Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre/Post-Screening (vikkyvik)  
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5977 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was going to add to my previous thread, but it got archived within the last couple of days.

3 for pre-screening that are already in the queue:

1.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...2187947.6181img_5942cs57-31-11.jpg
2.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...8253.0332img_5894cs57-31-11wm2.jpg
3.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...2190264.3443img_5940cs57-31-11.jpg

Here's one with a questionable motive. Was just chance - I was out of position for this 777 arrival (how I managed to miss 200 tons of hurtling metal I cannot explain), and all I could do was kneel down and shoot between the trees. I kind of like how it came out, but would completely understand a bad motive:

4.) http://vksp.smugmug.com/Airplanes/LA...jM2/2/XL/IMG5127CS5-7-10-11-XL.jpg

And finally, this one was rejected for SOFT (was originally rejected for DARK, 2nd time for SOFT). I'm having trouble seeing where, so help would be appreciated:

5.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...5.0637img_5137cs57-10-11darkwm.jpg

Thank you all as always.


"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
251 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5980 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Thread starter):
3 for pre-screening that are already in the queue:

First two should be ok, thought the second is a bit blurry toward the bottom. Third is borderline motive, and there's a speck above the middle CRJ you might want to take care of.

Quoting vikkyvik (Thread starter):
Here's one with a questionable motive.

Give it a slightly tighter crop and it might work.

Quoting vikkyvik (Thread starter):
And finally, this one was rejected for SOFT

Not that bad, just hit a couple of spots (gear, wingtips, and top of tail) with some light sharpening, and you should be fine.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
First two should be ok, thought the second is a bit blurry toward the bottom.

Yeah, I saw that blurriness on the 2nd one, but thought it still might work as the subject (the airport) doesn't appear blurry to me. It was at a pretty low angle out the window which I'm sure didn't help.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
Third is borderline motive, and there's a speck above the middle CRJ you might want to take care of.

Interesting - I didn't expect motive with that one. Any particular reason?

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
Give it a slightly tighter crop and it might work.
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
Not that bad, just hit a couple of spots (gear, wingtips, and top of tail) with some light sharpening, and you should be fine.

Cool, thanks much as always.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (2 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 5936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have another couple questions, specifically regarding doubles.

1.) I shot this shot of an A380 at SFO (currently in the queue):

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...2344384.6646img_5930cs57-31-11.jpg

I also shot the other side of the same aircraft a couple minutes later (I haven't edited this one yet):

http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=5788&filename=phpUPNsgS.jpeg

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a double, but just wanted to check.

2.) I have this photo in the database already:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vik S



And I also have this one that I like:

http://vksp.smugmug.com/Airplanes/LA...shL/2/X2/IMG8629CS5-7-27-11-X2.jpg

Same aircraft, same day, same landing, same question!

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at a motive rejection for that one, given the power line, but was interested anyway. Stupid power line.

Thanks again.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (2 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 5933 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a double, but just wanted to check.

Not double.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Same aircraft, same day, same landing, same question!

Closer to being double than the other, but should be just enough of the other side to not be.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at a motive rejection for that one

Annoying, but I don't think enough for motive. Contrast and dark issues, but I'm sure you'll work that out.


User currently offlineflight From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

Hi Vik

On the Airfrances they will not be considered double- since they show different sides of the aircraft.
I would also watch for quality issues on both shots especially the second one.

The Atlas would be considered a double, even if you have a head on shot.
Had an exact example a while ago. I believe there is a pretty good example on the rejection guide if I am not mistaken.

Steven.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (2 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 5924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 4):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a double, but just wanted to check.

Not double.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Same aircraft, same day, same landing, same question!

Closer to being double than the other, but should be just enough of the other side to not be.

Gotcha, thanks.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 4):
Annoying, but I don't think enough for motive. Contrast and dark issues, but I'm sure you'll work that out.

Ah OK, I figured it would be enough for motive.

And yes, I've had quite a bit of experience working out contrast/dark/whatever issues now.   I haven't done much editing to that one yet.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
Third is borderline motive, and there's a speck above the middle CRJ you might want to take care of.

So that one was actually rejected for QUALITY due to heat haze. I didn't notice that at first. Question is, do you think it would be worthwhile to try resubmitting at 1024? Here's the photo again:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...2263588.8855img_5940cs57-31-11.jpg

Couple other questions (none of these have been edited beyond RAW tweaks):

1.) http://vksp.smugmug.com/Airplanes/LA...66_nFJdHG#1392012825_2gxCVcd-X2-LB

Would a crop like that work motive-wise? Just looking for something different.

2.) http://vksp.smugmug.com/Airplanes/LA...85_x544FT#1381602820_tj7Q2n8-X2-LB

Exposure - The airplane is an annoying shade of gray, so even though it had evening sunlight on it, it looks quite dull compared to the sky behind it. I had other photos from the same day/time/light accepted, but could simply be that that colorscheme doesn't work in that light.

3.) http://vksp.smugmug.com/Airplanes/LA...38_ZX7hqS#1391987748_6WPLcnL-X2-LB

Centering - Unfortunately I didn't center the original photo all that well - the airplane was high in the frame. I've cropped up to the limit, but I think it may still be a bit high.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineflight From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5863 times:

Hi Vik,

Well if you want to send it in again, go for 1000, that seems to sometimes help with the heathaze.

On the United, of course you will be fixing the other issues, but in terms of crop it works for me, but lets see what others say. Those gray fuselages are a problem at times. You did pretty well in exposing the shot.. maybe a bit more contrast?
For me the Virgin seems good in terms of centering. You can also try opening the photo in PS and zooming out; and then it will become much easier if the image is centered correctly.

Steven

[Edited 2011-08-09 12:52:27]

[Edited 2011-08-09 12:53:01]

User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Question is, do you think it would be worthwhile to try resubmitting at 1024?

It might be.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Would a crop like that work motive-wise?

Crop is fine, but it's too high. Also very soft and noisy, but I assume you'll take care of that in the edit.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Exposure -

Exposure looks ok, but it's blurry toward the nose.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Centering -

Centering is fine, but it's soft.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flight (Reply 8):
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 9):

Awesome, thanks for both of your input.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5810 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello again! Couple questions:

1.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2344384.6646img_5930cs57-31-11.jpg

This was rejected for QUALITY, GRAINY, CONTRAST. Contrast is easy, and I can see grain in the shadows, so no worries. My actual question is how is the sharpness?

2.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2358530.6682img_5934cs57-31-11.jpg

Rejected for OVERSHARPENED, COLO(U)R, CONTRAST. Looks like a slight cyan cast to me, and again contrast is easy, though which way wasn't stated (I assume it was too low). Oversharpened is a bit more difficult for me to see - I'd be grateful if someone could help me out on that!

I've also decided to try some slightly different photos than what I've typically taken before, so I'd love some input on the following:

3.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...7.2173img_6374cs58-8-11fringed.jpg

4.) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...13140860.7125img_6400cs58-8-11.jpg

Muchos gracias!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11):
This was rejected for QUALITY, GRAINY, CONTRAST. Contrast is easy, and I can see grain in the shadows, so no worries. My actual question is how is the sharpness?

Sharpness is fine, but I don't think the overall quality is there for this to have much of a chance, especially at 1280.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11):

Rejected for OVERSHARPENED, COLO(U)R, CONTRAST. Looks like a slight cyan cast to me, and again contrast is easy, though which way wasn't stated (I assume it was too low). Oversharpened is a bit more difficult for me to see - I'd be grateful if someone could help me out on that!

Same as above... obviously shot through a window, this has really hurt the quality/color/contrast. Not sure you will be able to fix it, and not sure why you would try at 1280.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11):
I've also decided to try some slightly different photos than what I've typically taken before, so I'd love some input on the following:

First one's definitely a no - soft, dark, centering doesn't add anything to the composition, and you've left a big border at the bottom of the frame. Second one is only soft and a bit off level, but the composition doesn't do anything for me. If you're going to have it distant and off-center, there should be some motivation for it. What were you trying to show here? Not the trees...they're dark and the one center-bottom is cut right at the trunk...not the cars/billboard on the left... too far and, well boring... so what is the goal here?


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 12):
Sharpness is fine, but I don't think the overall quality is there for this to have much of a chance, especially at 1280.
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 12):
Same as above... obviously shot through a window, this has really hurt the quality/color/contrast. Not sure you will be able to fix it, and not sure why you would try at 1280.

Gotcha. No particular reason for trying at 1280 - just habit I suppose. That, and I'm still not great at telling when a particular photo has the quality necessary for larger than 1024. If I can't spot any major issues, I usually just go by how large the cropped photo is before resizing. Certainly not a perfect system, but it's worked reasonably well.

I did want to know about the sharpness anyway, though, since it's still something with which I struggle sometimes. So your comments are appreciated.  
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 12):
First one's definitely a no - soft, dark, centering doesn't add anything to the composition, and you've left a big border at the bottom of the frame. Second one is only soft and a bit off level, but the composition doesn't do anything for me. If you're going to have it distant and off-center, there should be some motivation for it. What were you trying to show here? Not the trees...they're dark and the one center-bottom is cut right at the trunk...not the cars/billboard on the left... too far and, well boring... so what is the goal here?

Wow, I totally missed that border at the bottom. Understood about the rest.

On the 2nd one, was just trying to show some of the park - basically what you see when you're standing there. But hey, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Like I said, was just going for something different - I have photos of just the airplane as well, but thought I'd throw those two up there for some feedback first.

Much appreciated as always, Dana.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 13):
On the 2nd one, was just trying to show some of the park - basically what you see when you're standing there. But hey, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Like I said, was just going for something different - I have photos of just the airplane as well

The distance and overall idea is fine, but you need to compose/balance it better - just look at some of Andy's from almost exactly the same spot/angle:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages


He's composed them to do what I think you were trying, but the frame has better balance - the tree in the foreground is not cut, and there are other subjects perfectly placed in the frame that balance out the empty space caused by having the aircraft distant. See what I mean?


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5798 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 14):

He's composed them to do what I think you were trying, but the frame has better balance - the tree in the foreground is not cut, and there are other subjects perfectly placed in the frame that balance out the empty space caused by having the aircraft distant. See what I mean?

I do indeed - thanks for the examples.

I'll go back and look at the original again. I debated the crop on it for quite awhile (relatively speaking), and to be honest, I wasn't too sure of the result.

Thanks again for the help.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another pre-screening question:

I shot a few shots of this WN. I happen to like the way this one looks as it's just exiting some low clouds:

http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=5788&filename=phpneKdZu.jpeg

Would that work motive/contrast/whatever-wise?

Thanks.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5775 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
Another pre-screening question:

I shot a few shots of this WN. I happen to like the way this one looks as it's just exiting some low clouds:

http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=5788&filename=phpneKdZu.jpeg

Would that work motive/contrast/whatever-wise?

Thanks.

Seems a bit over sharpened and the sky is a little grainy esp around the nose.



Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 17):

Thanks Darren.

I have to admit, I don't see the oversharpened-ness. Any particular areas?

Also, I'd still appreciate any views on the general motive. I'm not really sure how airplanes that are partially obscured by clouds/mist are treated.

Thanks much!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
Would that work motive/contrast/whatever-wise?
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 18):
Also, I'd still appreciate any views on the general motive. I'm not really sure how airplanes that are partially obscured by clouds/mist are treated.

Sorry to say, but the clouds would actually kill it. They detract more than they add in this situation.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 19):

No worries, that's what I thought might be the case. Thanks.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5740 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 18):
I have to admit, I don't see the oversharpened-ness. Any particular areas?

Around the engine, parts of the wing and pylon on the side that's not obscured by the clouds. It's slight but I can see some jaggies forming. Over sharpness is a bit of a subjective thing so take it as my opinion only.



Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5738 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 21):
Around the engine, parts of the wing and pylon on the side that's not obscured by the clouds. It's slight but I can see some jaggies forming. Over sharpness is a bit of a subjective thing so take it as my opinion only.

Gotcha, I see what you're saying. They don't quite look oversharpened to me, but I'm no expert in A.net's sharpness standard.  



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9780 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've had a few soft rejections lately that are puzzling me a bit. To me, the sharpness on these looks pretty equivalent to other recent acceptances of mine, but obviously I'm no expert.  

They were also rejected for low contrast (I think - there was a note on the BA 747 that said "contrast is low" but nothing on the Westjet). I had actually thought the contrast was bordering on too strong on these.

Opinions/advice very much appreciated:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3998047.8297img_6594cs58-13-11.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3997649.4241img_6589cs58-13-11.jpg

Thanks much.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't look soft, but there does seem to be a little blur, more so on the WS than the BA. The contrast problem would be that it is too low.

25 vikkyvik : OK, that makes bit more sense. The blur would be toward the nose, correct? Interesting! Will have to take another look at that this evening. Thanks D
26 dlowwa : I actually notice it more on the fuselage (titles) and toward the tail. If the original is not blurry at all, then it's probably just how you've proc
27 Post contains links vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Another rejection question - I had asked about another shot from this sequence months ago, but decided I liked this one better: http://w
28 dlowwa : Yes, the wide crop doesn't work if the KE is blocked as it is. If it were fully visible, it might have been ok. Dark, oversharpened, quality. Borderl
29 vikkyvik : Thanks again , Dana. Gotcha. Just for my own future benefit, what do you think about the overexposed rejection? Heh, and I know, the moon is tiny in t
30 dlowwa : Minor problem compared to the motive.
31 Post contains links vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. Difficult to expose and edit, due to obviously crappy weather. And of course the billboard in the corner doesn't help motiv
32 JakTrax : Looks like jet blast from the engine to me - what's the deal on this as it's a natural occurence under the circumstances? As for the 777 shot between
33 cruce : Love the shot vik! I'm not one to comment on quality or the likes, but the shot is great. The billboard in the picture does suck...why couldn't it hav
34 dlowwa : Blurry/soft and oversharpened to compensate. Don't think the quality is there unfortunately.
35 Post contains images vikkyvik : Actually wasn't jet blast if I remember correctly. I usually sit in front of the engine. I think it was just a low angle through the window. Me too!
36 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Post-screening question: Rejected for DISTANCE with a personal saying "too much dead sapce either side of the aircraft, which doesn't show anything. P
37 dlowwa : Better.
38 Post contains images vikkyvik : My roommate told me a quote the other day - "Brevity is the soul of wit." Thanks Dana!
39 Post contains links vikkyvik : One for pre-screening. Was practicing some low-light shots, and I'm not that great at them yet, especially at higher ISO (this one was 800). I think t
40 dlowwa : Suits my personality, but I'm also traveling, so need to be economical with my time. Internet connection not always reliable this part of the world.
41 vikkyvik : No worries, nothing wrong with being concise. Hmmm, ok, not entirely surprising. I have a heck of a time trying to pan with airplanes from that angle
42 RonS : Most all do! It's near impossible. I agree with Dana. The nose is also and issue, but it could be the weather. Cool shot, maybe best for the personal
43 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Did you mean "noise" or "nose"? I thought that one was actually pretty good, noise-wise, for ISO800 with a 1000D on a cloudy day. Heh, every shot goe
44 Post contains links cruce : Great shots vik! What program do you use for noise reduction? I believe you have the same set up as I do (Canon XS with 55-250??) I just got through m
45 vikkyvik : Thanks! I do have the XS and a 55-250, but my 70-300 IS USM has all but replaced the 55-250. It's a significantly better lens, though I'm sure nowher
46 cruce : Thanks Vik. Yeah, I was playing around this morning with different settings just trying to get a feel for the low light stuff and happened to get tha
47 Post contains links vikkyvik : That's what I've been doing. Unfortunately the light has been pretty awful in the evenings. According to RonS, Lightroom 3 has the same noise reducti
48 Post contains images cruce : Thanks for the link Vik. I guess I'll have to load that trial version on my computer to check it out. I've been delaying because its only a 30 day tri
49 Post contains links vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. I think quality may not be up to par, as heat haze was pretty bad on that day. This is the best shot of this one I got: htt
50 Post contains links vikkyvik : Aaaand one more from the same day. Quality again, and also motive. Stupid Gategourmet truck. http://www.airliners.net/uf/5788/phpsxGkBK.jpeg Thanks!
51 darreno1 : This one looks a tiny bit soft on my screen. Other than that, there's not much more to add....seems ok. Other than what looks like a little overexpos
52 dlowwa : Looks like you've attempted to deal with the heat haze by over-sharpening it. Borderline quality; if you forced me to make a decision, it would be no
53 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. By poor crop, do you mean the truck? Or is there another way I could have cropped that same image better? My personal preference in imag
54 dlowwa : Yes.
55 Post contains links vikkyvik : Thanks again! So I have this photo that I'm currently pondering. Would be cool to be able to upload it for the simple reason that it was taken with my
56 Post contains links vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. I think it may be slightly blurry: http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.file?id=5788&filename=phpGV29T7.jpeg
57 dlowwa : A little blurry and oversharpened, yes.
58 vikkyvik : Thanks again, Dana.
59 Post contains links vikkyvik : So I decided to post a couple shots here from this past weekend's air show. For some reason, I'm having trouble editing them - not sure if they're com
60 dlowwa : A bit soft, but might be workable. Looks like you had to crop a lot, as the sky is looking quite blotchy. Quality of the aircraft is not bad, but is
61 vikkyvik : I thought it might be a bit soft. I'll give it a slight kick, though I may not end up submitting that one. Hmmm, that wasn't the biggest crop I've ev
62 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : I submitted this one yesterday. Looking at it today, I think it might need a slight bump in contrast. Although the black areas are pretty darn close t
63 dlowwa : Contrast looks ok to me, but it seems you went a little overboard with the noise reduction - the detail seems washed out, which usually is the result
64 Post contains images vikkyvik : Now that you mention it, I noticed that too last night. But I didn't think I used all that much NR on it, so just went ahead and uploaded anyway. I w
65 Post contains links vikkyvik : Re-edits of the two Super Hornet shots: 1.) http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=5788&filename=phpIGYFoX.jpeg 2.) http://www.airliners.net/ufvi
66 dlowwa : They look better. Both are still borderline, but should have a reasonable chance.
67 vikkyvik : Cool, that works for me. Thanks for your help.
68 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : A few more air show prescreening (I'll write my primary concerns, but all comments are appreciated): 1.) Motive/crop and sharpness: http://www.airline
69 dlowwa : Should be ok. Sky is a bit blotchy, but motive should be ok. Motive ok, seems a bit blurry though. Crop is fine, but contrast will be an issue.
