kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4188 times:
Hi All,
I recently switched from PS Elements 8 to PS Elements 10. When I was used Elements 8, I never really played with the raw options, i.e. vibrance, clarity, etc. Now that I have begun to use Elements 10, I am starting to adjust the sliders to get the best out of the raw file. As I stated in my previous feedback post, I am still learning the tricks of the trade and have a lot to learn still; especially when it comes to editing. With that being said, I wanted to post some pictures that I adjusted in the adobe camera raw option prior to going through the editing process. I am looking for some feedback on what the group thinks on the overall picture. My main concern is that I may have used too much or not enough brightness, vibrance, and saturation or any of the other sliders. I am also trying to get a feel for the overall sharpness, my greatest weakness is determining whether I have properly sharpened the picture. So with all that being said, I welcome all comments and critiques.
The Air France A380 picture was taken on a somewhat clear and sunny afternoon, but the Ethiopian 787, Cit 10, and Coastie where taken in somewhat marginal weather. I felt like the latter 3 pictures I could really optimize the raw file and enhance the picture.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4170 times:
Quote: All are soft, and as you noted, the latter three taken in poor light. There are other minor issues, but none would be accepted as is.
Are they really soft, or will a little more sharpening compensate for the softness?
What are the other minor issues so I can know what to avoid or look for?
I sharpened the AFA380 some more, is it still too soft?
I will only use this post for screening and feedback from now on, thank you for the heads up.
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 months 14 hours ago) and read 4125 times:
None of these looks too soft to be fixed with some sharpening. The first two look soft overall, but some spots on the helo looks about right.
I will take a shot at 'other minor issues':
787 - I think the crop is awkward. I would crop out the starboard wing as well so the fuselage is balanced horizontally. It also looks a bit de-saturated to me.
Citation - This crop also seems unbalanced, although I think it is technically acceptable and cropping to just the fuselage might reduce the quality too much. Maybe needs a bit of CW rotation.
Helo - Maybe the body should be centered in the frame? Cutting rotors does not seem to be a problem for acceptance.
The new A388 also still looks a bit soft to me. I would also check the color. The red seems to have a bluish cast compared to other photos of that plane in the db.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 hour ago) and read 4106 times:
Thanks for the feedback Marty, I greatly appreciate it.
I took another go at the A388 and sharpened it some more. I attempted to adjust the red tone to eliminate the bluish tent, but was unsuccessful without jacking the picture up completely. I looked at some similar AF A388 pics in the DB but I couldn't really tell a difference, that may be my novice eye speaking.
I am going to work with the 787 and Citation pictures over the weekend and see if I can enhance them some more, I expect to see some other 787 pictures being uploaded any day as there were a handful of photographers there for Ethiopian 787 festival; so I will use their pictures as references.
I also wanted to post a few more pictures that I uploaded in the queue within the last 48 hours. The first is a different angle of the KLM-A330 that was previous discussed, but the general consensus was it was too soft/blurry. This new angle is much more clearer and the overall quality is much better. My question is it sharpened correctly and do you think it stands a chance for being accepted?
Here is a different image of the MH-65D, I sharpened it some more. I have the same general questions as stated above.
This picture is a toss up for me, I am not sure if it will make the cut for the same reasons and probably numerous other reasons.
The last picture that I am looking for some feedback is on an Army UH-72. Is it edited correctly or does it need some more work? I had another picture of this Lakota rejected yesterday because it was too dark and also soft (Second image)
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4076 times:
Andrew
The latest A380, KLM 777 and MH-65D are embedded images, not links to the actual photos, so I can not see them full-size and can't comment on the sharpness. I would still consider moving the MH-65 so it is centered even if that means cutting off some of the rotors.
The UH-72 definitely looks better than the first one. I don't know how to judge the color itself, but the white in the red cross emblem looks plenty bright, and the sharpness looks pretty good to me.
The UA 777 looks soft and a bit 'faded' - maybe low contrast or saturation.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4067 times:
Marty, thanks for the input. I think I had my fare share of rookie mistakes today with these postings and the errors associated with them. I added the 3 images that were embedded so you can look at the full image.
Quote: I would still consider moving the MH-65 so it is centered even if that means cutting off some of the rotors.
When I was cropping the MH-65, I played with the different composures and looked in the database for references to go off. I had mix judgement as there are numerous pictures with all the rotors and vice versus. I wanted to keep the rotors in the picture because I thought it would add a nice touch.
