Good feedabck shared by CW Photo re halos due to over use of shadow/highlight tool. The halos I see on this image are ones that appear then there is too much sharpening applied. If you look at the image through the equalization filter, it will magnify the condition for better visibility. The image c...Jump to post
N816NN: A bit oversharpened, but passable for me N7882B: Not the best image, but can't see a serious flaw to decline it. I'm 50/50 on it. N707TW: Blurry and some over-sharpening to compensate? JBA321: Looks a bit over-sharpened (titles) N8678 E: Same comment as N7882B N8445Z: Not the best fighting....Jump to post
N816NN: A bit oversharpened, but passable for me N7882B: Not the best image, but can't see a serious flaw to decline it. I'm 50/50 on it. N707TW: Blurry and some over-sharpening to compensate? JBA321: Looks a bit over-sharpened (titles) N8678 E: Same comment as N7882B N8445Z: Not the best fighting.....Jump to post
Yes, that was me that rejected your image, and oops, that was an "Accidental Tick" I think I meant to write a personal message and ticked the box but must not have proceeded with it. . I had meant to put a comment that it was underexposed in general, i.e. it wasn't the dark nose per se. Ch...Jump to post
Some people buy cards based on write speed and whatever else. I tend to buy cards based on cost (whatever's relatively cheap). Never really had an issue with them. Any camera is "good enough" to shoot aircraft. It depends on what you want to get out of it. If you want to upload to A.net, ...Jump to post
That link does not work for me. It takes me to my list of images awaiting screening. Typically blurry/over-sharpened means that there is evidence that sharpening has been applied to compensate for blurriness. Alternatively, there could be a section of the aircraft that is blurry (perhaps out of focu...Jump to post
Hi Andrew, Here's what I see: 1. The T'Bird: Blurry, underexposed and low contrast 2. Royal Navy Harrier: Underexposed and low contrast. 3 KC 135. Overexposed on the top and low contrast 4.C-117 Same as the KC 135 Glad the weather cleared for the show.. I was thinking of going up there myself but di...Jump to post
The centering looks acceptable to me. The Dash -8 from this angle is tricky due to the size of the tail. Much of the fuselage (bottom) is underexposed due to the angle of the light. I'm not on my screening monitor, so I cannot comment on soft/blurry characteristics.
Shooting aircraft on the ground at LAX from Imperial Hill typically results in heat haze for a number of reasons including distance (as Julien said) , tarmac temperatures that are higher than the air temperatures (regardless of time of day or season) and also from heated exhaust from other departing...Jump to post
Looks heat hazed to me. Lighting is not the best with the left side being in the shadows. Not a fan of this composition either since the background and all its clutter) is competing with the aircraft. Overall quality is marginal at best. Sorry for the harsh critique
Without seeing some examples it is not possible to comment on your reported low acceptance rate. It would help if you would share some examples of your rejected images along with the reasons. I try to be fair in screening to meet the Acceptance Guidelines for a.net. However, there are many excellent...Jump to post
The BA 777 looks HIF to me. The Summit Avro is marginally HIF, but not enough to warrant a rejection for that alone. At first glance the United 737 looks LIF, but I think it is the lines on the taxiway in the foreground that is causing it. Since this is a thread about "Level", based on the...Jump to post
Agree with the feedback from JakTrax and FSX98. Definitely motive rejections on both the images of the Flamingo Air. On the first one the horizontal stabilizer is clipped on the left side. Images are overall underexposed and flat. The Ultimate Air Dornier also looks soft.
Although I see some jaggies on the wing, I'd say they are acceptable. Some noise visible in the shadows.Contrast looks OK for me. My biggest issue is that the nose is quite dark due to the angle of lighting. Sometimes there are multiple minor issues that together warrant a rejection...perhaps this w...Jump to post
The Aeroflot A330 is blurry and soft, lacks contrast, and shows noise. The crop is also not so good. i would crop closer to the tail on the right side and closer to the engine on the left side. IMO, this I do not believe this image can be edited enough to be passable,
In you first set, they are all blurry towards the nose. There is also a purple shift in the color evidenced by the color if the UNITED title. Overall quality is marginal at best.
In the second set, the AA777 needs some additional contrast and should be fine. Same with the AA787.
The angle of light is bad with the nose and part of the belly being dark compared to the rest of the fuselage. Softness doesn't appear to be much of an issue to me. That it is a common air-frame means more stringent screening criteria. I would save this for the personal album.
I use verticals and/or distant horizontals to judge level. If none are reliable, then I see how it looks/feels. There are times I will actually view the image in an editing program and adjust level to see if it looks/feels better adjusted. There is a degree (no pun intended) of subjectivity. I also ...Jump to post
C-GKTA: Centering looks OK. However it needs a closer crop or will be rejected for "Distance". Image is also soft and blurry and has some glare by the cockpit. I would reject it in its present state.
UR-GOA: Aircraft is over-sharpened; A tad low in the frame but passable.