Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 5588 times:
Hey guys,
went out for spotting today and here's my first pic. I'm lets say fairly new to this when you compare me to others on here so I'm looking for valuable feedback on how to improve my aircraft photography and getting my images on Airliners.net
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2603 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 5592 times:
Quoting Tomskii (Thread starter): might need a tad sharpening but I'm not sure as I'm not working on my Photoshop pc but on my work pc.
Hi Tom,
Composition looks fine although i'd probably crop a little more from the left of the frame to even the amount of blue sky left and right of the aircraft. The front of the aircraft is a little blurry and even with more sharpenig, it's unlikely you'll able to recover that one I'm afraid. This is a common aircraft with lots of photos in the database so standards are a little higher than normal. What aperture / shutter speed did you use? I've not seen the histogram, but the contrast looks like it needs increasing a little too. Other than that, it's not a bad try.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months ago) and read 5585 times:
Hi Darren,
Thanks for the info! I will be uploading more pics soon. As for the histogram and such:
Program (Aperture priority) A
Aperture: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/320s so it's a bit on the slow side, but that's because I've overexposed the pic a bit to keep the noise to a minimum.
EDIT: What do you think about this one? Think my shutter speed might have been a tad too slow as well but I prefer hearing it from someone who has 'the eye'. It seems maybe a tad oversharpened to me but again I might be wrong!
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2603 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months ago) and read 5577 times:
Maybe that's why the front of the aircraft is a little blurry compared to the rest of the frame. There's no problem in using ISO 200, most dSLR's produce little noise at ISO 200 to give you a little more shutter speed if needed. I regularly use ISO 200 in the winter months when the light isn't as strong so don't worry about increasing it. The histogram confirms the contrast I mentioned above.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
I'm going out thursday morning again for spotting at BRU so. As for know please look at the 2 foto's in the editted msg above. Thanks again for all your help!
It is soft. You might also want to convert the colorspace for your images to sRGB before you upload, as that's how they will be displayed on the web/when they are screened. Otherwise you are going to be seeing a difference in the colors between what you are working on, and what you upload.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7318 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5560 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Tomskii (Reply 7): It should already be set to sRGB, as for the 2nd pic
It is not. It is currently set to Adobe RGB, and when opening the file in Photoshop, the colors are quite different from how they are displayed in the browser.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5536 times:
Allrighty, i'll make sure to change that in photoshop then. As for the picture the flat one was the SN airbus Insuppose and the second soft one is the JetairFly right?
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5506 times:
What about this? It's the JetairFly again but recropped it and sharpened it. It is also in sRGB 16-bit. I feel like I might have oversharpened it, or maybe I'm just wrong. I used a guideline to put the plane in the middle but I still feel like (might be wrong again) that it's slightly too high in frame.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5500 times:
Sounds a bit dumb probably but how much should I get the airplane down in the picture. Seems I have some issues distinguishing the right ratio between upper and lower part of the plane at that angle.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7318 posts, RR: 31 Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5488 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Sharpening should be ok, but it is slightly high.
Quoting Tomskii (Reply 12): how much should I get the airplane down in the picture.
It's not an exact science, but there are two things that can help: 1) try looking at the thumbnail version to get an idea of the overall centering, and 2) don't forget to consider the tail fin, as it is also part of the aircraft.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5485 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 13): It's not an exact science, but there are two things that can help: 1) try looking at the thumbnail version to get an idea of the overall centering, and 2) don't forget to consider the tail fin, as it is also part of the aircraft.
Thanks,
That's where I go wrong I guess: the tail. As for the sharpening: you would bring it down just slightly if I understand you well?
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5465 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15): Sharpening looks ok overall, like I said. I can only see a few jaggies on the flaps.
Jep noticed that too. So if I just bring the pic a bit down and upload it to the queue I should be ok right?
EDIT: Wasn't exactly what you'd call nice weather today but hey. Went to the BRU General Aviation area and some Italian diplomatic just arrived in his D'assault Falcon. What do you think?
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5391 times:
Hi again Dana,
Brought the saturation of the colors down a bit and reworked from the original to crop again. This time I lowered it a bit in comparison to the first edit, but it is higher than the second edit.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7318 posts, RR: 31 Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5234 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
I can see you've increased the contrast a lot on both, but to be honest because the light was pretty terrible to begin with, they only look a little bit better. You can try adding more contrast, but the benefit won't be that significant. Better to wait for nicer conditions next time.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5233 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 31): I can see you've increased the contrast a lot on both, but to be honest because the light was pretty terrible to begin with, they only look a little bit better. You can try adding more contrast, but the benefit won't be that significant. Better to wait for nicer conditions next time.
Conditions indeed where sh*t, so if I understand you well you think it won't have any big effect if I work on the contrast anymore due to the poor light.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5170 times:
Picture from today (sun was setting) so I don't know if the orangy cast is an issue (as it's the normal lighting of the sun on the plane at this time of the day. Secondly I didn't exactly know how to crop a cockpit picture properly so feel free to give me advice on that !
