chriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1018 times:
Ok so im having a bit of trouble getting my sharpening right so i thought id post a few in here till i about get it right. ive had a few rejections for over-sharpening. The first 2 were sharpened how i normally sharpen them but ive uploaded them already so might aswell leave them in! the second 2 pics have been sharpened less than i normally do. what do we reckon?
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8193 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1010 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
First one looks mostly fine to me; the nose might be a bit soft.
Second one looks oversharpened in parts, especially on the cheatlines (I never sharpen cheatlines as much as other areas, because they tend to become oversharpened very quickly).
Having trouble telling about the third; looks slightly soft in spots, but maybe slightly oversharpened in others. Or maybe it's just right.
Fourth one looks to me like it might be slightly blurry.
In all, I'd say you might have to consider that not all areas on the aircraft will need the same amount of sharpening. I have a pretty standard set of areas where I erase some of the sharpening, like cheatlines, wings/flaps, cockpit windows sometimes...
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
chriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 898 times:
I decided to give the tail shot a miss as i really didnt like it myself anyway. These will be my next 2 uploads. im worried a little about the lighting on the Ryanair? and the Qatar is the first pic ive tried in that style.
Also a quick question. If i have a picture of an aircraft i wish to upload which was taken on the same day as someone else (i.e same aircraft reg and same day and already uploaded by them) is there any point me uploading it or will it be rejected for common?
Quoting chriswade (Reply 16): If i have a picture of an aircraft i wish to upload which was taken on the same day as someone else (i.e same aircraft reg and same day and already uploaded by them) is there any point me uploading it or will it be rejected for common?
It will not be rejected for common for that reason.
chriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 789 times:
i was a bit worried about the shiny front, also had it set too alfocus rather than alservo as was shooting stills before. Thanks karl, fingers crossed.
25 JakTrax: Chris, The 'shiny front' is nothing more than the sun reflecting off the nose, which is perfectly acceptable. Don't worry about that. AI servo and AI
26 chriswade: nah seems fine , had some lovely side on shots but were blurred this was best of the bunch.
27 JakTrax: Were you using manual mode? I used to use manual all the time but it can really catch you out with the changeable UK weather! I tend to stick to Av th
28 chriswade: ive switched to using Av now. i ruined a fair few from that day in manchester with you because of manual mode.
29 JakTrax: Yeah, manual is great but you can't control the weather unfortunately. Luckily digital cameras are far more forgiving in the semi-automatic modes than
30 chriswade: I wish karl but looking after the child tomorrow
31 chriswade: Had this one rejected for Flat, needs a little more saturation, colour. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...h1354635313.5424qatar-manch-cw.jpg What
32 JakTrax: Chris, I can see what caused this rejection but it's a little harsh I think. The light's hitting the nose so I wouldn't expect the rest of the aircraf
33 chriswade: Thanks karl. Being the noob i am to this editing business (although i have learnt so much in the past few months ive been doing it) explain in general
34 JakTrax: Chris, appeal it first, see how you go on. If you get no joy I'll be happy to explain. Karl
35 chriswade: Have appealed anyway. Will let ya know. cheers karl.
36 chriswade: I appealed and still rejected. Comment was...Photo ok but colour a little washed out. ahh well you win some, you lose some
37 DL747: Yes, looks a bit washed out, and probably not the best light, but a very nice photo regardless. Does look flat to me, but not by a ton.
38 henkita217: It just needs a bit more contrast, no? Should be fixable. ^ Why is the light not good? It illuminated the whole aircraft. I'd be happy with that light
39 DL747: Well, it is very head on it seems, and that may be why it looks washed out.
40 chriswade: Thanks for the input guys, ill give it a try
41 chriswade: Im struggling to decide which one of these 2 too add if anyone wishes to help me out? This one: although does the BA world cargo logo look a little ov
43 chriswade: Thank you will upload the second as i prefer it.
44 chriswade: Cant decide on which one of these too upload? mainly due to the crops. Will this be rejected for motive as only 2 visible engines? http://www.flickr.c
45 dlowwa: No. Better to include the whole engine; this crop is a bit unattractive. Crop is fine.
46 chriswade: ok thank you i will go with the safe one as the cropped front one is where the picture ends anyway. Thanks dlowwa as always
47 chriswade: Just had this rejected for high in frame? personally i think with the angle that it is about right. the nose and fuselage is below the centreline. wha
49 chriswade: Was dreading you saying that :P. ok thank you will move down.
50 JakTrax: Chris, aircraft with high tails still tend to fall foul of a 'rule' which seems to have been instilled into the community by A.net in the not-too-dist
51 chriswade: Thanks karl, yeh im having a bit of trouble getting my pictures centered, well at least to look central enough. As you say the high tails on some caus
52 JakTrax: Chris, That one looks good to me. I'd personally have pulled it a fraction further down in the frame but when I say that I'm talking about my own pref
53 chriswade: Thanks for that karl. Im afraid i dont remember them days being a young un (not quite) . happy new year to you too dude and need to meet up again soon
54 SA7700: This thread has run its course and will be locked for further comments. Any posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping purpose
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8193 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7227 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
