gasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 733 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1654 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?
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, RR: 40 Reply 14, posted (8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1642 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:
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.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 15, posted (8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1632 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
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.
gasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 733 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1625 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.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, RR: 40 Reply 17, posted (8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1619 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.
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.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 22, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
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.
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.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1571 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
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
Quoting gasman (Reply 25): 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..............
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 explains the probable shallow depth of field. Good equipment helps, but you still need to get the technique right. It's a little 'overexposed' for this site as well, -1/3 exposure compensation would probably have done the trick.
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
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, RR: 40 Reply 28, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1561 times:
Quoting gasman (Reply 25): I take your point, but I was thinking that on a Canon L series it shouldn't matter so much.
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 speeds; especially if you can shoot at around f/8 and still be 1/500th or faster.
Looking good, though once again, I personally would be inclined to open it up in photoshop and give it a once over with the sharpen tool. Might still be passable though; can't tell with this monitor too well.
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 noise rejections with way less noise than is in the sky!
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
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 noise rejections with way less noise than is in the sky!
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
Seems to me like it's slightly blurry/oversharpened, also seemingly soft and I the chromatic abberation is quite noticeable. A little grainy too - guess the cloud was in the way.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 42, posted (6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 798 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting gasman (Reply 41): Better - or have I overcooked things now?
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 on to something shot in better light.
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 733 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2579 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