If A.Net had a virtual bar, I would be buying your drinks tonight for all your help so far. I also wanted to say thanks for your input on my Lufthansa 747 pic, I was pleasantly surprised today when I got on here and it was on the banner.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4060 times:
Quote: First is a little soft, second very soft, and the third doesn't have great light but might be passable.
Thanks Dana. I sharpened the A388 up a little more and I think it looks better, so I replaced the older and softer version in the queue with the new one. I also sharpened up the KLM, I have a rejected version that was oversharpened to use as reference, so I replaced the old version with a sharper one as well.
Quote: Here is the missing picture.
Soft.
If I can get the sharpness correct, would it be passable? I was kind of with Marty and thinking it was too faded and light.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
Quote: Possibly. Would need to see a finished version.
Here is finished version
I have several pictures of the United T7, I went ahead and edited another picture and decided to throw it into the mix to see if it is better than the picture above or has the potential to be.
The last two pictures are some other United T7 that I am not sure about. I think the one on final may be grainy and soft.
This is a different T7 than the original and I am also not sure about it.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4005 times:
Thanks Dana, I will toss out the soft and poor quality one and work on the others when I get the time.
While we are talking about United T7 pics, this image was rejected because it was dirty in the middle left part of the picture. However, I couldn't see anything...but that may be from my inexperienced eyes. I know there was a dust spot in the upper right hand corner in the originial raw file, but I cropped it out. Is it worth appealing?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3980 times:
Quote: There is something below the wing, just left of center. See the 'N' in airliners.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3965 times:
Quote: Have you tried the Equalize filter? That generally makes dirt, noise, reflections and the like easier to see.
Whenever I checked for dirt, noise, reflections or any other dirty related items, I just inverted the picture. But it seems like the better method is to equalize it. As for the United T7 picture that was rejected, I can honestly say that all my attention was directed towards finding dust spots. When that picture was taken, I had a small dust speck on the censor and tried to find any additional spots throughout the picture. I am glad you pointed that spot out Dana because now I will look out distant birds/planes that will qualify for a dirty rejection.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3911 times:
Hi All,
I am still struggling with getting the sharpness right and had some recent rejections because of it. I wanted to post some new pictures. (Some of these are different versions of previously discussed pictures, i.e. KLM, Cit X, 787) My main concern is if they are sharp enough or too sharp etc. Also, for the Cit X, 777, and 787, are they level enough or do they need some more CCW or CW?
The UH-72A was rejected because it was soft. I sharpened it up some more and trying to determine if it is adequate now.
Thanks, like always I welcome all opinions and critiques to help myself learn how to enhance my pictures and meet the A.Net standards.
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3909 times:
Hi Andrew,
Here's what I think:
787 - Very soft. I think it needs CW rotation.
777 - Soft. Maybe a bit grainy on the underside.
330 - Slightly soft?
777 - Soft. I think it needs CW rotation.
Citation - Soft. Level looks good.
UH-72. Looks pretty good to me. There are a few spots like the bottom of the fin on the back that look soft, but I see the same thing in other photos of this aircraft.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3895 times:
Thanks Marty and Dana for your input, I appreciate it.
Do you think the Cit/T7/787 pics are workable or are they beyond help due to the poor weather conditions?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3886 times:
Quote: They're close, so might be workable with a better edit and at 1024,
I downsized the 787 to 1024, sharpened it up considerably, and CW it some. Is this edit any better?
I forgot I took multiple pictures of the landing gear, both the nose and the mains. I did an edit of the nose gear and wanted to see if this picture has any potential? When I resized it, I did 800x1200 but I am not sure if it lacks the quality/detail for that size.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3861 times:
Quote: Nose gear shots typically need to be head-on.
Thanks Dana. I know the majority of the nose gear shots are head on like you mentioned, but there are a handful of ones that are at an angle. When I was looking for a similar picture in the database to use as an editing reference, I came across an AI 787 picture that was taken at a similar angle except from the left side. With that being said, do you think with a thorough edit it has a chance of being accepted?
Also, it is allowable to upload a picture of one of the mains and a picture of the nose gear from same day if they are from the same aircraft, or does the 1 image rule apply?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 28, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3848 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 27): do you think with a thorough edit it has a chance of being accepted?
Quality looks ok.
