Ok so im having a bit of trouble getting my sharpening right so i thought id post a few in here till i about get it right. ive had a few rejections for over-sharpening. The first 2 were sharpened how i normally sharpen them but ive uploaded them already so might aswell leave them in! the second 2 pics have been sharpened less than i normally do. what do we reckon?

thanks

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...v1353970060.0096hawker850-bham.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...e1353694360.1637cess510-man-cw.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../f1353883622.9492lutha319-bham.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...1353918380.6902ryanbham-251112.jpg

i hope the links work.

First one looks mostly fine to me; the nose might be a bit soft.

Second one looks oversharpened in parts, especially on the cheatlines (I never sharpen cheatlines as much as other areas, because they tend to become oversharpened very quickly).

Having trouble telling about the third; looks slightly soft in spots, but maybe slightly oversharpened in others. Or maybe it's just right.  

Fourth one looks to me like it might be slightly blurry.

In all, I'd say you might have to consider that not all areas on the aircraft will need the same amount of sharpening. I have a pretty standard set of areas where I erase some of the sharpening, like cheatlines, wings/flaps, cockpit windows sometimes...

sorry to sound silly but what are cheatlines?

Vik is referencing the lines that run horizontally (ish) down the fuselage. Nice photos, by the way!

ahh right thank you. sorry im a newbie too all this. And thanks for the kind comment  

Quoting chriswade (Thread starter): what do we reckon?

They all look fine.

Really? you have made my day. Thank you

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 5): They all look fine.

Ack.....I really must remember not to reply to screening threads on my work monitor....  

haha dont worry about it. im on my home pc and cant spot half the stuff most people can  

Quoting chriswade (Reply 8):

Yeah, me too. But, hey, anet is cool, and we are all here to learn from the best in the business.

ok, i have a set that are all like these next photos and im a bit worried about how bright they are etc. what do you reckon?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswadereptiles/8238834067/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswadereptiles/8239900728/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswadereptiles/8238839209/lightbox/

Also ive seen a few tail shots be accepted. how about this one?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswadereptiles/8238839209/lightbox/

thanks

chris

Quoting chriswade (Reply 10): what do you reckon?

They look ok.

Quoting chriswade (Reply 10): ive seen a few tail shots be accepted. how about this one?

Seems the same as the third one above.

oops sorry put the same link

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswa...reptiles/8238839327/in/photostream

this is the one.

Hi Chris,

Hope the lens is holding up well!

Nice tail shot but there's a lot of dead space - can you do a 4:3 crop, or even a portrait? Might make it look more balanced.

Karl

Quoting chriswade (Reply 12): this is the one.

A touch soft, but otherwise looks ok.

Thanks Karl ill try that  . Hope the trip went well.

ok thanks dlowwa. i cant see the soft myself but im useless :p

I decided to give the tail shot a miss as i really didnt like it myself anyway. These will be my next 2 uploads. im worried a little about the lighting on the Ryanair? and the Qatar is the first pic ive tried in that style.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswadereptiles/8242116179/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswadereptiles/8243184742/

Also a quick question. If i have a picture of an aircraft i wish to upload which was taken on the same day as someone else (i.e same aircraft reg and same day and already uploaded by them) is there any point me uploading it or will it be rejected for common?

Thanks

Chris

Quoting chriswade (Reply 16): These will be my next 2 uploads.

They look fine.

Quoting chriswade (Reply 16): If i have a picture of an aircraft i wish to upload which was taken on the same day as someone else (i.e same aircraft reg and same day and already uploaded by them) is there any point me uploading it or will it be rejected for common?

It will not be rejected for common for that reason.

Thank you. That means i have more to upload now 

will this be rejected because of the reddish appearance? it was very early morning sun!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...354311235.7572luthmanch-a320cw.jpg

Quoting chriswade (Reply 19): will this be rejected because of the reddish appearance?

Should be ok.

Was accepted. Thanks  

Took this today but had wrong camera settings. Doh. Anyway im not sure if i got away with it etc. what do you reckon?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...147447.1776royjorcargo-emid-cw.jpg

Looks fine to me. What do you mean by 'wrong settings'? They are only wrong if the resulting image is poor.

Karl

i was a bit worried about the shiny front, also had it set too alfocus rather than alservo as was shooting stills before. Thanks karl, fingers crossed.

Chris,

The 'shiny front' is nothing more than the sun reflecting off the nose, which is perfectly acceptable. Don't worry about that.

AI servo and AI focus are similar, and both should work okay for a moving subject. Is the original file blurry or overly soft anywhere?

Karl

nah seems fine  , had some lovely side on shots but were blurred   this was best of the bunch.

Were you using manual mode? I used to use manual all the time but it can really catch you out with the changeable UK weather! I tend to stick to Av these days (and occasionally Tv), which accounts for lighting changes a little better than full manual.

I still love manual but only tend to use it for static subjects these days - I've ruined far too many opportunities in the past by avoiding the semi-automatic modes.

Karl

ive switched to using Av now. i ruined a fair few from that day in manchester with you because of manual mode.

Yeah, manual is great but you can't control the weather unfortunately. Luckily digital cameras are far more forgiving in the semi-automatic modes than their 35mm forerunners.

By the way, we have a great forecast up here for tomorrow!

