TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

Ok Here's A 172.. N63425

Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:07 pm

I am not going to submit these unless a screener says I should.

I know that this shot is struggling big time as far as motive goes, but I'm looking for criticism on exposure softness and any other corrections (besides motive) that you think are in order

http://www.airspaceonline.com/TN87_Trip/N63425_flyby_at_tn87.jpg
http://www.airspaceonline.com/TN87_Trip/N63425_flyby_at_tn87.jpg


Ok this one is so awkward, the Camera is level but everything else is not.
http://www.airspaceonline.com/TN87_T...p/N63425_Landing_at_TN87_Large.jpg
http://www.airspaceonline.com/TN87_Trip/N63425_Landing_at_TN87_Large.jpg
This space intentionally left blank
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Ok Here's A 172.. N63425

Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:19 pm

Hey Ted,
the first one is way too dark and not centered. I'd go for a different crop, more like this one...
Big version: Width: 800 Height: 533 File size: 74kb
Ted's Cessna

Even a C-172 can look good in a tight crop.
I like the second one, but is probably a little too far, try a tighter crop if quality permits.

Ivan
 
bubbles
Crew
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

RE: Ok Here's A 172.. N63425

Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:33 pm

Hello Ted

An interesting scene. But I have to say neither of them could make it.

The first one - dark, center, quality, editing, motive.
The second one - dark, level, distance, center, quality.

_Hongyin_

[Edited 2007-03-06 04:45:35]
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Ok Here's A 172.. N63425

Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:33 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
I am not going to submit these unless a screener says I should.

 rotfl  ...when was the last time that happened??

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
I know that this shot is struggling big time as far as motive goes,

really not a great angle, and it's not even close to being centered.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
but I'm looking for criticism on exposure softness and any other corrections

Exposure. It's 'whacked'. Your camera exposed for the nose. It is short lit anyway.
Both the left and right sides are unusually dark. A few other people had that problem with their camera, but I don't remember what was wrong with them.

The distance kills the second one, and unless they are dead-stick, slow your shutter some so you get at least some motion blur on the prop. It too is underexposed.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Ok Here's A 172.. N63425

Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:14 pm

Quoting JeffM (Reply 3):
It is short lit anyway.

Thanks for the comments. What does "short lit" mean?
This space intentionally left blank
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Ok Here's A 172.. N63425

Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:15 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
What does "short lit" mean?

It means the broad side of the plane, the side we see the most of, is in shadow. Great for portraits, not so great for here most of the time.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Ok Here's A 172.. N63425

Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:17 pm

Quoting JeffM (Reply 5):
It means the broad side of the plane, the side we see the most of, is in shadow. Great for portraits, not so great for here most of the time.

Cool. Thanks.

Ted
This space intentionally left blank

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests