chriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1130 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, 9019 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
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 (1 year 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1010 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.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 910 times:
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 these days (and occasionally Tv), which accounts for lighting changes a little better than full manual.
I still love manual but only tend to use it for static subjects these days - I've ruined far too many opportunities in the past by avoiding the semi-automatic modes.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 860 times:
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 aircraft to be super-vibrant. I'd try an appeal and failing that, just add a touch of saturation (and maybe a pinch more contrast).
chriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 857 times:
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 how i add saturation and contrast and what im exactly looking for. sorry
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 50, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 619 times:
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-distant past. Whether the 'rule' ever really existed as a site preference I can't say with any certainty but images following it always look/looked unattractive to me. Offending aircraft include particularly the 318, 319, 380, 73G, 736 and 74L. With such aircraft I always place the fuselage much lower in the frame than I otherwise would, to make sure that the image looks balanced.
Nothing more unattractive in my mind than an image where the tail is practically off the top frame-edge whilst the wheels sit atop a mass of dead space (usually grass or sky).
chriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 605 times:
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 cause a problem and also when im trying to fit the whole aircraft in (including both wingtips) from an unusual angle. Here is one i was a bit unsure on whether it is central enough or not because of the angle i have taken it from, does this look ok?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 52, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 594 times:
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 preferences and not the site's.
Recently I've noticed a slight shift in centring patterns here (for the better) but the old peference for high in frame is still evident, so some screeners obviously still like their aircraft that way. Since centring has never been an exact art this widening of margins is sensible - although I do cringe every time I see an A380 photo in which the tail is sinfully close to the top edge of the frame!
In the days of 35mm film and slide the preference was completely the opposite, with the aircraft sitting very low, underneath an unbalanced mass of normally blue sky (processing was so expensive you really couldn't afford to experiment in crap light/weather unless you were a pro!).
Whichever way you do it, take the rule by which one should centre the window-line with a big pinch of salt. This rule sometimes (emphasis on SOMETIMES) works for lanky planes like the CR9 and CRK, but not for 318s!
SA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3135 posts, RR: 26 Reply 54, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 529 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
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 purposes only.
Should any of the parties involved in this matter, wish to pursue this issue any further, kindly make use of the official airliners.net email system. The screeners may be contacted at email@example.com.
[Edited 2012-12-29 13:36:10]
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud