Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
airkas1 wrote:But I agree that it's blurry and OS, I'd probably let it go to be honest.
dutchspotter1 wrote:Regarding the QR, what part do you think is blurry?
I compared it to this shot (same a/c, same location): https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... /4995965/L and this one (Paul's) looks much softer (e.g. reg, nose, NWD, etc) than Steve's.
I do agree that Steve's is oversharped. The motive would not be my preference either but it's still acceptable as it is not a 90 deg shot.
airkas1 wrote:As for the other photo, noisy and exposure are passable, but you've got some DoF issues towards the rear (as one would expect with such a photo). Not sure what the category was, but you should've received a personal message for that. If you want, I can check. Not a huge fan of the crop though.
sausten wrote:Yeah both were accpeted last night. Not sure what happened. Neither was marked for priority screening but somehow got picked up with other shots I had in the queue
Thanks all for the help getting the QR shot on. What still puzzles me is that it was knocked back for 'blurry' at 1400pxls but original was sharp and was eventually accepted at 1600pxls. How is blurriness introduced in the editing stage? The only thing I did different between the first and second versions was resize larger and apply one less pass of sharpening.
sausten wrote:Hi again,
Hoping for some advice on this one. Rejected for Soft Vignetting
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b31502b4a
Firstly, is the sky so bad? Looks to me just like the sky in other wide angle shots. There are no dark areas in the top corners either.
Secondly, what can be done for such vignetting? Not a problem I've come across too often.
airkas1 wrote:With my current camera, I've found that sometimes resizing the photo to a smaller size looks worse than at a larger size. Hence where in the past screeners would comment 'better smaller' (which still happens), I sometimes now think a larger size will be better. Not saying that's exactly what's going on, just an interpretation of mine.
airkas1 wrote:Hey Steve,
- The UPS just always looks off (not just yours, but every photo. The titles are a pain to get right). I would agree that it looks on par with many other UPS photos in the DB.
- The AA has a strong line of glare on the fuselage, which is likely the cause for the overexposed rejection. Perhaps reducing highlights will help, but otherwise not a whole lot to do about that I'm afraid. I don't find it soft or exceptionally hazed.
- The F-16 photo looks a bit cluttered, but since it wasn't rejected for that and I don't find the other issues too bad, I'll say passable.
- LAN: agree on overexposed and soft.
dutchspotter1 wrote:RAAF MRTT could use some more contrast.
sausten wrote:Right. Must say though, looks pretty normal/good to me. I've seen a lot worse accepted.
DL747 wrote:As far as the Cathay, maybe try at 1200, and hit the windows/reg with another shot of sharpening.
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos