Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre/Post Screening - Henkita217  
User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2774 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,

Dana suggested for me to open up a new thread, which I've done so.

Just wanting your feedback here. Got the following photo rejected for soft, blurry, oversaturated colors & quality.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120920_q1347359031.5767hs-tgo_01-1200_thaiairwaysinternational_b744.jpg

I'm struggling to pick up the blurry/soft parts in the photo. Can you point this out for me? Had I noticed any blurriness initially, I wouldn't go as far as editing/submitting the photo.

Over saturation is easily fixed although I don't think the colors are too bad; not too eye popping in my monitor.

Look forward to your feedback.

Cheers,

HB

129 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1738 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Hendra,

The quality isnt great,Its affected by alot of heathaze,Very soft and slight blur around wing area/engines,Also the front of the fuselage and nosegear.
Oversaturation I wouldnt say its too bad but overall the quality isnt there.
You will start to notice over the next few months during the summer periods that trying to get decent shots will only be possible between 6-830am and after 3-4pm-Dusk,I was surprised the other day I was shooting around 8am in morning and the heathaze was quite bad.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Mark,

Thanks again for your input.
Appreciate the eagle eyed review on the heat haze around the wing, gear etc.

I planned to go spotting tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully the haze will be at a minimum. Top temp to be about 20 degrees, so crossing my fingers for the best. Might bring the ladder and take some photos around the fence. You should join me if you are free.  

Cheers,
HB


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Agree with Mark, color looks passable, but it does look a little blurry.

User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks Dana for your input as well.

OK, I got this one rejected for still soft.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120924_e1347633923.3628b-lae_01v3-1200_cathaypacificairways_a333.jpg

Mark may recall this one from the previous thread, where this image was rejected for red cast and over sharpened.
I included a personal message to the screener noting that this is the second attempt. Color does look better (thanks Mark) but to counter the over sharpened issue, I applied a lighter pass of USM.
I think the screener misunderstood the personal note.

Still soft?? Soft was not an issue in the first place, until now..

So, what do you think? Have I gone too light on the USM - therefore, could do with another pass?? Or is it worth appealing??

FYI, here is the first attempt to compare;

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120906_y1346228888.5565b-lae_01v2-1200_cathaypacificairways_a333.jpg

Thanks guys.



Hendra


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 4):
I think the screener misunderstood the personal note.

Could also have been typo on their part.

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 4):
is it worth appealing?

Don't think so, quality actually doesn't look that great. Maybe some heat haze present you are trying to compensate for?


User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1738 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2670 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Hendra,

As Dana has mentioned it seems effected but some heathaze which kills the shot straight away,Trying to get the balance right might be quite hard because of the quality not really being there,Was this shot taken same day as the Thai 747 at around a similiar time like 10-1130am?

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2668 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi guys,

Thanks for having a look.
I'll have to look back at the original later on tonight.

Mark, there is a good chance this CX photo was taken around the same time as the Thai 747. Looks like shooting CX110 (first CX flight for the day) might be the way to go.

By the way, do you use a ladder at the Tower Mound? I'm thinking of doing that next time. The elevation might help/give a different perspective. Although in saying that, the TG was shot whilst I was on top of someone's car.  

Cheers,
HB

Edit: I'm certain that I have other frames that I could possibly use and submit. I just thought submitting this photo just to be a little different from the rest of my photos. Looks like a blue sky background might be the way to go.  Smile

[Edited 2012-09-24 22:29:10]

User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 2615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,

Got this one came back with rejection reasons as: common, category & dark.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120930_m1348210990.5281vh-oeb_02-1200_qantasairways_b744.jpg

So with the encouragement all else is OK; common is just a tag on reason, which I understand also means that I need a near perfect photo.

Category will be easily fixed - was not sure if this was classified as a special livery (obviously is).

Now, the dark rejection - I realised the sun was still quite high at the time. Is this photo fixable at all? Can I counter by adding a little more brightness?

Hope the photo can get in there.

Regards,
HB


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 2609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 8):
Is this photo fixable at all?

It looks backlit, so probably not, especially given how common it is.


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,

Got this one done for soft: around the front door and over exposed.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121005_b1348611449.3703vh-yih_01-1280_virginaustralia_b738.jpg

1. Is it soft just around the front door or other areas as well??

2. Personally, I feel the exposure in general is OK. Is it out by much?

Thanks,



HB


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2572 times:

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 10):
1. Is it soft just around the front door or other areas as well??

It looks soft in general on my screen, but moreso towards the front of the aircraft.

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 10):
2. Personally, I feel the exposure in general is OK. Is it out by much?

It is a little hot, certainly too bright for this site.

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 offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks alot Darren.
Hopefully the softness is fixable. Back to the drawing board with this one.


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,

I got this photo rejected for soft & over sharpened. One of those where some parts are soft and over sharpened at the same time.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121008_o1348882812.5125n254up_01-1152_unitedparcelservice_md-11f.jpg

Can you please kindly point out, which areas are soft, so I can start over and selectively sharpened those areas.

Thanks,
HB


User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1738 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Hendra,

Image is quite oversharpened especially around the titles and the edge of the aircraft,Only soft area I can find is around the nose/first door.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Mark,

Hope you're well. Sorry for the extra late reply. Been so busy lately that I had actually forgotten I had posted the UPS for feedback. Nevertheless, I've taken your advice and will re-work it.

Just a question regarding the image below;

Is the crop acceptable? Cutting the horizontal stabiliser. I've had a couple of photos where the crop involved cutting the stab but was accepted. From my understanding, pending on the motive, angle of the photo, in some instances it may be acceptable.

How is the photo in general?

http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa354/menanaandmika/A6-EBQ_01-1200_Emirates_B77W.jpg

Thanks again.
HB


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2458 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 15):
Is the crop acceptable?

Yes. You've cropped it tightly enough that it should be ok.

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 15):
How is the photo in general?

Soft/almost blurry, and oversharpened to compensate. Doubt it would pass screening as it is.


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,

Got this one done for dust spot above tail, which I shall equalize at home, and soft.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121021_g1350028573.2277g-bnlm_01-1280_britishairways_b744.jpg

I'm not questioning the dirty rejection, but soft? Is it? I was worried it might be the other way.

Please confirm if I need to go over the sharpening once more or just fix the dust spot.

Regards,
HB


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Looks maybe a touch soft, but not a whole lot.

User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi guys,

Can I get your thoughts on this one?
Rejected for dark and soft.
Photo taken probably an hour before sunset, so the light was getting low, reaching the stage of late afternoon/evening.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121025_h1350378627.1531zk-nci_01-1200_airnewzealand_b763er.jpg

I like to question both reasoning. I don't see dark as an issue. Make it any brighter, maybe it will be then over exposed etc.
And where is it soft to warrant a rejection? If you can tell me where, maybe I can apply some more USM (selectively).

Best regards,
HB


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

'Dark' as a rejection reason often causes consternation, as the logical conclusion is the image needs to be brighter, but it is often given as a rejection when the light just isn't very favorable. I agree that making your image brighter wouldn't help, but I also agree that overall the light isn't very good, as it was coming more or less directly from the side.

For softness, it looks soft all-over to be honest. Would benefit from some sharpening and maybe a smaller size. There is also a dust spot over the left wing that was missed.


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks for explaining the dark rejection Dana. Appreciate it. I haven't had much luck with front-on shots. I had another rejected for dark.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121019_f1349851272.5257n122ua_01-1200_unitedairlines_b744.jpg

^ Dark was listed as one of the reasons for the image above. I think harsh contrast was the other - which is fair enough.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steven Austen



^ Similar shot taken by a fellow Sydney photographer (taken at different day).
With the UA shot that I had taken, if I reduce the contrast (which I don't think helped because the flaps is still active, so extreme shadows "look and feel" will always be there), can I overcome the dark rejection? Or is the light not favorable as well, on this occasion?

I'll work on it later tonight and might get your feedback to see if I can get on the right track.  

Cheers,
HB


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 21):
I had another rejected for dark.

Yeah, 'dark' was probably the wrong rejection reason - if anything, harsh contrast would have been more appropriate. As with the other one above, increasing the exposure isn't going to help much.


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ok, so I'll ignore the dark rejection then for the UA shot. That changes the whole perspective and luckily I asked you first before having a second attempt and increasing the exposure to overcome the dark rejection initially.  

Thanks a lot Dana. You've been most helpful. Appreciate your effort to help us all. Cheers!


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2322 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,

Wanting your feedback on the photo below. Was rejected for soft and common. To resolve the soft issues, I've applied a pass of USM, hopefully to fix the problem. What are your thoughts?

Rejected Image:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121103_t1351234196.8805a6-eda_01-1280-withsmallpassofusm_emirates_a388.jpg

The fix:

http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa354/menanaandmika/A6-EDA_01v2-1280_Emirates_A388.jpg

Appreciate your feedback.
I really like the photo and the tight cropping. I will do everything to ensure it makes it onto the DB.  