Karl

I wish karl but looking after the child tomorrow  

Had this one rejected for Flat, needs a little more saturation, colour.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...h1354635313.5424qatar-manch-cw.jpg

What you reckon? i thought was ok and so did dlowwa!

Chris,

I can see what caused this rejection but it's a little harsh I think. The light's hitting the nose so I wouldn't expect the rest of the aircraft to be super-vibrant. I'd try an appeal and failing that, just add a touch of saturation (and maybe a pinch more contrast).

Karl

Thanks karl. Being the noob i am to this editing business (although i have learnt so much in the past few months ive been doing it) explain in general how i add saturation and contrast and what im exactly looking for. sorry  

Chris, appeal it first, see how you go on. If you get no joy I'll be happy to explain.

Karl

Have appealed anyway. Will let ya know. cheers karl.

I appealed and still rejected. Comment was...Photo ok but colour a little washed out.

ahh well you win some, you lose some  

Yes, looks a bit washed out, and probably not the best light, but a very nice photo regardless. Does look flat to me, but not by a ton.

It just needs a bit more contrast, no? Should be fixable.

Quoting DL747 (Reply 37):

^ Why is the light not good? It illuminated the whole aircraft. I'd be happy with that light.

Well, it is very head on it seems, and that may be why it looks washed out.

Thanks for the input guys, ill give it a try  

Im struggling to decide which one of these 2 too add if anyone wishes to help me out?

This one: although does the BA world cargo logo look a little over sharpened?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswa...275218892/in/photostream/lightbox/

Or this one but im worries about the crop and angle etc:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswa...274157127/in/photostream/lightbox/

Thanks

chris

Quoting chriswade (Reply 41): a little over sharpened?

Just a little, yes.

Quoting chriswade (Reply 41): Or this one but im worries about the crop and angle etc:

Both are fine.

Thank you   will upload the second as i prefer it.

Cant decide on which one of these too upload? mainly due to the crops.

Will this be rejected for motive as only 2 visible engines?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswa...290712449/in/photostream/lightbox/

this is my fave and the one i want to upload but worried about where the crop is on the right hand side through the engine?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswa...291768560/in/photostream/lightbox/

or play safe and use this one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswa...290712277/in/photostream/lightbox/

thanks
chris wade

Quoting chriswade (Reply 44): Will this be rejected for motive as only 2 visible engines?

No.

Quoting chriswade (Reply 44): worried about where the crop is on the right hand side through the engine?

Better to include the whole engine; this crop is a bit unattractive.

Quoting chriswade (Reply 44): play safe and use this one?

Crop is fine.

ok thank you i will go with the safe one as the cropped front one is where the picture ends anyway. Thanks dlowwa as always  

Just had this rejected for high in frame? personally i think with the angle that it is about right. the nose and fuselage is below the centreline. what do you think?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...226_l1355907121.5692klm-man-cw.jpg

Quoting chriswade (Reply 47): what do you think?

Yes, quite high in the frame.

Was dreading you saying that :P. ok thank you will move down.

Chris, aircraft with high tails still tend to fall foul of a 'rule' which seems to have been instilled into the community by A.net in the not-too-distant past. Whether the 'rule' ever really existed as a site preference I can't say with any certainty but images following it always look/looked unattractive to me. Offending aircraft include particularly the 318, 319, 380, 73G, 736 and 74L. With such aircraft I always place the fuselage much lower in the frame than I otherwise would, to make sure that the image looks balanced.

Nothing more unattractive in my mind than an image where the tail is practically off the top frame-edge whilst the wheels sit atop a mass of dead space (usually grass or sky).

Cheers,

Karl

Thanks karl, yeh im having a bit of trouble getting my pictures centered, well at least to look central enough. As you say the high tails on some cause a problem and also when im trying to fit the whole aircraft in (including both wingtips) from an unusual angle. Here is one i was a bit unsure on whether it is central enough or not because of the angle i have taken it from, does this look ok?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriswa...315722284/in/photostream/lightbox/

Thanks
Chris

Chris,

That one looks good to me. I'd personally have pulled it a fraction further down in the frame but when I say that I'm talking about my own preferences and not the site's.

Recently I've noticed a slight shift in centring patterns here (for the better) but the old peference for high in frame is still evident, so some screeners obviously still like their aircraft that way. Since centring has never been an exact art this widening of margins is sensible - although I do cringe every time I see an A380 photo in which the tail is sinfully close to the top edge of the frame!

In the days of 35mm film and slide the preference was completely the opposite, with the aircraft sitting very low, underneath an unbalanced mass of normally blue sky (processing was so expensive you really couldn't afford to experiment in crap light/weather unless you were a pro!).

Whichever way you do it, take the rule by which one should centre the window-line with a big pinch of salt. This rule sometimes (emphasis on SOMETIMES) works for lanky planes like the CR9 and CRK, but not for 318s!

Happy New Year!

Karl

Thanks for that karl. Im afraid i dont remember them days being a young un (not quite)  . happy new year to you too dude and need to meet up again soon.

cheers
chris

This thread has run its course and will be locked for further comments. Any posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.

Should any of the parties involved in this matter, wish to pursue this issue any further, kindly make use of the official airliners.net email system. The screeners may be contacted at screeners@airliners.net.

Regards,

SA7700

[Edited 2012-12-29 13:36:10]