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 27): Also, it is allowable to upload a picture of one of the mains and a picture of the nose gear from same day if they are from the same aircraft,
Different angles of different gear should be acceptable, though you won't be allowed a wide-angle at the same time.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3837 times:
Quote: Different angles of different gear should be acceptable, though you won't be allowed a wide-angle at the same time.
Here is a picture of the main, is it properly edited or does it need some more work?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3824 times:
Quote: Soft, and to be honest, not too appealing (to me anyway).
I appreciate your honesty Dana. Out of the two gear pics, I think the nose gear is the better of the two and I will probably go with that one. Do you see any major issues with the edit of the nose gear pic? I have another version where I added 0.2 of CW and maybe a hint sharper, but other than that they are almost identical.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
Quote: Just the level, and like I said, better if directly head on.
Thanks Dana.
I went out to KIAD last night with the intention of trying to capture Lufthansa's 747-8 taking off and rotating. I took multiple continuous pictures hoping that a couple would have the potential to make it through the screeners. With that being said, I wanted to get some advice on these pictures and see if they have the quality and potential. I know I can only upload one picture and would like to see what picture is the most appealing to everyone. I have several others but these ones were personal favorites.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3735 times:
Quote: so I would work on one of the latter three
Thanks for your feedback Dana, I will focus on the last 3. Do you think I can get away with keeping them at their current size, or would you recommending stepping them down to 1100 or 1000 wide?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 36, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3733 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 35): Do you think I can get away with keeping them at their current size, or would you recommending stepping them down to 1100 or 1000 wide?
They wouldn't be accepted as they are, if that's what you are asking. 1024 is always easier, but it's your choice.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3709 times:
Quote: if that's what you are asking
I meant to ask you if you think by resizing the original to 1200x800 instead of the smaller 1000x667, I was losing the detail required for the larger resizes given if it was properly edited?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 39, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3696 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 37): I meant to ask you if you think by resizing the original to 1200x800 instead of the smaller 1000x667, I was losing the detail required for the larger resizes given if it was properly edited?
Still not sure what you're asking. I can't remember ever having rejected an image because it was too small for the quality, but the opposite happens regularly.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3671 times:
Quote: They all look on the soft side on my screen
Thanks Darren. How soft would you say they are? I am trying to gauge how far off I am so I can improve my editing skills and eliminate the softness rejections. What are some general ques that I can use to determine if the sharpness is correct?
It's difficult to quantify the degree of softness, but I would say quite soft. The angle and amount of light is always going to make thing difficult and there may even be a little motion blur in them. There aren't really any general rules with what is sharp and what isn't, it's just what looks crisp and clear with not too many jaggies or over processed (oversharp) and not a slightly blury look of soft images. Sharpness (for this site) is probably the most difficult to gauge of all the quality criteria.
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
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3642 times:
Alright, I made some changes and also reduced the Virgin and Lufthansa down to an easier size. Hopefully these edits are better. I also threw in a re-edit of the nose gear shot, is it edit correctly?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3593 times:
I had the feeling that the LH and UA were oversharpened, especially when I looked at the elevator and leading edges. Would you say they are oversharpened or way oversharpened? I am trying to gauge how far off I am so over the weekend I can re- work them and apply your feedback.
How does the Virgin A340 look, is it too oversharpened as well?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3545 times:
Thanks Dana, think I got them finally.
I was reading the post about how not to oversharpen and I took a couple of the member's advice and tried out a couple of their techniques. Could you please provide me with some input on whether the pics below are correctly sharpened?
Also, I was down at NASA Langley last month for work and thought I would go over to NAS Oceana to attempt to catch some F-18s at sunset; but just my luck they were using the runway that I was hoping they wouldn't use. I got a few shots, but nothing great because of the sun. I don't think this picture even has a chance, but thought it wouldn't hurt to ask.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (8 months 1 week ago) and read 3483 times:
Quote: Can't see much difference.
Any better?
Here are the other two re-edits on the UA T7 and LH 747. I brightened up the UA a touch and sharpened up the LH and hopefully didn't oversharpen it like before.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3419 times:
Good evening all,
I wanted to ask the group for some general feedback regarding these four images below. I have been working on my editing technique, especially my sharpness technique trying to improve it. With that being said, are these pics sharpened correctly? The ET 787 is an old pic that I couldn't get correct and thought I would give it another attempt. I want to say the BA 747 is still too soft, but after looking at similar dusk shots, I am not completely sure.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
Thanks Dana.
Quote: I see minor issues with softness & color, especially the first.
Could you elaborate on the color issues so I can apply your feedback to another attempt.
Here is another LH 747 pic I am requesting some feedback on. I think I may have oversharpened it just a bit. I am pretty confident with the level, but if you think it needs some more CW, please let me know.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 71, posted (8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3356 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 70): Could you elaborate on the color issues so I can apply your feedback to another attempt.
First is a bit red, and the second a little contrasty/saturated. Like I said, not really bad, just need small adjustments.
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 70): Here is another LH 747 pic I am requesting some feedback on.
Sharpening is the least of your concerns. It is very poorly lit, so would likely never make it past a dark/contrast rejection. Level is also off, but that's a moot point.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (8 months 20 hours ago) and read 3339 times:
Thanks for your critique on the first 2, it is greatly appreciated.
Quote: It is very poorly lit, so would likely never make it past a dark/contrast rejection
Yeah I was kind of worried that it was on the dark side. Had somewhat clear skies all day and was waiting for LH to come in and luck would have it the clouds started rolling in about 15 minutes prior to its ETA. Do you think it is salvageable, or is it too dark to work with?
Here is another pic that I took that was affected by the arrival of the clouds, although it isn't as severe. Is this picture too dark as well? There was also a considerable amount of heat haze, so I am not sure if there is too much present as well.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (8 months 5 hours ago) and read 3315 times:
Quote: Soft and backlit, probably not fixable for here.
I have several others from the sequence, but they don't have the fall foilage like this one does. I will pick one of the ones that the has better lighting.
Quote: Sharpening is the least of your concerns. It is very poorly lit, so would likely never make it past a dark/contrast rejection. Level is also off, but that's a moot point.
Do you think it is workable, or is it too dark from the get go?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3275 times:
Thanks for the clarification Dana.
This photo was rejected today because of "dark halo around cabin". I tried to see it, but my amaterish eye couldn't spot it. I know this photo had a small chance of making it through the screeners and my hopes weren't too high. Could someone point out the halo to me.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 79, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3274 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 78): Could someone point out the halo to me.
As mentioned, the sky immediately adjacent to the cabin/fuselage is darker than the rest of the sky. This is either from you using the shadow/highlight tool or similar when editing, or if you use a Nikon, from D-lighting.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3272 times:
Quote: This is either from you using the shadow/highlight tool or similar when editing, or if you use a Nikon, from D-lighting
I quit using the shadow/highlight tool as Vik pointed out in a previous critique as it was the primary cause of halos. I altered my editing technique to using layers and adjusting the levels accordingly . My equipment is a Canon 600D with a 100-400L lens, so it kind of puzzled me to see a halo rejection.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3258 times:
Quote: You're the only one who can figure out how it got there, I can only speculate
I'm not going to to worry about it, its just another piece of useful advice that I can look out for. It probably happened somewhere in my editing.
I attempted another edit of an other picture in the sequence, whats you take on this edit? I thought the quality was there for a larger resize, but I am not sure if I correctly sharpened it.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3209 times:
Quote: Still borderline for combination of areas that are both soft and oversharpened.
I re-edited an image from the LH 747 departure sequence and wanted to ask if you could point out areas that need some more work. I 'm going to work on this picture over the weekend and try to get it to the point where it can make it through the screeners.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3137 times:
Quote: Not really, just looks slightly less red but more yellow
Is this take any better? When I was finished editing it I thought it was better, but when I uploaded it I wasn't sure if I was seeing a slight red tint as stated before.
What are your takes on this Spitfire pic? I wanted to show the propeller, but was unsure if it would get rejected for being low in the frame.
I worked on the LH picture above over the weekend and was hoping to get some feedback on what areas need some more work.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 86, posted (7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3136 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 85): Is this take any better? When I was finished editing it I thought it was better, but when I uploaded it I wasn't sure if I was seeing a slight red tint as stated before.
More yellow than red I'd say.
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 85): What are your takes on this Spitfire pic?
Slightly oversharpened in places, and hard to tell about the level, but otherwise should be ok.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3080 times:
Thanks for the feedback Dana, I appreciate your patitence and honesty. I think I am going to give the ET and LH a shot in the queue and see what happens; all we can do is hope for the best and expect the worst.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 92, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3000 times:
I decided to try a new spot at KIAD and get a different profile of the int'l departures. I took some late evening pictures were the sun was sinking and there were only a few minutes before it set. Just looking for some feedback on the LH and KLM pics, my main concern is the sharpness.
