JKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 103 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
Hi guys,
i want to start a general thread form myself, so that I don't need to open another thread for every problem.
I had some rejections last night. Bus as I these were my first night shots, I was more or less expecting it.
I am already happy that the colours were allright!
But I do have some questions where I need your help:
Contrast: Yes, okay. Soft: Well yes, can someone tell me where it is soft?
But why does it need a CW rotation? I adjusted the levels looking at the lamp posts and it seems allright for me.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
Yes, the aircraft in the photo looks a bit blue to me, I would edit the whitebalance in the raw file. If you only have a jpeg, try editing the color balance.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
Do you really consider this as being low in frame?
I wanted to ask this question for quite a time now: for me the tail is part of the aircraft, too. So in this case it would be centered as it is. Only if you just look at the fuselage it could be considered low in frame.
Otherwise there is roughly the same space above and under the aircraft.
So should I focus the centering (crop) more on the fuselage?
Are the colours okay (I have to say that the apron light is quite orange in reality,too) ?
What about the levels?
Is the light in the BA-titles disturbing?
I saw other pictures on the site with deicing-trucks, so I guess in some cases they might be accaptable even if they block certain areas of the aircraft.
Still I am not sure on this one, although I definitely like the picture.
Worth a try? Or not.
Looking forward for your opinions on this one.
Thanks.
Generally better if the vehicle is not blocking anything important (gear, engine), but the motive may be sufficiently interesting here to make an exception. I would be ok with it, but couldn't promise everyone else would be.
JKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (4 months 2 days ago) and read 1397 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 31): Generally better if the vehicle is not blocking anything important (gear, engine), but the motive may be sufficiently interesting here to make an exception
Thanks, I thought so, too.
I will have a try. If it gets accepted fine, if not it will stay a nice shot for my personal collection.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7245 posts, RR: 32 Reply 39, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1088 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Sky is blotchy in both, and the first also seems to be suffering from some oversharpening/quality issues. Borderline motive on the second, but I suppose enough of the airport is visible to make it worthwhile.
JKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1076 times:
Hi
Well, yes sitting on another monitor makes me realise that in fact the sky is really quite blotchy on both (could've seen this myself). I will try to add some aditional noise reduction.
It is levelled according to the horizon, but I am afraid that this might be a case where there is a difference in what is really level and what feels to be level, as the horizon is hardly visible due to the night-time.
JKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (1 month 6 days ago) and read 497 times:
Hi guys,
I made this shot on the approach to BCN, light was not perfect anymore as it was close to sunset.
But given the nice background I would like to make it workable.
Did you add sharpening as well? Looks as though you did. That coupled with the increased exposure/contrast has added noise and degraded the quality a bit.
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 51): Did you add sharpening as well? Looks as though you did. That coupled with the increased exposure/contrast has added noise and degraded the quality a bit.
I started from the scratch so I did not really add sharpening, but I think the problem is that on my first edit I only sharpenend the wing, whereas on the second one I only disselected the sky and sharpened everything else, this was probably a mistake and led to the degraded quality.
I will work on it, at least I seem to be on the right track.
JKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 397 times:
Did a re-edit of both questionable shots.
Unfortunately in case of the EK I wasn't aware that it was due to screening and so it was rejected although I knew this was going to happen thanks to Dana's post.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7245 posts, RR: 32 Reply 55, posted (1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 365 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 54): Unfortunately in case of the EK I wasn't aware that it was due to screening and so it was rejected although I knew this was going to happen thanks to Dana's post.
Please try to avoid this in the future. If I find that people are ignoring advice (or simply forgetting it), I generally stop giving it, as it's a waste of time for me, the person who has to screen the image, and the people behind you in the queue who had to wait a little bit longer because you left your image in.
JKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (1 month 3 days ago) and read 353 times:
Hi Dana,
I will absolutely avoid it, like I said before it wasn't on purpose. I did not pull it off immediately as I wanted to keep the comment for the moment I do the new upload. Next time I will check the position in the queue first and / or simply save the comment somewhere else.
It was a stupid mistake, sorry for that. I do neither want to create additional work for the team nor am I keen on rejections.
I would appreciate if you could still give me some feedback on my newest edits, thanks.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 103 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7245 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}