dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
First two are suffering pretty badly from heat haze, and are write-offs. The second two aren't quite as bad, but are still borderline. The oof fence taking up a large part of the bottom of the frame doesn't help either.
jpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1621 times:
Another recent shot for review...tried to just spend 1-2 mins at most on it to see if that's an improvement over my prior bad edits. Contrast seems harsh but that may be my laptop screen, and I may have to wait till I get back to my proper monitor to look at it better. Thanks...
We know the difference between jet wash and heat haze, and the former is typically not reason for rejection. Heat haze is easily visible at the front of the aircraft on the larger version, but is better hidden at the smaller size.
moddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 13 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
Well, heat hazes I can't localize. But a small dust spot above the tail is visible. I my opinion the lower part of the fuselage is a bit dark and the upper part overexposured. It's not a good time for taking pictures.
jpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
Could I get some feedback on these? Lighting was not good (very overcast), there are no strong shadows, but also the brights are a bit dull...do you think these could make the cut? Would higher contrast be better?
Center: I'm guessing it was high in frame? Not quite sure about the right centering...have had different centering rejections in the past, so hope I got it right.
Level: I had leveled it using the vertical fence posts, but have changed it to the center line on the runway. Is that the right way?
Soft: sharpened it up ... enough? http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/906/img7047620120828n953arm.jpg
jpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 61): Not sure how color adjustment is related to the blur that was mentioned.
I'm saying that when I looked closer at the nose in response to your earlier comment, the spot that looked blurry to me had a blur tinge to it along the border of the nose, like CA - causing it to look blurry to my eyes. I may have missed it all together, but that was the only spot that looked like it might have been blurry, so I took the above steps. I know you can't actually fix a blurry shot, but I thought that perhaps that blue made it look blurry, so I took that action. If it didn't fix it, I will leave it.
Impossible for me to tell with certainty what the underlying problem is at this size; I'm just letting you know how it looks. If you think there is no blur after looking at the original, then trust yourself.
jpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 940 times:
Hi - back again from another trip...could I get some feedback on this photo? I leveled it using the buildings in the background, and the plane is coming down at an angle. Got a bunch more from this angle, but all the shots of planes on the runway have pretty bad heat haze. This one seems much better but does any show at 1024px?
jpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 855 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 73): Looks like you were shooting through a window
On the Delta shot, yes. The others were outside, clear air, late morning, not much of a crop. Will have another look at them as the RAW files look good, so I must be messing something up in processing.