70 Post contains links vikkyvik : Thanks very much Dana. I do have one more (hopefully) question: I completely forgot to take a close-up of the tail section of this one, to get the re
71 dlowwa : Yes. But.... the serial # is 166795. 163455. You are welcome.
72 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. If you don't mind sharing secrets, how'd you find those regs?
73 Post contains links dlowwa : http://www.scramble.nl/milbase.htm
74 vikkyvik : Beautiful! Thanks - I appreciate the help.
75 Post contains links vikkyvik : I think I know the answer already, but I was wondering about the quality of the following (specifically, heat haze): http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.
76 dlowwa : Neither are terrible, but it is noticeable. If not for the mid-fuselage cheat line on the CO you could have probably gotten away with that one (though
77 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. I'll probably submit the DL one, just because I like it. Will do on the contrast. CO I'll probably skip. And yeah, that stupid cheatline
78 Post contains links vikkyvik : I'm still working on my high-ISO/proper exposure photography, so here's one at ISO800 - wondering mostly about color and quality/noise: http://www.air
79 dlowwa : Not bad, but either soft or had a fair amount of noise reduction done to it, as some of the fine details are almost gone. Look at the writing on the n
80 Post contains links vikkyvik : Gotcha - I had a feeling that would be the case. Worked up a new edit: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...1.4308img_8538cs510-30-11lownr.jpg The
81 dlowwa : Better for detail, but you are starting to push the limits with the noise/sharpening.
82 Post contains images vikkyvik : Heh, it's probably going to be one or the other (detail vs. sharpening/noise). Any particular areas I should focus on? Thanks again.
83 dlowwa : Noise in the shadow areas (bigger problem); jaggies on the cheat line (smaller problem). Nose still looks a bit soft/blurry (biggest problem).
84 Post contains links vikkyvik : Similar to a previous shot, but both aircraft are just about fully visible in this one. Looking for motive mainly, but any critiques are appreciate as
85 dlowwa : Motive works for me, though the foreground is distracting enough it might cause problems. Could use a touch more contrast, but other than that, don't
86 vikkyvik : Yeah, that was my main worry. I hate that stupid building and those stupid telephone wires. Thanks as always, Dana.
87 Post contains links vikkyvik : Question: I know that it's allowed for tugs to be blocking part of the aircraft, or at least the nose gear. But what about part of the tug itself bein
88 dlowwa : Not sure if there is a clear precedence for that sort of thing, but it certainly won't help...
89 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Well, as it happened, that shot (the A380 with tug partially blocked) was rejected for double, due to the previous photo (which was accepted, inciden
90 dlowwa : It is if caught; more often this kind of thing happens when someone uploads a wide overview shot without a registration, and then tries to submit a m
91 vikkyvik : Gotcha. That completely wasn't the case here - based on my previous understanding, I had thought it wouldn't be a double. Like I said though, no qual
92 Post contains images vikkyvik : I tried out some new territory (for myself, photographically) tonight. Took a bunch of long exposures similar to the one I've posted below. Mostly cur
93 dlowwa : Noise looks to be under control; for leveling, I would definitely give it some ccw rotation. As for motive, it would likely need to be seen by a few b
94 Post contains images vikkyvik : Different shot, but do you think this one looks better? Thanks.
95 Post contains images vikkyvik : So continuing my long exposure kick, I'd love to hear critiques of the following (mostly motive, but also noise and bright/dark): Thanks much!
96 dlowwa : Bit noisier. First one might have a chance, but too much foreground clutter on the other two, especially the last one. Quality seems to be decent eno
97 vikkyvik : Thanks, I thought it might be. Does the level look better to you? ...and thanks. I'll give the first one a shot. EDIT: Also, when submitting that 1st
98 dlowwa : Should be fine, but looking at it again, the bushes are kind of killing the motive. It will be a tough sell. Yes, if you got the reg. that would be g
99 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Oh well, I have a couple in the queue so we'll see what happens. Thanks for the help! Quick double question - I have this one in the queue right now:
100 dlowwa : If they were tighter on the aircraft, you would be fine, but as they are wider there is some overlap. I assume you are using different regs., so it pr
101 vikkyvik : No worries, I'll just upload one of them. Thanks again.
102 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : So after being left for the Headscreeners, the following was done for soft (of all things - not what I expected! ) http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/
103 Psych : Fascinating! Surely it has to be the white approach lights? Maybe need to be more 'sparkly'? Paul
104 Post contains images vikkyvik : So I've been prowling around the beach at night for the last month or two, looking for interesting photographic opportunities, both aviation-wise and
105 dlowwa : Nice, but not really aviation-themed enough for most of them. The only one I could see having a chance would be the third one, but it would be a long-
106 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana, that's what I figured.
107 Post contains links vikkyvik : So, oddly enough, I haven't really taken and edited many "normal" aircraft shots recently. So I thought I'd post one of my recent uploads here for any
108 dlowwa : Looks fine to me.
109 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Just wanted to make sure.
110 Post contains images vikkyvik : Motive question - The 340 isn't blocked, but the 767 behind it is partially blocked: I also have this shot, which I don't like as much but may be bett
111 dlowwa : I actually prefer the second one (probably because of the truck in the first). While you're right that the haze will make the quality a borderline cal
112 Post contains links vikkyvik : I was a bit surprised at this rejection (DISTANCE and CENTER, with personal "Background does not justify the distant and off centre composition"): htt
113 dlowwa : Hi Vik, Was actually seen by three experienced screeners, and rejected by the last to see it (who happened to be a head screener), so I'd think the ch
114 Post contains images vikkyvik : A few for pre-screening. They're all window shots, which I'm bad at editing. Don't know which I'll upload yet, but anyway: Thanks as always.