This is a redo of the Spitfire that had some spots that were slightly oversharpened. Any improvements with this take?
My concern with this pic is that it may be slightly backlit.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2868 times:
Had this picture rejected today because of color, has a yellow tint. It was taken during the last hour of sunlight causing the yellowish tint. It passed the first screening, then failed the second one. I am curious if it is worth appealing?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 96, posted (7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2789 times:
Thanks Dana. I never really question the screener's reason due to their great experience and my lack of experience and I just wasn't sure if the yellow tint was from the sun or my editing.
Here is a recent picture and I am curious if I need to brighten it up some, or if its good as is?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 102, posted (6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2707 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting KIADPRTHD (Reply 101): I took another stab it the edit and tried to get the noise down.
Noise looks ok now, and I would probably place it a bit higher to get more of the foliage in the frame. Looking again, the titles & tail look a bit oversharpened.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2668 times:
Had this photo rejected today because it was dark.
I am just curious if I should appeal it on basis that my LH photo was accepted with similar lighting conditions.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2618 times:
I think I will take your advice Dana and just be glad.
I am curious about this old P-51 pic from the JSOH last spring. I think I posted it before for some feedback but don't recall the outcome. With that being said, I was curious if this picture even has a chance?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 109, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2580 times:
Quote: but better without the (F-22?) crew in front
Yes, it was the F-22 demo crew. I took several other pictures, but I thought the crew added an unique narrative to the picture. Will the crew be a motive for a rejection?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 111, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
Went out to Dulles today to capture ET's 787 departing. I was able to get some descent shots, although I am not sure about the final edits, something just doesn't look right. I am just looking for some general feedback and also which of the two would be more interesting to the A.Net crowd?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
Thanks Dana, I will focus on the first one and sharpen it up a little bit.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 114, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
I'm going through some old photos and edited a couple from last month that were toss ups for me. These were taken at an airshow at KCJR, where the runway layout was more east/west oriented, which made it hard to get goood light for some pictures. So, with that being said, I don't know about these pictures. The first one I think may be a little blury/soft/dark; The B-25 seems blurry, but I am not sure because of the trees in the reflection; the WACO isn't as bad, but still a toss up.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 116, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
That's what I figured, I will add some cw to the 3rd and see what happens.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2478 times:
Hi All,
I am going through some old pics from the JSOH at Andrews this past spring from when I rented a Tonika 80-400 lens that weekend. I didn't know much about lens at the time and I realized that most of the pictures that were taken that day lacked the quality I was looking for. So, I am just curious if any of these F-22 have any potential? The first two are stationary and I think with a thorough edit job they might be passable; but the third one I am not sure about. I want to say it looks soft, but I can't tell if it is because of the vapors.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 120, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
They all might be workable with better edits, though there does seem to be a bit of blur with the last. First thing I would do would be to get rid of the purple fringing.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 121, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2475 times:
Thanks Dana, I will work on them over the holidays. Could you tell me if this ET 787 pic is too dark? I did a quick edit just to get some general feedback to determine if it is worth taking the time to edit it properly.
Yes, dark; also some noticeable purple fringing so I would have added quality to the rejection as well. For info, I can see you at least got the titles wrong, and looks like you should be putting a complete date for airshows.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
Thanks Dana. I forgot to put the full date and I manually entered the title, so that is where the info input got jacked. As for the purple fringing, what is the best way to eliminate it?
Also, could you please tell me if this LH is centered properly. When I cropped it, I made sure the space on top and on bottom was equal, but it looks like it is low in the frame.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 125, posted (6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 124): for the purple fringing, what is the best way to eliminate it?
Software is the only way, short of buying a higher-quality lens. ACR is pretty good at removing purple fringing/chromatic aberration, so I would be doing it when you convert from RAW.
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 124): could you please tell me if this LH is centered properly.
It does look a touch low, just needs a little re-positioning.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2474 times:
Quote: Software is the only way, short of buying a higher-quality lens. ACR is pretty good at removing purple fringing/chromatic aberration, so I would be doing it when you convert from RAW.
