Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Screening - Gasman  
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

Hi everyone

Is this worth submitting? Previously rejected for being too soft around the nose. Cheers.



44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

Quoting gasman (Thread starter):
Is this worth submitting?

Don't think so. Looks soft (maybe a bit blurry) all over, and oversharpened to compensate.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

I was wondering if this one was worth a shot. Too much noise?

Cheers.



User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 2):
Too much noise?

Unfortunately, yes.

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
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Thanks. How about now?



User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 4):
How about now?

That appears to be the same image. It is also flat and dirty, in addition to noisy.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2758 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 5):
That appears to be the same image. It is also flat and dirty, in addition to noisy.

Thanks. The difference between the two was some tweaking with noise reduction and sharpening in LR4 - obviously not enough!

I can see what you mean by "flat", but by "dirty" do you mean sensor dirt? Not sure I can see this...

Thanks again.  


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 6):
but by "dirty" do you mean sensor dirt?

Yes, in the sky above the titles.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2750 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 6):
do you mean sensor dirt? Not sure I can see this...

Use the "equalise" function in photoshop and it should highlight this for you.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 8):
Use the "equalise" function in photoshop and it should highlight this for you.

Thanks...... although could one argue if the dirt can't be seen on the "unequalised" JPEG, it kind of doesn't matter?



Trying again.......... this one is actually a different frame.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 9):
Thanks...... although could one argue if the dirt can't be seen on the "unequalised" JPEG, it kind of doesn't matter?

Not to you, but if we can see it without equalizing, it does. Equalizing is not part of the screening process.

Quoting gasman (Reply 9):
Trying again.......... this one is actually a different frame.

Still flat, noisy, and dirty.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

Any chance? Cheers.


Nope. Soft. Am discovering it's easier to see flaws with the blue background of a.net than it is in Lightroom. Intriguing.

[Edited 2012-09-11 00:36:59]

Better now?

Big version: Width: 1050 Height: 700 File size: 540kb


[Edited 2012-09-11 00:47:56]

User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 11):
Better now?

Soft, flat, and dirty.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Thanks. While my editing skills are far from perfect, I suspect the RAW file which was underexposed by about a stop isn't ressurectable. Would it also be fair to say that not many a.net photos are shot on heavily overcast days?

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Heavily overcast days can make it harder.. But it's still not impossible. Do you use the levels function for contrast? If not, play around with that until you get a greener grass (and more 'body' to the plane), eg:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas Young



Move the right slider up to where the histogram shows values and move the left slider up to the start of the histogram and tinker with the middle one until you get a decent constrast.

RAWs are much easier to brighten up - I don't think it's as much of an issue here compared with the soft/contrast issues.

[Edited 2012-09-11 04:56:47]


It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 13):
Would it also be fair to say that not many a.net photos are shot on heavily overcast days?

It doesn't preclude images from being accepted, just makes it a lot more difficult. Any particular reason you have for wanting the above image accepted? If not, just forget it, and go back and do more shooting with better light.


User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 14):
Heavily overcast days can make it harder.. But it's still not impossible. Do you use the levels function for contrast?

I'm using Lightroom 4 at the moment, which doesn't use levels. "Supposedly" the white/black sliders on LR do the job better for RAW files. Something to do with gamma encoded vs. linear images, way too technical for me, and I always considered myself a geek  

Also, while there are many photos on a.net taken on equipment way inferior to my 30D; I'm starting to suspect that could be a factor too. Noise is definitely an issue at ISO 400 and the pictures become almost unusable any higher. Scanning through a.net, the "bar" has definitely lifted over even the last five years.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 16):
I'm using Lightroom 4 at the moment, which doesn't use levels

I process in LR4 and then open it up in PS to finish it off - add extra sharpening, levels, dust spots etc. I can't seem to work the black/white sliders too well on LR and find that levels suits me much better.

Quoting gasman (Reply 16):
Scanning through a.net, the "bar" has definitely lifted over even the last five years.

Well you won't be wrong about that.. I look at pics I uploaded here from a couple of years back which are quite similar to the ones you posted here.. Though maybe slightly more contrasted. Even so, shooting at AKL during the day shouldn't really require ISO400 but I suppose you chose a dull day for it. A day like today would likely yield pretty nice results - cool weather reducing haze and very little cloud around.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 17):
A day like today would likely yield pretty nice results

Now it's funny you should say that............... shot about 2 hours ago  


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 18):

Nice to see you finally got some good weather!