115 dlowwa : The third is the only one I can see as being safe in terms of motive. The fourth and fifth might stand a chance, but would probably be debated (fifth
116 vikkyvik : Interesting. Hope you don't mind a couple questions: 1.) I took this one because it showed the C-17 plant - is that not enough? 4.) That's the new to
117 dlowwa : See item #2 in the rejection guide: "We do not accept pictures of hangars, office buildings or any other airport installations" I said it would have
118 vikkyvik : Oops, missed that part! Gotcha, just wanted to clarify what the uncertainties were. Much appreciated!
119 Post contains images vikkyvik : No luck on the unfinished tower shot - oh well. Thanks for the help Dana, as always. Couple for pre-screening - have wanted to try this angle for awh
120 dlowwa : Both have somewhat noisy skies, and are a little soft. Won't say anything about motive, as I'm not a huge fan of these types of shots, but I will poin
121 Post contains images vikkyvik : Understood, no problem. I took them cause I wanted to, not cause I thought they'd be accepted here. Thanks.
122 Post contains images vikkyvik : I have a few more for motive consideration. I won't upload all of them, and I may not upload any (not sure the quality is there anyway), but I'm inter
123 dlowwa : The third one would really be your only chance for motive, and even at that it would be really borderline.
124 Post contains images vikkyvik : Another pre-screen....Too soft/blurry or noisy? Thanks!
125 dlowwa : Yes on both counts I'm afraid..
126 Post contains images vikkyvik : Another recent one. Mostly motive and noise (taken at ISO1600...did the best I could with the noise, but if anyone has any suggestions on ways to bett
127 dlowwa : Noise would definitely be a killer. Bit soft as well, and not too fond of the motive (tree/foreground) either.
128 Post contains images vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. I am also not too fond of that tree. Another that I fear would suffer the same fate as the DL shot above (less noisy, but maybe blurry):
129 dlowwa : Yes, a little too much blur, especially on the front half.
130 Post contains images vikkyvik : A couple questions about the following photo: 1.) General motive. 2.) I have other shots of the ANA and Tahiti that I'd like to upload. The other shot
131 dlowwa : No. I think the centering is fine as is in order to not crop the tower; the only question will be whether the two aircraft in the background are too
132 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Though you might have misunderstood the centering question - I meant I would move the crop upwards, so everything in the photo would mov
133 dlowwa : Don't think that would be an issue then.
134 Post contains links vikkyvik : I think this is probably my first "info" question... This one is varyingly (ok Firefox, if "unvaryingly" is a word, why isn't "varyingly"??) marked as
135 dlowwa : It should be Untitled. The name in the brackets is that of the owner/operator, which can change. If the most recent one - Untitled (Saudi Red Crescent
136 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Is there any way to find out the current owner/operator? Would it get an info rejection if I just left it as Untitled with no name in br
137 dlowwa : Quick google search tells me it is owned/operated by Mideast jet for the Saudi Red Crescent Authority. I would just use whatever the most recent examp
138 Post contains images vikkyvik : Gotcha, thanks much. Another high-ISO low-shutter-speed shot for pre-screening....better than the last couple, but maybe still not quite there:
139 dlowwa : Quite noisy and slight blur on tail.
140 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : One for pre-screening....I cannot for the life of me figure out how much to sharpen silhouettes: And one just for future motive consideration (not the
141 dlowwa : Should be ok. Not bad, but would work better with larger aircraft, in center of frame. As it is, probably a little too much empty space.
142 Post contains links vikkyvik : Agreed. Thanks Dana. One for post-screening: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=v1328516366.2362img_2067.jpg Was rejected for LEVEL (needs
143 dlowwa : Hard to say, but I can't see anything that tells me it definitely needs CCW. In that case, you probably should have gotten the benefit of the doubt.
144 vikkyvik : It done been appealed. Thanks Dana. I did have another photo in the same batch that was (legitimately) rejected for LEVEL (needing CCW). Could it be
145 dlowwa : Probably not. Each photo has its own set of boxes to check for acceptance/rejection, so you need to individually select each one, and can't do a selec
146 Post contains images vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. Mostly motive, for the foreground and the general composition: Also, were I to upload a shot like that, would I mark it as
147 dlowwa : Interesting shot, but it has two things working against it: distracting foreground, and heat haze. You can mark it as 'Airport' if you decide to uploa
148 Post contains images vikkyvik : I think this one may have too much heat haze (at least at 1200 pixels), but what I'm mostly wondering about is the crop (the full frame has some extra
149 dlowwa : Crop is passable, but haze will be a problem.
150 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Post-screening for oversharpened. Would appreciate it if someone can help me locate the offending areas....or let me know if it's just generally overs
151 dlowwa : The center stripes are noticeable. Might be some heat haze at work as well.
152 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana, could be on the haze - don't remember. I hate those long center stripes on AA aircraft.....Very difficult for me to figure out the sharp
153 dlowwa : Cheat lines on biz jets are even worse.. Try selectively 'unsharpening' the center lines and see how it goes.
154 Post contains images vikkyvik : Yep I know....But I shoot far more AA aircraft than biz jets, so they stick in my mind as a constant annoyance, especially when they're at small pitc
155 dlowwa : Similar to sharpening - create another layer underneath that is softer (however you want to do that - Gaussian blur is one way) and simply erase the
156 vikkyvik : Ah, gotcha. Quite funny that I use that method for sharpening, but would never have thought about using it for softening (even though I'm doing the e
157 Post contains links vikkyvik : Well, your comment about biz jets was quite prescient, Dana. One for pre-screening. Mostly concerned about sharpening....I didn't sharpen the blue che
158 dlowwa : Should be ok.
159 Post contains images vikkyvik : Probably would have been, but I completely missed the fact that there were telephone wires running across the tail! Can't believe I didn't see that.
160 dlowwa : Contrast is quite low and they are backlit, so unlikely to work for here unfortunately.