Pretty much any way other than what you did. Why did you crop it like that? Any specific reason, or was that simply what came out of the camera? Take a look through the database at previously accepted images to get an idea of what kind of crop is acceptable. That you can't find any similar to yours would be a good hint that such a crop wouldn't be acceptable.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5105 times:
And another one: I suppose (after looking up some images on Airliners.net) that this crop isn't good for Airliners.net either? Just want the confirmation
Also please look at the pictures above, thanks for your help Dana!
Quoting Tomskii (Reply 40): And another one: I suppose (after looking up some images on Airliners.net) that this crop isn't good for Airliners.net either?
Better than the TAP, but if you want to be really safe, try to avoid cutting the engine.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4862 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 48): All three are a little soft and flat, but otherwise ok. Third one is a little low, but should be passable. It also has some dust spots.
So a bit more contrast I suppose. As for the dust spots, only visible on the third?
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4836 times:
Ok now?
[Edited 2012-03-29 02:19:04]
[Edited 2012-03-29 02:20:39]
Adjusted a bit of brightness here as well so the nose isn't as overexposed and details are better readable Tell me if you like the previous version better or this one.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4791 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 60): Contrast is a bit harsh, but I've seen worse, so might as well give it a shot.
Reduced the contrast slightly. Thanks again for your help! Have I mentioned that the KL E190 made it AND is a first addition to the database because it is new?
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4692 times:
Another one:
I suppose it might be a tad too dark and probably it has some other issues, anyways interested in your opinion. I also think it might be a bit low in frame?
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4644 times:
I see, will reduce the brightness on the last 2 and increase on the first LH. Light conditions were indeed variable so the TG will have to wait to join my a.net collection
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4643 times:
Hows this? Only made minor adjustments to the brightness of the IB and Transavia as you said a little too bright haha. But the LH has had a bigger increase of brightness.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7318 posts, RR: 31 Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4589 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Exposure? Just leave it where it is. The light's not too great (especially on the IB, which if anything looks flat) so just put them through and see how it goes - just be prepared for issues with the IB.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4460 times:
Hi Dana,
I have been spotting today. I will tell you that it was cloudy, but I still wanted to have some feedback on some pictures. I have editted a first one, a Asiana 744F. I've editted it the usual way but with the sharpening I did the regular one like I do normally and a second edition with the High Pass Technique. Please tell me what you think.
Regular
High Pass
I thank you again for your time and the help you have given me in the passed (My latest pictures were all accepted btw).
frankc From Belgium, joined Oct 2011, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4421 times:
Hi Tom, the verticals lean to the left, so CW is indeed needed.
I think the aircraft is a bit high in the frame too, given the large tail.
Cheers
Frank
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4407 times:
I'll leave the Austrian as it is, as when I took the picture I zoomed in so far on the plane that it resulted in not having enough space to rotate the picture. Anyways thanks.
What do you think of the Asiana re-edit? And I repeat my question, how would you remove the cyan and yellow cast (if it's still there)
Why the first one for motive? Because of the nosewheel that is blocked by the fence?
The other two indeed have a bit of backlit due to the sun that was already almost facing them . I maybe should've chosen the opposite side of the runway as soon as the sun was backlitting the planes.
So you guess, both the last pictures would not make it due to the light right? (after removing the yellow and green cast)
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 96, posted (1 year 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 4250 times:
Would this one have any chance? (taken today)
And then I have another picture which I am unsure about wether the motive is enough to let it pass. (I also noted that, due to the distance the plane is quite hazy, but maybe the motive is more important. Anyways thanks)
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 111, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4133 times:
Thanks I'll counter that. Looks like I'll need to check my camera/photoshop settings as you have been telling me on a lot of pics that there is a cyan tint :s.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3944 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 119):
Exactly. A little cyan, but might also be a little oversaturated.
mmm yes I did add like +5 of color saturation, might be that. I'll do a -5 for the saturation, and if the cyan is still there afterwards I'll counter that as well.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3940 times:
This should be better, all three have had a -10 in saturation, just to make sure. Tell me if the cyan tint is still there and if the contrast is still too high now
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3931 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 122): Don't see much difference, contrast & color still off.
Could you, maybe if you have the time just download one of these pics and edit the colour and contrast like you would do it in Photoshop? Show the final picture and then eventually tell what you've done, cause I am a bit 'walking in the dark' if you know what I mean at this very moment :s
EDIT: Any better this? https://dl.dropbox.com/u/33281487/DSC_0076%283%29.jpg
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 132, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3794 times:
How's this? 3° CCW. Does it need more? I've also included a 1600px version, just wondering if it would need more sharpening at that size? (or would it even make the cut?)
Better, but still might have issues with level. Not sure why you are so keen on 1600 pix, your chances of acceptance drop exponentially when you try images at that size.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3206 times:
I'm not giving it a lot of chances but I thought it might be considered as a airport overview submission? Anyways odds are it is either not showing enough of the airport, or if you think the focus is on the plane holding short I suppose it wouldn't stand a chance either?
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2935 times:
Added just a tad of exposere as I thought it would be overexposed otherwise. Can't change much about the angle since well yeah the pilot flew right over me. Thanks again for your help. Could you also check the 3 pics in my previous post and see if any have a chance? (personally I do not think so)
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 150, posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2908 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 149): They're a little on the dark and/or soft side, but should be fixable.
Thanks, I'll work on them after the weekend since I'm going on a weekend with some friends. Thanks once again for the help, and about my remark in another topic the other day: I should've rephrased myself better as it seemed I was insinuating that screeners have little or no knowledge.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (9 months 3 days ago) and read 2390 times:
It seems like SN just doesn't like the camera's lol. If you look up SSQ's pics or any other SN plane the 'brussels airlines' in the front always looks quite bad.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7318 posts, RR: 31 Reply 166, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1655 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
First is dark/contrasty, and is pretty common, so you'll need to have it near perfect. It's also got some pretty obvious dust spots. Second is an awkward crop, but might be acceptable. Third would be no for the crop on the left, and would be double with the second anyway.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
Was pretty sure about that last one that it wouldn't get past, I'll leave the first one and add it to my personal collection and I'll give the second one a go.
Awkward crop is due to the building where the 9W was sitting, Would've liked a spot where it was in the same position yet without that building on the left :P
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7318 posts, RR: 31 Reply 176, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1569 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
First would be rejected for grainy, oversharpened, quality, and maybe centering for the crop. Second is a bit dark. Third would be rejected for blurry and dark.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 177, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 176): First would be rejected for grainy, oversharpened, quality, and maybe centering for the crop. Second is a bit dark. Third would be rejected for blurry and dark.
Would've expected that for 1 and 3, I'll just make #2 a bit lighter and it should be good
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 185, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
Allrighty thanks, if it gets rejected for OS I'll have to reduce the amount to the point where I actually see a difference lol. Once again thank you Dana.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 808 times:
Woops I see I resized them to 1300 instead of 1200 my bad. In the first series I did not do any NR as I shot the pics at ISO 100 since the conditions were good but after having zoomed in on the RAW file I saw there was indeed still a bit of noise on the lower part of the plane.
I've set less contrast (I suppose the good weather doesn't require me to add the amount I usually set) I've also redone sharpening to set it to less. About the fence: Well I can't change much about it but I cropped them slightly different so the amount of fence in the picture is less.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 197, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Quoting Cargolex (Reply 196): but to my eyes the EY A330 looks soft.
Hi here Cargolex, thanks for your feedback.
I've added a bit of sharpness to the EY, very subtle though 100% of unsharp mask, you should see a slight change. I was afraid of OS'ing it otherwise? (you should see the difference notably on the tail)
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 8 Reply 198, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 723 times:
Quoting Tomskii (Reply 197): I've added a bit of sharpness to the EY, very subtle though 100% of unsharp mask, you should see a slight change. I was afraid of OS'ing it otherwise? (you should see the difference notably on the tail)
I definitely see the change, but you should try putting some parts in a separate layer and sharpening them separately - the titles and fuselage sides need more than the cockpit windows or the stripes on the forward fuselage, for example. Smart sharpen won't discriminate these areas over others that may not need more sharpening. Some people use Photoshop elements, which doesn't allow for many layers. I'm a Photoshop CS4 user so I don't know much about elements. The tail and cockpit windows are, in my opinion, getting closer to oversharp, but the middle of the fuselage is still soft.
On the SN, the exposure looks a little hot. You could probably stand to take that down just a bit. If you shoot in raw this should be pretty easy, I don't ever work in JPG but you might be able to fix this there too. The high contrast areas on this shot seem sharp, the low contrast areas seem less so. The static port near the Q seems a little soft, almost blurry, not sure. The Star logo and the text on the white area also indicate a little softness there, but the high contrast logo and titles are fine as is, IMO. I shot my very first Brussels Airlines A330 recently and oversharpened it, primarily because of those high contrast titles.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 199, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 717 times:
Hi Cargolex,
Thanks for the valuable help. I use PS CS6 so layers shouldn't be of any problem. In my original of the SN the nose area is indeed a bit softer than the rest of the fuselage. I'll try to work it out in meanwhile. However I am not familiar with smart sharpen as I use USM. Any good tutorial you know of?
EDIT: Oh and yes I shoot in RAW so I'll bring the exposure a bit down
[Edited 2013-02-05 17:03:07]
EDIT2: Oh darn I just saw I cropped a bit of the top off. The white antenna was sticking out and I did not see that in the original. (bloody eurowhite schemes :P)
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined May 2011, 456 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2603 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7318 posts, 
!
Tell me if you like the previous version better or this one. 
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
