Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1631 times:
Just looking for a little feedback, I've been trying some new things and a new lens lately, and the weather's been largely poor in my area lately, so I've gone out a few times and shot on days I would ordinarily have just stayed home on.
I had this one rejected for contrast and overexposed:
Overexposed is one I don't remember if I've gotten before, but it doesn't seem like something that's fixable. Nevertheless, the rejection did come with a personal note about the contrast, so I've given it a try:
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
It turned out that there was an issue with that copy of the 100-400, but I'm going to try again. It's too tempting not to. These shots were taken with a 70-200 F4/L, but the 100-400 is still on my radar.
I figured softness might be an issue, particularly on the CA. I'll see if I can improve them.
I've got a few more to try out over the next few days, beginning with one I'm very doubtful about, but which was fun to take:
I don't take very many pictures after sundown, but this was too interesting to pass up, and I'd missed it three times in two days before finally catching it on this try. Probably only for my private collection though.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1568 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Cargolex (Reply 2): beginning with one I'm very doubtful about
Actually, that's pretty good. You'll definitely need to brighten it a fair bit (actual conditions, I know, but trust me), but if you can get a brighter edit that's still clean it should have a pretty good chance. I wouldn't even be surprised to see it make the front page.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8209 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1562 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Cargolex (Reply 2): I've got a few more to try out over the next few days, beginning with one I'm very doubtful about, but which was fun to take:
I don't take very many pictures after sundown, but this was too interesting to pass up, and I'd missed it three times in two days before finally catching it on this try. Probably only for my private collection though.
Nothing quality-wise to comment on, but just wanted to say that's a beautiful photo! Hope it makes it on here.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
Well, that's a good surprise. I'll have to see if I can improve it.
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Nothing quality-wise to comment on, but just wanted to say that's a beautiful photo!
Thanks! Even if it doesn't make it, it was a nice night to be out watching the aircraft.
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1539 times:
Thanks Dana. I'll give the NZ another pass tonight.
Another gray day 777 for consideration and opinion:
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1520 times:
A bit more of a push (Thanks for being patient, by the way):
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1465 times:
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8209 posts, RR: 28 Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
They both seem a bit low in the frame to me.
First one looks a bit soft in parts. Second looks OK to me sharpness-wise.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Vik, if you're reading this, this photo was shot at 180mm on the 70-200 F4/L, since I know you've just acquired one. I still have issues judging sharpness, but I'm quite happy with that lens.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8209 posts, RR: 28 Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting CargoLex (Reply 21): Vik, if you're reading this, this photo was shot at 180mm on the 70-200 F4/L, since I know you've just acquired one. I still have issues judging sharpness, but I'm quite happy with that lens.
I am reading this, and awesome - thanks for the note. I should have mine tomorrow...can't wait!
Also, sorry if I threw you off with my centering and sharpness comment. Glad Dana corrected it.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
CargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 23): Also, sorry if I threw you off with my centering and sharpness comment. Glad Dana corrected it.
Oh, no problem. That 77W was one where I processed it, got it where I wanted it, and then decided I wasn't really sure at all about it when I was done. Mostly I'm just trying to get my sharpness judgement back. Ton of rejections for soft lately, hence the pre-screening.
26 CargoLex: Thanks Dana. A couple more I'm unsure about: I think this one's basically okay, I just want to make sure. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...z1330
27 dlowwa: A touch bright, but otherwise ok. A touch soft/lif, but also otherwise ok.
28 CargoLex: Thanks Dana, as usual. This was rejected again for soft, despite the positive indication from Alevik last week. I've never appealed a rejection, is th
29 dlowwa: Up to you, but it does look a bit soft to me. No, should be ok.
30 CargoLex: Yeah, looking at it closer, it was better to try a rework. Hence: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../e1330798204.6991clex_hl7539_3.jpg A rework
31 dlowwa: KE is still a little soft, especially toward the rear. The AS should be passable.
32 CargoLex: I'm having a really hard time here. When I look at the KE in the current edit, it looks close to oversharp. Looking at it against other KE 332's in th
33 dlowwa: That actually doesn't look too bad. It would stand a pretty good chance at appeal, but if that's not your inclination, a slight re-working should be
34 CargoLex: Thanks Dana. I reworked that AS: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../n1331182161.4548clex_n317as_2.jpg I did think about appealing it, but decided
36 cargolex: Rejected for "quality quality soft color": http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...7_s1331444043.189clex_n699br_1.jpg Surprised at that, honestly. The
37 dlowwa: Looks a little soft, but overall not that bad. There is a slight magenta tint. You might have noticed it was rejected by a screener in training, it s
38 cargolex: Actually I hadn't noticed that (I checked the queue and not my e-mail). Interesting. I'll probably do a light rework on that one and make a note of t
39 dlowwa: Bit of softness in the tail area, but don't see any other major issues, so might sneak in.
40 cargolex: Thanks Dana. Trying again with this guy (not previously rejected, just never let it go to screening): http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../b1332339
41 dlowwa: Looks a bit soft, though that might just be the light. Looks ok to me.
42 Cargolex: Considering an appeal on this, but still resistant to appeals in general. Rejected for grainy / soft. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...h13329015
43 dlowwa: Don't see much noise either, but it is a bit soft.
44 cargolex: Thanks Dana. I'll just do a little sharpening and check for any noise on the Qatar when I get a chance. Pre-screening another one here: http://www.air
45 dlowwa: Yes, a bit soft, but only needs a little sharpening, not a lot.
46 Airimage: I'm sorry if this is the wrong place, and I'm sorry to use this thread as an example but I find it very off putting/ frustrating to come across a thre
47 Cargolex: Well, I guess I understand that frustration, but...I don't pre-screen every image (and I don't think one should) and I don't leave things in the queu
48 dlowwa: Should be ok. Not bad, but still borderline soft.
49 Airimage: I wasn't blaming you mate, I was blaming the system here. BTW what happened to this http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../x1328154254.3518clex_a6-e
52 Cargolex: The KE did finally make it! One knocked today for blurry: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._t1335882530.2189clex_n839mh_2.jpg Specifically blurr
53 Cargolex: About that tail.. http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=120142&filename=php9CpXLc.jpeg That's a crop from the full size original, no sharpening,
54 dlowwa: Hard to say blurry for sure, but the ship number on the tail does look that way. Can't see much difference to be honest, but I would have been fine w
55 Cargolex: Thanks Dana. I'm sure I've got another shot of that 764 I can try.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1156 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}
: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../i1328340377.2113clex_zk-okq_6.jpg','2')){kind=link}
){kind=link}
: Unsure overall: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../y1329281784.144clex_ja786a_1b.jpg This','2')){kind=link}
){kind=link}