I think I am just going to let those pictures sit in the folder, the lens used that weekend was a rental and I was very disappointed with the results. I ended up purchasing a Canon 100-400L and have been very pleased with it ever since.
Quote: It does look a touch low, just needs a little re-positioning.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (5 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
Hi All,
I had this LH 747-8 rejected because it was oversharpened and dark. I was a little surprised because I thought it would of been rejected for being low in the frame. I am just looking for some feedback on what areas are oversharpened, and a second opinion on the dark rejection.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 129, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2411 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 128): I had this LH 747-8 rejected because it was oversharpened and dark. I was a little surprised because I thought it would of been rejected for being low in the frame.
Like I said, centering is fine. It is a bit dark, though the sharpening is not too bad, just a few jaggies on the titles and tail.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
Thanks Dana for the feedback. I did another edit this morning, brightened it up a little bit and laid off the sharpness in some areas. Is this version any better?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 134, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Thanks Dana.
Does this picture have any potential? I thought it was interesting but think it may get rejected for quality and motive issues.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 136, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2313 times:
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 137, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2280 times:
I went out to KIAD last night to attempt to get some pictures of wilco737 at the controls of LH 747-8 but didn't have much luck with LH; but across the ramp was South African's A340 in the Olympics livery. I took a handful of pictures hoping just a few would turn out ok. I wasn't planning on uploading because I didn't think they had the quality, but I thought why not ask the experts to see if this picture has any potential. I know it is low, but I thought the tower would add a good touch to the overall scene.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
Quote: but the color and lens flare will be big issues
Are the lens flare issue removable in photoshop, or do you need an image from the start that doesn't have them?
I tried to adjust the color in the raw file to get it to A.net standards, but I will be the first to admit that I really don't know what I'm doing...I was just playing around with the different sliders and was somewhat satisfied with this edit. Would you be interested in taking a look at the raw file and see if this image is worth any more time and effort?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 141, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2233 times:
Quote: Not if you wish to avoid an upload ban.
Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't sure nor do I know how to remove them.
Quote: Sure, I can take a look, but it would just be for future reference as the lens flare is not something you can really overcome.
I will look through the raw pictures this evening and see if there are any that don't have the flares. If I run into any that are worth editing and I can't get the color down, I might seek your expertise. On a final thought, if the SA picture didn't have the flares and color was correct, would it pass the motive screening? I'm debating if it is worth the time and effort in the future to attempt again.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 143, posted (5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
I went out to Dulles last weekend to attempt another shot of the SA A340 in the special Olympics livery. I was able to get some descent shots without any lens flare. After several editing attempts, I was somewhat satisfied with the final edit and put it in the queue for screening. It passed the first screening, then was rejected for "Reject reason: Too many obstructions. motiv grainy dark personal". I was a little surprised for the motive rejection and the "too many obstructions" comment because I have seen similar pictures with ramp vehicles, etc.
Here is the picture that was rejected. With a better edit, is it passable?
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 144, posted (5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2084 times:
Well, I'd say you can correct all the issues, except the obstructions, but if it gets rejected for that, you might have a case for appeal, as I agree, I have seen pics with far more obstructions in the db.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
If the gear (nose or main) is blocked, it's a motive rejection, sorry.
Quoting DL747 (Reply 144): but if it gets rejected for that, you might have a case for appeal, as I agree, I have seen pics with far more obstructions in the db.
Please check the rules before giving such advice, blocking the gear is not allowed, so an appeal would not be successful.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 153, posted (5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
Quote: The sharpening you've had to apply to fix the soft parts is starting to show jaggies in others.
Is this edit any better? I resized it to 1100x733 and when I was sharpening it, I tried avoid the edges that were sensitive to jaggies. Could you please point out the spots that need some attention, i.e. more sharpening or less sharpening etc.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 154, posted (5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting kiadprthd (Reply 153): Could you please point out the spots that need some attention
It seems to get softer towards the top (and conversely sharper the lower in the frame), but I'd be willing to bet that the original might just be a little blurry, not soft. Softness would have been easy to correct, blurriness not.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 156, posted (5 months 15 hours ago) and read 1939 times:
I tried a new spot at KIAD today, closer to the runway but I am not sure about the results. This picture is a toss up, its something different and I am not sure if it has any potential. Dana, do you think it is worth another edit?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 158, posted (4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1900 times:
Thanks Dana, I will give it another go.