25 dlowwa : Better, but would be safer at a smaller size.
26 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Dana. I haven't resubmitted the EK photo yet but I might try my luck out as is. The photo was about 5000 px once cropped (I didn't have to crop
27 dlowwa : Centering is slightly high but passable for me; the whole aircraft is soft.
28 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, Got this one done for motive: poor crop on the left - main wheel cut off. http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...03v2-1200_japanairlines_b772e
29 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, Can I please get a level check for the following? So many poles, but I was told once before by Dana and Mark H, to never trust the light poles
30 dlowwa : Level looks ok, I think.
31 henkita217 : Thanks Dana. With the feeling it was OK, I went ahead to process the QF photo above and found it difficult to center the frame (aircraft too low) unle
32 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hello, Got this one done for OVER SATURATION. I'm surprised by it as I did not add any vibrance/saturation to the photo. Obviously, I had to amend the
33 dlowwa : Color looks fine.
34 henkita217 : Thanks Dana. I might appeal if you don't mind. Cheers, HB
35 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi Dana, Thanks for your input earlier. The photo has now been approved via appeal. Can I get your view on the following photos? ^ Would this photo be
36 dlowwa : Centering looks ok. Still cutting the main gear. Flat, but centering is ok. Would probably remove bird top right just to be safe.
37 henkita217 : Hi Dana, As always, appreciate your experienced feedback. Just some follow up questions; 1. With regards to the JAL photo - if I crop it tighter up to
38 dlowwa : Still wouldn't be great, but would be better than how it is now. No, it's not too bad. Color is maybe a touch cyan, but I don't see it being a major
39 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi Dana, Thanks again. I really need to learn how to use the quote function properly. I'll leave the JL for now. I'm sure I had taken many other frame
40 henkita217 : Dana, I just realised that I forgot to get rid of the bird on the top right hand corner, as you suggested. I have got rid of the bird on the revised v
41 dlowwa : Yup, until a year or two ago were using 747s, then went to 772s briefly, and are now to 763s. Hopefully with things starting to look better, they'll
42 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Good stuff. For us, the 77W is quite rare and it is normally quite noteworthy when such equipment change is implemented for Sydney. Thank you for you
43 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, After experiencing quite a pleasant experience to ensure a photo is up to the standard, I now have to experience this. I'm not happy with it,
44 dlowwa : You do realise there are six different head screeners, right? Unfortunately, we are not all going to agree 100%, all of the time. Inconsistent in this
45 henkita217 : Thanks for explaining the situation and acknowledging the inconsistency of the decision with this photo. I'm obviously disappointed since I am the one
46 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, I've got the following G-VEIL photos for you to review and provide feedback in relation to if it's ready for the queue; 1. Tail shot of G-VEIL
47 DL747 : The heat haze is apparent on #2, but I am not sure if it is bad enough to warrant a rejection, that's Dana's department. Personally I'd go with 3B, it
48 dlowwa : Still a bit soft. 1024 would be your best bet. Seems ok. Crop should be ok, but haze is noticeable here. A bit better for quality.
49 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks a lot Dana and DL747. Just one that was missed from earlier post. Would this EY be alright as is? I am concerned for haze. Should the aircraft
50 dlowwa : There's a bit of haze, but not terrible. Would be safer at a smaller size.
51 henkita217 : Thanks again mate. I'll try submitting @ 1024. Cheers, HB
52 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi Dana, Got this one rejected for dirty, with a personal note noting a dust spot below the tail in the sky. I took a closer look and equalize the pho
53 dlowwa : If you can see it, then no.
54 Post contains images henkita217 : No problems. Cheers, HB
55 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi, Can I get a general check up for the following photos I took earlier this year. I went back, hoping with more experience, I could salvage them som
56 dlowwa : Not too bad, but the poor light gives them a dark look. You'll need to be careful with the exposure & contrast, and sharpening on the first which
57 henkita217 : Thanks Dana. You are right that the light was receding at the time the shots was taken, hence the dark feel/look. You advised to be careful with the e
58 dlowwa : I don't see level or sharpness being an issue (except for the first). Increasing the exposure generally makes the contrast seem harsher, so that's wha
59 henkita217 : That's an interesting point Dana. So, to "brighten" up a photo, would it be better to increase the actual brightness rather than exposure? Maybe even
60 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi, Can I get a general check for the following photos taken in Indonesia? Due to the atmospheric differences when comparing Jakarta to Sydney, I'm th