161 Post contains links vikkyvik : No problem, just curious. I'm posting this post-screening mostly for eye-calibration purposes. Rejected for slightly low contrast; nothing against th
162 dlowwa : It is a little low, but borderline enough for a rejection.
163 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Just to clarify: you mean the contrast is borderline-low enough for a rejection? Or borderline in other ways? Thanks very much.
164 dlowwa : It's on the border whether the contrast was low enough to warrant a rejection.
165 Post contains images vikkyvik : I'm bound and determined to improve my high-ISO and low-light (hand-held) photography. Here are a couple I took tonight; I figure they may not be good
166 dlowwa : Noise may be a minor problem, but I see the bigger issue as being softness/blur. If the images are sharp at full-size, then you might be able to fix i
167 vikkyvik : Gotcha. There was certainly some exhaust haze (as there usually is on the left wing from that angle). Don't specifically remember blur, but noise con
168 Post contains images vikkyvik : Any better? It's a difficult one....
169 Post contains links vikkyvik : A few for post-screening. I've been working on high-ISO photography quite a bit lately. I thought the batch I uploaded was pretty good, but I went 0-f
170 dlowwa : I'd say number three maybe could work; the others look pretty heavily affected by noise reduction and/or have poor light in general.
171 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Just focusing on shots like #1 and #3, since those are the two that have decent light, do you have any suggestions as far as shooting or
172 dlowwa : I think you're probably expecting too much. There's a reason you don't see too many shots taken at 800 or 1600ISO, and when you do, they're usually on
173 vikkyvik : Gotcha, that's exactly what I was after. Thanks a lot - that was very helpful.
174 Post contains links vikkyvik : One for post/re-edit screening. Rejected for low contrast and grain. Here's my re-edit....I think I may have screwed something up in the sky while re-
175 dlowwa : Sky is a bit blotchy, but not too bad. Shadows on the ground still look pretty noisy.
176 Post contains links vikkyvik : Been getting a LOT of rejections lately. Not too surprising, as I've been taking a lot of different shots (for me) at different settings, with differe
177 dlowwa : Looks like a bit too much empty space middle & right of the frame. Flat/backlit, yes. Bit soft & noisy overall. Quality doesn't look that bad
178 Post contains images vikkyvik : I know - I was asking about the soft rejection: Contrast I understand. Somewhat backlit, yes (light is pretty much directly from the right), though I
179 dlowwa : Like I said, overall; no one place in particular. Doesn't seem too bad to me. If you are going to try again, it certainly wouldn't hurt, especially w
180 Post contains links vikkyvik : Thanks again, Dana. Haven't had a lot of luck with these type of photos, so one for pre-screening: http://www.airliners.net/uf/5788/phpYpDTDo.jpeg Ad
181 dlowwa : Probably too dark, but might work with better light. If you know the carrier/time/flight number, there are many flight tracking sites that will carry
182 vikkyvik : Fair enough. I liked that light, with the sun and the dark clouds on the horizon, but oh well. Gotcha - will have to investigate. Thanks.
183 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. Mostly motive (haven't tried something like this before), but whatever else as well:
184 dlowwa : Motive should be ok, though I'm personally not a fan of the high-angle shots.
185 Post contains images vikkyvik : Heh, I trust you'll recuse yourself from screening that photo, then. I'm not a huge fan of closeups like that one; it was more of a test shot, since
186 Post contains links vikkyvik : Another quick post-screening. Rejected for grain, dirty (can't believe I missed that very obvious dust spot), and distance: http://www.airliners.net/a
187 dlowwa : I personally don't think the sun adds too much (kind of distracting actually), and whoever screened it obviously agreed so think you would probably ne
188 vikkyvik : Cool, that's pretty much what I was wondering about. I'll let that one go. Thanks.
189 Post contains images vikkyvik : I think I'll be doing a lot more pre-screening again, as I seem to have completely lost my eye for even standard side-ons! Ah well. First a couple of
190 dlowwa : Both would probably be a no for soft/hh; the SU is also backlit.
191 Post contains images vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Here's another one - I unfortunately overexposed the clouds in the back; I'm wondering if that's enough to kill the shot:
192 dlowwa : I'd be worried about the softness/blur before the exposure.
193 vikkyvik : Fair enough! There's definitely some engine exhaust haze, but I don't remember the shot being blurry. Anywhere you notice it in particular? Thanks.
194 dlowwa : Right wingtip looks blurry, and it's a bit soft toward the nose.
195 Post contains links vikkyvik : I see what you're saying now. Thanks for the help. A new edit of a previously rejected shot (rejected for blurry, oversharpened, and contrast): http:
196 dlowwa : A tough one with all those cheat lines...still some jaggies and the nose does seem a bit soft. Contrast was for the backlighting? If so, might not be
197 vikkyvik : Gotcha, thanks. Yes, a very difficult one sharpening-wise. Don't know. I assumed it was for low contrast, but there wasn't a personal message.
198 Post contains images vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. I don't think it has the quality to get in here, but may as well ask, since I've never shot DHL before:
199 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Post-screening: rejected for grain (thanks to the screener for the compliment in the personal message as well!). Just wondering if a bit of NR should
200 dlowwa : Sky is noisy, but should be able to clean it up. Nothing in the log for comments, but typically for blurry shots I don't leave personals for contrast
201 vikkyvik : Cool thanks, I'll give it a shot. Gotcha. I don't think it's actually blurry, rather than a softer nose than the rest of the airplane, so we'll see.
202 Post contains images vikkyvik : Rework with some NR:
203 Post contains images vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. My first time trying this sort of shot. Unfortunately the original was a bit softer than I would have liked....
204 dlowwa : Sky looks pretty blotchy. Soft, but otherwise ok.
205 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Thought so. I'll probably have to start from scratch on that one. That figures. Any better: While I'm at it, another one, mostly to check sharpness (
206 aussie18 : The Virgin A320 has some jagged parts along the horizontal stabilzer,tail edges,Other than that sharpness seems okay,Also abit of slight grain appeari
207 vikkyvik : Thanks Mark! I agree, bright, but it doesn't look overexposed to me. Does it to you? Thanks again.
208 Post contains images vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening, due to jetwash: Thanks!
209 dlowwa : Very borderline for quality, and maybe a slight yellow/orange cast.
210 Post contains images vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Wouldn't normally pre-screen this one, but it's my first edited shot with the new camera:
211 Cargolex : Nice shot. A little low in frame though? Optical illusion maybe.
212 vikkyvik : Thanks man, you could be correct. I love that angle, but it can be a bit difficult for me to vertically center properly. I uploaded it for screening,
213 dlowwa : Maybe a touch low, but should be passable for centering. Nose looks overexposed, but it should otherwise be ok.
214 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. With regard to the nose, I have a lot of trouble with that. Do you think it's bright enough to be rejected? One more for pre-screening:
215 dlowwa : Likely to raise a few concerns. Too soft for 1400 pix.
216 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Thanks as usual, Dana. Post-screening: rejected for contrast, overexposed (ugh!), and blur. Screener wrote that it's blurry at the back. Looking for
217 dlowwa : There is a small amount of blur on the horizontal stab. & left wing tip. Agree with the overexposure (as with the one above) and (I'm assuming low
218 vikkyvik : Thanks for the help - I think I see what you're saying with regard to blur. I don't have any qualms about the low contrast or overexposed rejections
219 Post contains links dendrobatid : Vik 17-40 lens being used is likely the cause of the blur as it is far more difficult to get a sharp image if panning as the aircraft must have been c
220 vikkyvik : Absolutely! I try and keep the shutter speed up in the evenings using that lens, at the expense of aperture (first) and ISO (second). But on the larg
221 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : A couple for pre-screening from this past weekend's air show. Difficult conditions with generally bad light and awful heat haze, and I had a heck of a
222 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Ugh, sorry, I uploaded with the wrong airport selected, so deleted and reuploaded:
223 dlowwa : Pretty harsh light in both; the first looks like it has a slight magenta cast, and the second is partially backlit.
224 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Another for pre-screening. Mostly concerned with crop and motive (due to slight landing gear blockage by people), but all comments are we
225 dlowwa : People are fine, though not sure I like the crop/angle.
226 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Not sure I like it either....I was trying to show how impressive and huge the tail of the KC-10 always looks to me. Oh well, I'll leave it in and if
227 evall95 : Nice shot. It looks a bit flat and soft and I would crop it a bit tighter on the left. it also looks like the buildings in the background are leaning
228 dlowwa : No reason you couldn't crop it a bit tighter on both sides and from the bottom. Nothing really in that part of the frame that would justify the wider
229 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Thanks guys. Another for pre-screen. I shot a bit in the vicinity of ORD this past weekend, but the only time I had available was in the early aftern
230 dlowwa : Yes, light is quite poor. If it's on final, then you can use the airport as the location.
231 sovietjet : I think the Etihad 777 just needs more contrast and maybe a bit more brightness. Overcast shouldn't automatically mean unusable..
232 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Hi Ivan - true, but the light was pretty bad regardless of being overcast (I have plenty of shots against blue sky, and they're not much better). Tha
233 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : And one more for pre-screening. There's a faint rainbow running diagonally on the right side - I have no idea what caused it, or if it's some artifact
234 dlowwa : SQ - dark & magenta tint, and a bit soft for 1400. CH-46 - also magenta (just slightly); not a fan of the off-balanced centering for the rotor, t
235 Post contains images vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Yeah, I hear you, although I'm generally loath to crop out parts of the aircraft. But that's how I shot it (was a complete surprise so ha
236 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Another for pre-screening. I'm not very good at judging window shots:
237 dlowwa : Likely to be a soft & dark rejection, and there's enough noise that it would likely become an issue as well if you tried to brighten or sharpen it
238 vikkyvik : Cool, that's about what I figured. Brightening it more will also blow out the left-hand side of the sky, which I don't really want to do. Thanks agai
239 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Forgot to post this one as well - another window view. Also, I'm not entirely sure whether I would mark this as "Airport Overview" as well....
240 dlowwa : Window_view should suffice. A little blue, but should otherwise be ok.
241 vikkyvik : Thanks Dana. Just wasn't entirely clear on the uploading instructions for shots like that. Another random question, to which I think I already know t
242 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Hi Dana - I sharpened that one a bit and submitted, but it was rejected for quality, soft, and dark. Just curious what you think: Thanks!
243 dlowwa : Same as above: I can see the softness/quality problems, but don't think brightening it will help any.
244 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : Thanks. Any better, or still borderline:
245 dlowwa : I'd have to say still borderline.
246 vikkyvik : Gotcha, that's what I figured. I'll leave that one in, and if it gets rejected again, I'll let it go. Thanks.
247 Post contains links vikkyvik : This one was rejected for High-In-Frame and Grain (as Dana knows): http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20627_m1340172820.1722img_2122.jpg Still don
248 Post contains links and images dlowwa : Don't think the centering looks much different. Try to balance it a bit more. It's not far too high, but could be a bit lower.
249 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : It wasn't that much different. Just cropped in a bit on the bottom and sides. Fair enough, thanks. Another for pre-screening; I think it may be too h
250 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : One more for pre-screening. Don't know if this would pass the motive test, or what other faults there may be... Thanks as always!
251 dlowwa : Yes, it's quite high. Probably better without the grass foreground; as it is, the runway/terminal are a little distant. For quality, it's a bit soft
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pre/Post-Screening (vikkyvik)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format