Switching gears, I went back and looked for a less obscured picture of the SA A340 at the gate found one with less ramp clutter. Do you think this take has a better chance? Also, I am not 100% sure about the white balance, does it look alright or does it need some adustment?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 159, posted (4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Still slight blockage on the nose wheel. As for color, it's not too bad given the tricky conditions; if anything it's maybe a touch yellow still, but not terribly so.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 160, posted (4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
Hi All,
I recently purchased a new Canon 17-40MM and tried something new with it. I went out to Hains Point in DC to get some nice shots of DCA at night. While I was waiting for the sun to go down to get some long exposure shots, I was experimenting with different settings etc. I was curious if this kind of shot is acceptable? It is something different, and figured I would ask Dana and the experts what they think.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 161, posted (4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
Not sure about the motive. I'll leave that to the screeners. My hunch is that it would be rejected for too much distance. But, I must say, it is a very nice shot.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 163, posted (4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
Thanks for the feedback, DL747 and Dana. I had a feeling it was a stretch, but I'm not upset over it. About 15 minutes after the picture was taken, everything came together and I was able to get some neat light trail pictures. Here is a picture of the scene before they started departing.
Switching topics, I took some pictures this weekend of the arrivals at KIAD with my new 17-40MM lens and was curious about this LH 747-8 picture. It was about an hour late, and arrived about 40 minutes before sunset. I think it might be too dark, but wasn't sure. This is the first time I have used a wide angle lens, so if the picture is soft or needs some work, please do not hold back.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 169, posted (3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
Dana,
Thanks for the all feedback help over the last 6 months, your expertise and advice has been a big help with improving my editing skills and meeting the A.Net standards.
I was looking through some old folders over the weekend and came across some shots I took this past fall when we had a full moon in the Northeast. I attempted to get some pictures of the planes departing Dulles and passing in front of the moon, but didn't have much luck. I was only able to get a few descent pictures, but I never really thought to upload them on here. This picture has just been sitting in a folder and thought I would get your opinion on it, is it worth any more time and effort?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 171, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
Quote: already looks a bit blurry, so not sure the quality would hold up
Thats what I thought, wanted to get a second opinion just to make sure.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 172, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1343 times:
Hi All,
I went out to Dulles yesterday and took some pictures of the arrivals with my new 17-40 lens. The sky was crystal clear and when I started to edit some of the pictures, I noticed the sky was a little noisy. I decided to use some noise reduction in the raw converter, something that I have never really used before. I am not sure if I used too much NR and was hoping to get some feedback. These are just three pictures from yesterday, and wanted to see if they look ok before I start working on the others.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 174, posted (3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
Thanks, Dana.
I had a question about this crop. I tried to make the fuselage in the ceter of the frame, but the left wingtip would get cut off, so I just decided with this crop. Is it ok, or will it most likely get canned for not being centered?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 176, posted (3 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1227 times:
I came across an old picture I took back in 2006 when I was flying out of Newark to Nashville. We were stuck in a long line of traffic waiting for our turn to get out of there, and as soon as we were cleared to taxi into position, I took a few pictures of all the planes behind us. I thought I deleted this picture, but found it earlier and didn't know if it was worth attempting to upload. It was taken with a point and shoot and I didn't know anything about photography back then, I was just excited to get to Nashville for our fraternity summer party! Anyways, is it worth uploading, or should I just put it back where I found it?
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 178, posted (3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1222 times:
Quote: Color is oversaturated and it's unlevel
On the first attempt I just did a quick edit and used some of the auto enhance features. I re-edited it and took some time with it. I added some CW to make the tower and some other vertical fixtures level. I also added some contrast, but I think it may be a little flat and the colors may be slightly off still. Does it look any better?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 182, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1126 times:
We had some low vis weather this past weekend here in Northern Virginia, and I decided to try something new and go out to Dulles and attempt to get the arrivals breaking out of the fog. I looked through the DB to see if there were any pictures of planes breaking out of the fog, but really couldn't find any similar pictures. With that being said, I don't think any of these pictures stand a chance, but just wanted to make sure and ask the Dana and the group. Here are a few from the afternoon arrivals.
Not quite the same, but none of these is 'classical' lighting so I'd say there is always hope. I personally prefer to see shots in bad weather than a parade of blue sky side-ons. That said, the two twins look just too dim to me, but the 747 and 340 are pretty cool. I prefer the 747 for the fog/smoke effect, but the colors on the 340 are great.
