If they have quality issues, that is probably because I am resizing wrong. I would appreciate tips on that (I have a thread in the regular photog forum.) Thanks again!
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1259 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Both are dark and soft, and show jpeg compression. The softness and compression are perhaps fixable, but they are obviously backlit, which is not fixable. You will find it very difficult to get backlit shots accepted unless there is a motive for having the sun on the wrong side, and there is no such motive here.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1257 times:
Well, thanks for the feedback. They aren't actually backlit, the sun was at my 4 oclock. Pehaps it was how I brightened them? Also, is the compression just from flickr?
[Edited 2012-11-29 16:22:10]
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1244 times:
Okay, thanks. Now that i think of it, the sun was more head on with the plane. I will be at LAX again in three weeks shooting from the same spot, from around 1230pm to 3pm. Do you think I can get some non-backlit images?
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1243 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting DL747 (Reply 5): I will be at LAX again in three weeks shooting from the same spot, from around 1230pm to 3pm. Do you think I can get some non-backlit images?
Given I don't know where exactly you where, nor when you took the images above, how could I even speculate?
Use this tool to help plan your spotting a little better:
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1234 times:
Thanks Dana, very handy tool! Your assistance is very helpful. FYI, I am at the In and Out, which I am sure you have heard of, very famous place. Sorry if am I am trying too much too fast, but I'd like your opinion on one more. Thank you! http://www.flickr.com/photos/9063121...8231727914/sizes/l/in/photostream/
[Edited 2012-11-29 19:28:31]
I am aware of the compression, it is from Flickr.
[Edited 2012-11-29 19:29:14]
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 9, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1220 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting DL747 (Reply 8): I'd like your opinion on one more.
It has a blue tint, and seems somewhat soft, but it's hard to tell with the compression. Imageshack is also free and won't compress your images as much.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1198 times:
Dana, could you have a look again, it is the same image, only on imageshack. I just want to make sure flickr isn't messing up the pic before I make the changes you suggested. Thanks so much. http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5264/dsc2578copy.jpg
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1171 times:
Well I have the original, so I will start fresh with that tomorrow with all the changes you suggested. That will probably improve quality, as the original is pretty good, although through glass.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
Okay, Dana, here is a complete rework of the original with all changes incorporated, for some reason, it looks to have worse quality and be more compressed on the website, on my screen, it looks fine in my editor. http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5264/dsc2578copy.jpg
Is this any good?
Also, how is this nose shot at SEA? It will be resized down to 1100 px high, I just wanted to see how it looks now. http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6424/dsc5009copy.jpg
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 21, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1147 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting DL747 (Reply 20): Okay, here are re-edits of both
First is flat, a bit overexposed, and blue; second is soft, flat, and yellow.
Quoting DL747 (Reply 20): I know the 319 looks soft around the nose, but it isn't really soft at all in my editor, perhaps that is the upload process at imageshack?
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
25 dlowwa: All are soft. I don't think you're getting my point about backlighting. If you were, you'd realize images like the second and third have no chance. B
26 DL747: I do understand backlighting, I just wasn't aware there was a rule forbidding backlit images. I guess I'll try again for #1 and #4. So, 1 is soft and
27 dlowwa: It's isn't forbidden, but you need a good reason to make it work. Your images have no reason for being backlit. Yes. Check your white balance setting
28 DL747: So, backlighting obviously has the sky behind the aircraft brighter, but why is that bad if the aircraft is still properly exposed. By the way, here i
29 dlowwa: Still a bit soft, flat, and overexposed. Starting to show some noise as well. Aim for something like the left side here:
30 DL747: Okay here is the L-39. http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/7686/dsc5932copy.jpg And the 320 fresh image. The nose looked a lot sharper on this one upon
31 dlowwa: Soft, yellow, and flat. Also soft, yellow, and flat. No, compression is not an issue. Why do you seem to keep thinking it is?
32 DL747: Well, they just looked a bit grainy to me. Here are re-edits. L39: http://imageshack.us/f/23/dsc5932copy.jpg/ 320: http://imageshack.us/f/39/dsc5240co
33 dlowwa: Sharpness better, but both still flat and yellow.
34 DL747: Okay, here they are, fixed. 320: http://imageshack.us/f/689/dsc5240copy.jpg/ L39: http://imageshack.us/f/687/dsc5932copy.jpg/
35 dlowwa: Bit better. Are you starting from scratch each time, or just tweaking the same files? If the latter, that would explain why each progressive edit is
36 DL747: Funny you ask, with every other one, it has been from scratch, these two are tweaks, though. Are they passable?
38 DL747: Ok, thanks Dana, here are re-edits from the original, with all changes incorporated. L39: http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/3923/dsc5932copy0.jpg 320
39 dlowwa: Still yellow and a bit flat. Also yellow.
40 DL747: Okay, will fix those up. I fogot to add blue to both the 320's, my bad! I did on the L39, but will add a bit more. Also boosted contrast on the two ol
41 dlowwa: Why not just adjust the white balance? A lot simpler and you won't have to go through so many iterations to find the right color. If you don't have t
42 DL747: Yes, I could do that, but these are jpegs. I only leraned to shoot RAW a few months ago, after these were taken. Are they acceptable now, or do they s
44 DL747: Sorry, guys I just don't have any eye at all for color cast. Is that the only thing needing work?
45 dlowwa: Contrast/lighting is not great either. Probably best to give up on these and concentrate on getting it right next time.
46 DL747: Well, given the fact it's Seattle, and the weather is probably going to suck until next April, do you think I could drop the Vrigin, as I think it has
47 dlowwa: You've heard my opinion, but they're your images so you can do whatever you wish with them.
48 DL747: Well, whatever, then I guess I will dump those and try again from LAX, hopefully with better light. I thought I might try a few ones from different da
49 dlowwa: The background will not be a factor. The level and softness, almost blurriness of the aircraft will, however. Won't comment unless it's upload size.
50 DL747: Alright, I will re-work the WN at a later time. For now, how are these: http://imageshack.us/f/841/dsc6308copy.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/f/145/dsc8682
51 dlowwa: First has very marginal light with the sky almost blown out, and the second is soft/heat hazed (also overexposed, but that's a moot point with the he
52 DL747: Okay, do you think the Skymaster is worth fixing, as it isn't yet in the database, that I can find? Here is a re-work of the Netjets, sorry, but I do
53 dlowwa: Blurry. Yes flat, soft, and noisy. Still a bit bright/flat/soft. Soft/heat haze problems. Soft. In the future, it would be nice if you could provide
54 DL747: Not quite sure how to paste the image in there, so could you please help out? I am a bit concerned about the motive and the general sharpness/quality.
55 dlowwa: What is concerning you about the motive? Generally looks ok.
56 DL747: I just wasn't sure if the angle had too much belly in it. Okay, any other issues with it, or is it good for the queue now? Thank you sir. Also, a qui
57 dlowwa: Not a very attractive angle imho, but nothing technically wrong with it. A bit soft/overexposed.
58 DL747: Okay, TN is in the queue. Here is the NetJets once again. Thanks for looking. http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1468/dsc8689copy1.jpg
60 DL747: Okay, here is the re-done Netjets, along with one more. http://imageshack.us/f/526/dsc8689copy2.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/f/526/dsc8689copy2.jpg/ With
61 DL747: I cannot edit the last post and realized I accidently posted the smae image. Here is the correct "along with one more." http://imageshack.us/f/856/dsc
63 dlowwa: First is better, second is backlit & very noisy. ?? Not sure what you're talking about, you don't need to pay to post full-sized links.
64 DL747: Alright, do you think the Hainan is worth fixing? It is backlit for a reason, that being to show the rainbow vapor. I can certainly remove some noise,
65 dlowwa: Contrast is pretty harsh, vapor or not. Up to you if you want to try. No idea. It's pretty simple, just put [ I M G ] image.link [ / I M G ] (without
66 DL747: Well, I'll give the Hainan a shot. Here is the re-edit at a smaller size. I think it is flat and perhaps a bit bright. Uploaded with ImageShack.us[Edi
67 dlowwa: Very low contrast and noisy. No chance as it is I'm afraid.
68 DL747: Boosted the contrast some, still think noise may be an issue, and I'm not usre how to correct that. The RAW doesn't look as noisy as the jpg copy. Upl
69 dlowwa: I do not think this image is fixable to a.net standards, sorry.
70 DL747: Well, that's alright, thanks for your help. Anyway, if you don't mind, what is wrong with it?
72 DL747: Oh, okay, thanks, I just didn't know if there were any additional issues with this edit. I'll try again soon after I head down to LAX.
73 DL747: Well, apparently there is, as it was rejected for grainy, compression and dark. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0266.0669airtihuitnui343atlax1
74 dlowwa: You asked about the angle, and that was what I was referring to - there was nothing technically wrong with the angle. The quality, well, that's anoth
75 DL747: Alright, I will forget that one too. I just returned from the trip, and unfortunately had crap for weather. I did reel off quite a few useable shots,
76 dlowwa: Looks a bit blurry, which is common when shooting so close to a fast moving subject (different parts of the aircraft will appear to move at different
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 75 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}