
Hopefuly not too dark and not sure about the horizon.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/i1358304140.9366img_9093.jpg
50/50 about the light(if it's too backlit or not), blurry in any part?
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/w1358284481.3823img_9020.jpg
Not sure about the horizon.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-15 20:48:37 and read 1491 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 132):
Hopefuly not too dark and not sure about the horizon.
Level is fine, but a bit dark/noisy.
Quoting riflex (Reply 132):
50/50 about the light(if it's too backlit or not), blurry in any part?
Very harsh light, and yes soft/blurry. Likely not fixable.
Quoting riflex (Reply 132):
Not sure about the horizon.
Needs ccw rotation. Quality borderline as well.
Username: DL747
Posted 2013-01-15 20:51:24 and read 1490 times.
I was just about to give feedback for the pics, but Dana beat me to it. Anyway, on number 3, the nsoe gear area looks very blurry. I'm not sure what that is, but if it is blurry, it likely isn't fixable.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-16 06:05:41 and read 1479 times.
Hello,
I agree with you DL, the nose gear does look a bit blurry, not a good day for photography :P
#1 Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9001755...385712413/in/photostream/lightbox/
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/w1358341873.7151img_8942.jpg
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/s1358343482.0515img_9020.jpg
Fixed the horizont and gave an extra-sharp to the nose gear. I'm afraid it's the best picture I have from this special guest.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/u1358344993.7096img_9101.jpg
I'll try this picture. Dark and blurry in any way?
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-16 10:16:02 and read 1474 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 135):
#1 Quoting riflex (Reply 135):
#2Quoting riflex (Reply 135):
#3
All will be borderline at best, with maybe the first having the best chance.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-16 13:18:31 and read 1467 times.
I'll give it a shot, thanks!
Uploaded 2 more:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/t1358271383.1975img_8994.jpg
Do you think it's sort of blurry?
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/o1358345480.2054img_8925.jpg
Too dark?
Regards and thank you once again for your help Dana
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-16 14:15:46 and read 1464 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 137):
Uploaded 2 more:
Pretty poor light one both (especially the second); if they were mine I'd pass. Don't see the first as blurry, though again, quality overall isn't that great.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-16 15:25:09 and read 1460 times.
You'd pass, you mean you would not upload them?
I'll try and give it a fix to see if It's possible to improve.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-16 17:44:10 and read 1457 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 139):
You'd pass, you mean you would not upload them?
That is correct.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-17 16:24:07 and read 1446 times.
Hello,
Well...I'll give it a shot anyway, if not I'll skip them.
Got this one rejected, it was 50/50 as you said:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=h1357670446.5572lppr162.jpg
Rejection due to: Grainy and soft.
I think it's not that soft, and I don't see grain in the picture.
Username: DL747
Posted 2013-01-17 16:31:26 and read 1443 times.
Yes, it is fairly grainy in the sky, and in the shadows/belly of the aircraft. It isn't that bad, but it is there, and with this site's hyper-sensitive grain attitude, it is a bit grainy. It is also a tad soft, but really not that bad.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-17 20:20:35 and read 1436 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 141):
Rejection due to: Grainy and soft.
It is, and coupled with the fact it's a fairly common frame the result shouldn't be too surprising.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-21 07:26:53 and read 1400 times.
Hello,
Well...I'll just skip that one then. I'll fix it later.
Would like to ask about this one:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...30121_f1357956132.2846img_2191.jpg
Got rejected for being soft.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-21 09:33:52 and read 1397 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 144):
Would like to ask about this one:
Yes, light is really poor. Think I said as much before.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-25 11:41:39 and read 1351 times.
Hello,
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=u1358344993.7096img_9101.jpg
I posted here early this shot, not very good quality but still gave it a shot.
Rejected due to "poor crop in the tail" and dark. I thought that cropping like this wasn't a motive for rejection.
Username: DL747
Posted 2013-01-25 16:18:12 and read 1340 times.
Yes it is a bit dark in the under belly. The crop is a bit odd looking for me, but I can't comment on why it was rejected for being this way. Also not of great quality. It looks very soft at the far ends of the frame.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-25 16:46:48 and read 1338 times.
I was sort of expecting a rejection by dark or so, but the crop one I wasn't expecting. Well it does look sort of odd without the stabilizer but I thought that since the rest of the tail was appearing ok that it wouldn't be a problem :P
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-25 22:16:21 and read 1331 times.
Motive should not have been a rejection reason.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-26 18:01:57 and read 1304 times.
Hello,
Thank you once again Dana. I would like to ask an opinion about those:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/a1359251793.2332img_1815.jpg
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/f1359168433.251img_9130.jpg
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...5426.155130dedezembrode2009113.jpg
Regards
Username: DL747
Posted 2013-01-26 20:39:11 and read 1296 times.
1. Looks soft in the nose and maybe a bit dark.
2. Maybe soft and a tad overexpsoed, but I am not sure. I also see a bit of vingetting.
3. Soft, dark and a bit noisy for me. Might be kind of tough to fix unfortunately. I can't tell if it is way off-level or if that is natural slope of the terrain.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-27 03:43:12 and read 1292 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 150):
#1
Noisy, soft, and poorly (harshly) lit.
Quoting riflex (Reply 150):
#2
Noisy and strong vignetting.
Quoting riflex (Reply 150):
#3
Noisy and harsh light.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-27 07:56:36 and read 1284 times.
Hello,
About #2, I didn't noticed the vignetting at all. The only way to fix it would be to give it more bright and try to crop a bit more? But I think if I do that it would ruin the picture...
DL747. in #3 it's a natural slope from the terrain
[Edited 2013-01-27 07:57:18]
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-27 16:39:37 and read 1271 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 153):
About #2, I didn't noticed the vignetting at all. The only way to fix it would be to give it more bright and try to crop a bit more?
You can fix vignetting with software, but it often leaves pretty bad halos or banding. Better to stop down your lens a little more next time to avoid it.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-27 18:56:19 and read 1264 times.
Allright, thank you! I'll try again that picture or another. I never had problem with vignetting, was it due to the darkness plus the strong sunlight?
Fixed one of the pictures: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...1715.545730dedezembrode2009113.jpg
Corrected for the noise and strong light.
Edit: Also wanted to ask if you think this one has any chance or the heat haze is too strong: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/h1359257696.9686img_3533.jpg
Regards
[Edited 2013-01-27 20:00:03]
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-27 20:38:22 and read 1259 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 155):
was it due to the darkness plus the strong sunlight?
No, it's usually caused by shooting with an open aperture.
Quoting riflex (Reply 155):
Fixed one of the pictures:
Likely a dark/soft rejection.
Quoting riflex (Reply 155):
Edit: Also wanted to ask if you think this one has any chance:
No, soft, contrast, quality (heat haze) would all be issues.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-01-28 05:32:01 and read 1247 times.
Thanks for the explanation Dana. I'll have that in mind in the future
Fixed the photo of the nose shot:
Old version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/90017555@N02/8423934116/
Fixed version: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...9780.359130dedezembrode2009113.jpg
Corrected the bright and gave a bit more sharp. By the way just to make sure, a shot like this is considered nose shot altho it shows some part of the front of the aircraft?
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-01-28 16:25:27 and read 1228 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 157):
Old version:
Locked.
Quoting riflex (Reply 157):
Fixed version:
Noisy and quality issues (soft in places, oversharpened in others). Not sure it will be fixable.
Quoting riflex (Reply 157):
By the way just to make sure, a shot like this is considered nose shot altho it shows some part of the front of the aircraft?
'Nose' category does not apply.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-02-03 17:35:58 and read 1182 times.
Hello,
Thanks for the help Dana.
Got a few rejections that wanted to ask if you agree, all rejected due to softness...I honestly sometimes can't say if a photo is too soft or oversharped, most tricky part IMO:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=o1359254746.8175021.jpg
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...n?filename=h1359253919.5228103.jpg
#3 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=m1359252935.4143img_1999.jpg
Regards!
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-02-03 23:11:04 and read 1169 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 159):
Got a few rejections that wanted to ask if you agree, all rejected due to softness...
Tail looks soft on the first two; third one looks ok.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-02-04 06:54:30 and read 1167 times.
Hello,
Thank you Dana. I'll correct the first two then, I've appealed the last one.
I want to ask for an opinion on this 2 rejections:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...in?filename=i1359255180.395114.jpg
Rejected for being unleveled. I leveled the photo with the radar pilar in the background, I've always done like that and didn't have problems with level.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=r1359257968.433img_3543.jpg
Rejected for being unleveled and soft. About the level I'm not 100% sure if it's unleveled, the soft rejection I could agree more.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-02-05 09:45:49 and read 1145 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 161):
Rejected for being unleveled.
Level looks ok.
Quoting riflex (Reply 161):
Rejected for being unleveled and soft.
Looks like it needs a touch of ccw, but it's also heat-hazed, so might not be fixable.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-02-05 10:14:02 and read 1145 times.
Hello,
The #2 photo I was also afraid of the heat-haze, I think I'll let it pass.
Got this one rejected for being oversharped:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=r1359341089.1984img_8251.jpg
I thought it was soft actually what do you think?
Regards
Username: Cargolex
Posted 2013-02-05 10:19:15 and read 1142 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 163):
I thought it was soft actually what do you think?
It's a combination. Soft in the low-contrast (darker, in this case) areas but too sharp in the high contrast areas (the brighter parts, in this case). The jagged edges are most apparently on the edges of the winglets and tail, since those are the most high contrast elements.
It looks like it might be hazed as well.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-02-05 10:54:30 and read 1137 times.
Thanks for the answer Cargolex!
I see what you mean, the jaggies are most noticeable indeed in the winglets and tail. I'll try and fix the shadow parts better, do you think the heat haze will be enough for not being accepted?
Username: Cargolex
Posted 2013-02-05 16:32:26 and read 1127 times.
The haze isn't as apparent as on the Star Alliance TAP, so it might be fixable, but getting those shadowy areas sharp is going to be hard as you might get some grain going on in those shadows if you sharpen those areas.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-02-14 06:53:15 and read 1061 times.
Hello,
Sorry for the very late answer. Thanks for your help Cargolex, I'll give it a shot later to the Star Alliance.
Got a few rejections that I want to ask if you guys agree:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=b1360101651.1361img_8371.jpg
Rejected due to level(needs CW rotation it says) and overexposure. The overexposure reason is a bit exagerated I think but the level I may agree more, I don't have a clear object to level so I tried to guide myself by the roof of the houses.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=d1360098791.1563img_4008.jpg
Rejected due to softness. I had to eliminate some noise that was in the shadows and sky so that might explain part of the soft parts. Is there any other place in the aircraft that I should take a look?
#3 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=d1360102083.7003img_4049.jpg
Rejected for being soft.
Regards
[Edited 2013-02-14 06:55:30]
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-02-17 11:44:47 and read 1013 times.
Hello,
Regarding the previous reply to the one I'm making, I've corrected photo #2:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1361130209.1696img_4008.jpg
Sharped a bit more.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-02-19 17:26:20 and read 974 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 168):
I've corrected photo #2:
It's quite soft.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-02-27 07:13:47 and read 901 times.
Hello,
Sorry for not having answered earlier Dana, thanks for your help.
I have 3 rejections that I wanted to ask if you agree:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=l1361133823.7945img_5969.jpg
Rejected for being soft
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=v1361132888.5394img_5868.jpg
Rejected for grain and soft. Is the grain only visible in the sky?
#3 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=b1361132351.6559img_5580.jpg
Rejected for soft and dark. Soft I agree but dark I don't think it's that dark.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-03-01 23:04:33 and read 866 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 170):
Rejected for being soft
Looks like maybe a touch of heat haze.
Quoting riflex (Reply 170):
Rejected for grain and soft. Is the grain only visible in the sky?
No, aircraft has noticeable noise visible.
Quoting riflex (Reply 170):
Rejected for soft and dark. Soft I agree but dark I don't think it's that dark.
A touch soft/dark, and also dirty.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-03-08 07:18:45 and read 803 times.
Hello,
I'll skype those for now then, thanks!
Wanted to ask if those 3 have any chances:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/w1362594789.0357img_6179.jpg
#2 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/k1362608207.8217img_6139.jpg
#3 http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/v1362609408.9387img_6237.jpg
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-03-10 22:02:00 and read 768 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 172):
Wanted to ask if those 3 have any chances:
Unfortunately there are issues with level, contrast, and overall light for all of them. I would skip these as well, sorry.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-04-01 16:03:28 and read 572 times.
Hello,
Got a few rejections that I wanted to ask if you agree:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=q1364144623.2285img_8913.jpg
Rejection reasons: Grain, low contrast and soft(in the nose). Agree with the contrast a bit but as for the rest I'm not sure.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=d1364141747.0782img_3558.jpg
Rejection reasons: Blurry(tail), soft.
#3 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=g1364138325.4603img_8477.jpg
Rejection reasons: Dirty(doesn't say where), over-sharpened left-side edge of the frame.
Regards
Username: mjgbtv
Posted 2013-04-01 18:32:47 and read 550 times.
Hi,
#1 - I don't see softness in the nose but the sky and darker parts of the fuselage do look a bit grainy.
#2 - This looks to me like it might have been soft/blurry and needed too much sharpening to compensate. The sky also looks quite grainy.
#3 - There is a spot almost at the left edge of the frame and about the height of the undercarriage. I agree that the right wing look oversharpened as well as the joint between the windshield and canopy. I would also smooth the stripes a bit.
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-04-01 22:25:13 and read 539 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 174):
Got a few rejections that I wanted to ask if you agree:
These all seem like valid rejections.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-04-03 13:39:44 and read 505 times.
Thanks for the help mjgbtv I corrected the first one, the second I'll forget it and the third I'll try again later.
For the corrected one:
Old version: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=q1364144623.2285img_8913.jpg
Fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/k1365019730.586img_8913.jpg
Extra sharp to the nose and eliminated some grain in the darker parts and sky.
Got plus 2 rejections that also wanted to ask:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=j1364315576.2677img_6761.jpg
Rejected for being dark and needs level.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=w1364313710.7532img_8251.jpg
Rejected because needs more cw rotation. I don't agree much with this one.
Regards
Username: mjgbtv
Posted 2013-04-03 14:26:22 and read 501 times.
I don't think your new edit looks grainy.
For the other two:
G-CGSP does look a bit dark, but I'm not sure about the level. The fence posts do seem to be off level, but I don't know if I would trust them over the pole...
TC-JGR looks level to me.
Username: angad84
Posted 2013-04-04 00:05:07 and read 487 times.
Looks like both could use a touch of CW rotation.
Username: riflex
Posted 2013-04-14 08:32:56 and read 393 times.
Hello,
Thank you for both answers. I corrected both pictures. I tried to appeal the second one but no-one answered and in the mean while the photo wasn't in the appeal queue anymore...
For the first one, corrected for level and dark:
old version: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=j1364315576.2677img_6761.jpg
fixed: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/w1365119204.8194img_6761.jpg
I got 2 rejections that I wanted to ask for your opinion:
#1 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=k1365019730.586img_8913.jpg
Rejected for being soft and grainy. I previously corrected this one for that.
#2 http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=q1365020924.284img_7407.jpg
Rejected for being soft.
Regards
Username: dlowwa
Posted 2013-04-14 12:49:23 and read 384 times.
Quoting riflex (Reply 180):
For the first one, corrected for level and dark:
Level looks over-corrected, and now a little too bright.
Quoting riflex (Reply 180):
I got 2 rejections that I wanted to ask for your opinion:
Yes, both look soft.
Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/