61 henkita217 : Dana, I want to focus on the 2nd NZ (not the soft one) and the QF B738 - based on your inputs, should I brighten the image slightly more, or do you t
62 dlowwa : Not sure how to differentiate those two terms, they would be the same to me. Interior or exterior shot? First a bit noisy, and both somewhat heat-haz
63 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Dear all, Firstly, happy Christmas to you all. Hope y'all been good so Santa have got you many goodies. Now, to the content. Got these 2 rejections th
64 dlowwa : The sky was a bit noisy/blotchy to begin with, and the second is a bit worse for whatever reason. Yes, I think only a minor adjustment is needed.
65 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks a lot Dana. The backward result on the Korean Air concerns me. I'll do a fresh edit for the time being but yeah, not sure what happened there.
66 DL747 : Well, in my opinion, probably yes, given that there really isn't anything special that requires that crop. Also looks very heat-hazed arond the lower
67 dlowwa : Yes, but the level and quality would be bigger worries.
68 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks all for the SQ feedback. I made another attempt on the KE photo. Your (Dana) feedback that the original was quite noisy to begin with, got me w
69 dlowwa : Should be passable.
70 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Dana. Can I get a level check for the following please? With so many buildings, poles etc, I'm unsure if I've levelled it correctly. Does the p
71 dlowwa : Looks somewhat balanced, but better to post the final edit to be sure. Looks a bit red. Can't say for certain without seeing a final edit.
72 Post contains links and images henkita217 : That's encouraging Dana. Below is the final edit. I added a bit more cyan to the photo, to counter the red cast. Hope the level, crop and centering ar
73 aussie18 : Hi Hendra, To me the "com" titles and front around nose look abit soft,Also too high in frame for me. Also seems to have a yellowish cast aswell,Abit
74 dlowwa : Agree with Mark a little too high and soft, though I think the color would probably be passable.
75 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Evening Mark & Dana, Many thanks for your feedback. Appreciate it very much. Re: off centered framing/positioning, I thought I explained above why
76 henkita217 : Mark, you are correct that the old track is no longer there or is now gated. It is a fair walk around the dog park. Not straight forward either as yo
77 dlowwa : That is what we are trying to say. I don't think there's that much of a difference; it's already mostly obscured by the trees anyway, isn't it?
78 aussie18 : Thanks Hendra,I may give it a miss as not too keen on bush walk during the summer months as not sure what Ill stumble upon in there,Still a nice loca
79 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Mark, I realised (after the short session) that I had many cuts in my legs.. Perhaps it might be better for something like winter, to make it more wo
80 dlowwa : Maybe just a touch high, but not by much.
81 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks a lot Dana. Question: Does a photo with the sun disappearing at the moment of the shutter release, will be an instant no-no? Does it have any c
82 angad84 : The QF A332 is a great shot. I don't know if it would make it past screening because the background is pretty blown, but it looks fantastic to me. Lov
83 dlowwa : Pretty marginal contrast on the QF. Not sure you can fix it. The biplane is soft.
84 aussie18 : Hi Hendra, Agree with Dana,the contrast on A332 isnt great and also has a strong cyan cast. The 2nd shot is very soft and blurry in parts,Probably bes
85 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, Got this photo done for heat haze & soft. I didn't have full confidence with this photo but did not think it would be rejected for heat ha
86 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, After general feedback on the following 2 photos; ^ The SQ photo is a follow up frame to the above rejected. As you can see, the sun came and
87 dlowwa : Not terrible, but yes some softness from the haze. First ok, second a bit dark.
88 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi Dana, The Jetstar photo you, me and Mark had worked on, came back today with a soft rejection. Mark was being quite specific in pinpointing the sof
89 aussie18 : Hi Hendra, I didnt screen it but it does still seem soft around the front especially the ".Com" titles and front part of the nose so it does seem a ju
90 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks for providing me with a detailed response Mark. Ironically, I was testing out different metering mode. Normally, evaluative metering works well
91 aussie18 : Hi Hendra, This one looks better,Slight softness on the "Baron" titles and whites on the rear part of the tail look abit bright/soft but other than th
92 dlowwa : Should be ok.
93 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Mark and Dana, for the feedback on the Pitts Special. I've got the following rejected for slight red cast & soft. Would the following fix b
94 dlowwa : Looks better.
95 henkita217 : Thanks Dana - I'll retry once more. On a side note, did you have any further feedback re: QF B744 I inquired via email? Did you want me to post here i
96 dlowwa : Noise looks passable, but it is still quite dark. Overall light is poor, so not sure if you can fix it.
97 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Dana for the feedback on the QF. Since the noise level was still within the limits and the fix was still quite dark, I boosted up the lighting
98 dlowwa : That's pushing the centering quite a bit...I'd have to say unsure, and other opinions needed. Crop looks ok, though I'd double check the level.
99 henkita217 : Hi Dana, Thanks for the assessment. I might try the DJ as is, assuming all else is ok with the photo? With regards to the VA photo, I remember having
100 dlowwa : A bit soft, but no other major flaws, centering aside. Background verticals. Feels like it might need a little more cw.
101 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, Got the following photo done for high in frame, which was fair enough. It was shot on a rocky platform and windy as hell, so unfortunately, I
102 dlowwa : Centering looks passable.
103 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Dana. I should have asked for a general feedback as well on the SQ, so I might wait for your assessment before submission. Got the following ph
104 dlowwa : Same side, same day, same mode of flight (i.e. on the ground vs. in the air) generally equals double.
105 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Dana for confirming the Double rejection. For whatever reason, the guide's actual description did not hit me as how you put it. Anyway, lesson
106 aussie18 : Hi Hendra, Image seems High in frame,Also parts of the sky are blotchy and its a alittle too bright. Cheers Mark
107 henkita217 : Thanks Mark. It does have that feeling to it and was afraid it might be the case. Had the fuselage and engines be a little lower, would the centering
108 aussie18 : Hendra,The crop itself would be acceptable but too high in frame. Cheers Mark
109 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi guys. Just wanted to check on a rejection overnight... Photo got done for yellow cast/colors. Photo taken about an hour before sunset, regardless,
110 dlowwa : Don't see much difference. Color is not too bad, but it also looks flat, and is suffering from poor light overall.
111 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Dana. Might save the SQ Cargo for next time. With regards to reply 97 re: Virgin Australia nose shot that needed more cw rotation, how is this
112 dlowwa : I'd give it a little more cw, but otherwise should be ok. Yes.
113 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks a lot Dana. I gave it a try as is. A question about this one: ^ Would the "loss of detail" due to the sun glare, be an instant no-no? Regards,
114 dlowwa : Yes, glare is pretty distracting.
115 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks Dana, as suspected but good to know as well. Can I get a general feedback on the following? Is the crop also acceptable? Thanks, HB
116 dlowwa : Looks pretty awkward to me. Also has some compression or noise issues.
117 henkita217 : Thanks Dana. The crop is awkward because it is not tight enough, top to bottom, right? I wasn't sure it would pass with the cropping either, but you'v
118 dlowwa : Poor angle for a tight crop.
119 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Hi all, Shooting against blue sky is actually more challenging than I thought. Mainly because of the noise or grain in the sky that gets me most, so I
120 aussie18 : Hendra, I agree the sky is quite blotchy,seems like too much NR applied to it. I use neatimage for when I apply NR and one thing I may suggest to you
121 henkita217 : Hi Mark, Appreciate your response greatly. Firstly, my apologies. I do use Neat Image as well, not Noise Ninja. Not sure where I got that name from. P
122 Tomskii : Are you shooting your pictures in RAW format? If yes I use the NR (luminance) in the RAW edittor in Photoshop.
123 henkita217 : Tomskii, Yes I do. I actually have a value in the Noise Reduction setting of ACR. I can't think of the actual value right now but I'll share it with y
124 Post contains links and images Tomskii : Hi again Hendra, This is the part I meant: I usually set a lower value for well lit pictures but too much cant do anything wrong apart from getting sm
125 aussie18 : Hi Hendra, Noise ninja is another program you can use,Free or payware version of it. It does soften the image alittle bit and make the file a smaller
126 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Thanks for all your help so far Mark & Tom. Here is the fresh edit. The only "noise reduction" used was through ACR. My settings are as follows; L
127 aussie18 : Hi Hendra, TG still has some blotchiness in top corners of sky,not as noticable as rejected one. SQ has some very noticable blotchy corners in top par
128 Post contains images henkita217 : Hi Mark, Was about to head to bed until I saw your reply.. TG given the very light application of NR on the TG, does the photo need any NR in the firs
129 Post contains links and images henkita217 : Here is version 3 - completely NR free. Now let's just hope that I won't need to apply any NR because then, I'll be going around in circles - not sure
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pre/Post Screening - Henkita217
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