I still think you need to use photoshop too.. There are a few things which remain soft - most notably the winglet. I'd be inclined to decrease brightness a touch. The sky seems a little grainy too. But a far better chance with this image compared to the earlier ones.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

Yes, soft and a little bright. You've also got the dust spot in about the same place as with the NZ 777.

User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 20):
Yes, soft

Arrgh! 1/1250 sec, panned, IS on L series lens, shot in RAW at ISO 100 and not cropped. And yes, it is still slightly soft.

Time for a full frame sensor and more megapixels - unless anyone has any other ideas...

Thanks for all the help NZ107 & dlowwa.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 21):
Time for a full frame sensor and more megapixels - unless anyone has any other ideas...

None of my images here were taken with a full-frame sensor camera, and I would say the same goes for 90% of the images on this site. A good number of mine were taken with a camera comparable to your 30D. I don't think the tools are the issue here. You're either expecting too much, or not getting the full potential out of your equipment/images. A 30D with a decent lens should be more than enough to get acceptable images for here, unless you're pushing the limits by doing something like shooting from a distance and cropping a lot.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 21):
1/1250 sec

Hmm.. Seems a bit fast.. I was there for a few mins on Sunday and had pics at f/8 with 1/800sec. But anyway, I would still recommend the use of photoshop after the initial touch ups in LR.

Quoting gasman (Reply 21):

Time for a full frame sensor and more megapixels - unless anyone has any other ideas...

Well I don't know how much more advanced a 40D is.. But I'm doing fine with that at the moment (need a change soon as it's not good enough for low light shots which I've wanted to do for ages and the buffer isn't big enough sometimes). Gonna start saving up for a 5DIII I think but that's just me.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 21):
Arrgh! 1/1250 sec, panned, IS on L series lens, shot in RAW at ISO 100 and not cropped. And yes, it is still slightly soft.

What was the aperture? Maybe you can stop it down a litte as most lenses are sharper between f/8-10. With a shutter speed that fast, you can afford to lose a little and close the aperture.

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
25 gasman : Wide open (f5.6). I take your point, but I was thinking that on a Canon L series it shouldn't matter so much. Maybe it does..............
26 dazbo5 : It depends on the model. Primes it matters less but on a 100-400 for example, it's like most others and is slightly sharper stopped down. That explai
27 Post contains images gasman : How about this?
28 NZ107 : Don't forget depth of field is also affected by opening the aperture right up. Especially when it's sunny, there's no need for such fast shutter spee
29 dlowwa : Dirty, but otherwise ok.
30 dazbo5 : There's a dust spot above the 'e' on the tail. What about the amount of noise in the sky? Surely this is more than the acceptable criteria? I've had
31 dazbo5 : There's a dust spot above the 'e' on the tail. What about the amount of noise in the sky? Surely this is more than the acceptable criteria? I've had
32 Post contains images gasman : Could I have some critique of this one please? Much appreciated guys.
33 dlowwa : Marginal light, cyan tint, and as with all of the others, dirty.
34 Post contains images gasman : Is this better? Sorry to persist but I'm having genuine trouble seeing the dirtiness. Cheers.
35 Post contains links and images dlowwa : Apparently not, as you've removed the dust spot in this version. Color is still pretty bad.
36 Post contains images gasman : Can I have some feedback on this one please? Many thanks
37 NZ107 : Seems to me like it's slightly blurry/oversharpened, also seemingly soft and I the chromatic abberation is quite noticeable. A little grainy too - gu
38 dlowwa : Quality is quite poor, as Nicholas has pointed out. Doubt you will be able to fix this one unfortunately.
39 Post contains images gasman : Hi again Could I ask for some feedback on this one please? Regards.
40 NZ107 : A bit soft and flat. Watch that horizontal stabiliser.
41 Post contains images gasman : Better - or have I overcooked things now?
42 dlowwa : To be honest, the light is really poor, so unless you have some special reason for wanting to see this one accepted, I would just leave it and move o
43 Post contains images gasman : Hi there. Can I have some feedback on this please? I've done my best with it, but something i can't quite quantify doesn't sit right with me. Cheers
44 dlowwa : Contrast is very low and it is backlit. Unfortunately, not much you can do to make it acceptable for here.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Screening - Gasman
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