I would give at least one of these a shot, and probably try to bump the contrast a bit if possible.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 185, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1105 times:
Hey Marty, good to hear from you. I was hoping the ceilings would have rose a little bit to around 600-1000 ft so I could have got some neat vortices and wake effects shots, but they hovered right around 400 ft all day. I'm going to work on the good ones this evening and put a few in the queue. Thanks for the positive feedback; I wasn't sure if I was going to do anything with the day's outing, but after hearing you and Dana, I think I have nothing to lose.
Quote: I suppose you could try brightening one of the sharper ones (LH), but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Thanks, Dana. I will brighten the sharper ones up and spend a little more effort and see what happens.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 186, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1071 times:
I was curious about a couple recent rejections I had and wanted to get a second opinion on them. The pictures are from last month when I went out to Gravelly Point to get some long exposure shots of the planes taking off from DCA. I uploaded 3 pictures over the past few weeks and all have been canned for various reasons. I found some similiar pictures in the database and pasted them below. Are these kind of images no long accepted on here?
These are mine that were rejected which are simliar.
Rejection: Light trail rather distant, with focus more on the pier motiv dark personal
Rejection: just not enough aviation motiv distance personal
This one was rejected for having too much dead space on the left and not being level. I re-edited it and took out some dead space and added some cw and re-uploaded, and its currently waiting for screening.
I know the pictures are different than the ones already in the database, but I think they all share the same motive. Anyways, just wanted to get a second opinion and see what Dana and the head screeners think.
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 187, posted (2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1049 times:
Hi Andrew,
I would also be interested to hear what a screener thinks, but my impression is that the site is more and not less open to this type of motive than several years ago.
If you don't hear otherwise I would be inclined to appeal the first one with a note about the accepted one.
As for the third one, I think it would look pretty good with a portrait crop, which would certainly address the concern about the dead space...
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 188, posted (2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 810 times:
Hi All,
I had this UA 767 rejected for being soft. I was a little surprised to see it rejected for being soft. Anyways, just wanted to get the groups opinion and see what areas are soft.
The other picture that I was curious about was this LH747-8. The original was done for soft and darkness. I added some more USM and was curious if it is sharp enough now?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 191, posted (1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 691 times:
Hi All,
I went out to Dulles earlier this month to get some departures before the clocks switched. I haven't had much luck with any of them and decided to try another LH shot from that outing. I am curious if this shot has any potential? I sized it at 1300x but may step it down to 1200x... My concerns are it may be considerably soft still and too dark.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 196, posted (1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 476 times:
I recently visited the Fighter Factory down in VA Beach and had a question about a picture I took. My may concern with this image is the motive. I didn't realize that I chopped off the Stork's tail wheel when I took the picture, so I tried to crop it close to make it less noticeable. Will it pass the motive test, or due to the wheel missing, will it most likely be rejected?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 198, posted (3 weeks 4 days 22 minutes ago) and read 359 times:
Hi All,
I had this one rejected for being dark. I normally do not question the screener's rejection reason, but I thought I would ask for a second opinion on it. Is it worth appealing?
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 200, posted (3 weeks 3 days 2 hours 11 minutes ago) and read 341 times:
Thanks, Dana. I will take another stab at it and add some brightness.
KIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 201, posted (1 week 5 days 17 hours 50 minutes ago) and read 224 times:
Hi Dana and the screeners,
I was hoping to get some feedback on this F-18 picture. It was taken at the worst time of the day when the light was pretty harsh. I had to brightened it up quite a bit and don't know if it meets the bar. I searched the database for this bird and the only pics are when it was with VFA-87. I believe this is the first picture of VFC-12's CAG aircraft.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 202, posted (1 week 5 days 15 hours 31 minutes ago) and read 210 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Light is a bit harsh, but you may be able to get away with it. I would brighten it just a bit more, while at the same time bringing down the contrast a touch.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 203, posted (1 week 4 days 20 hours 22 minutes ago) and read 180 times:
Thanks, Dana. I will incorporate your feedback into the new edit and give it a go in the queue.
kiadprthd From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 204, posted (6 days 3 hours 6 minutes ago) and read 106 times:
Hi Dana and the screeners,
I was curious about these two pictures. I rarely upload anything above 1200x800, but thought the quality was there for 1400x. Just wanted to get your take on these two pics.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 118 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2572 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
