Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DL747 wrote:They all appear pretty noisy to me. What ISO are you using and how much exposure compensation/brightness are you adding in processing? Doesn't seem to me to be a reason daytime shots like this should be so grainy. FWIW I see a slight bit of banding near the sun in the UPS. S80 tail upon re-edit appears slightly blurry or soft. N794AN is still noisy, and blotchy in the sky. If you're using default photoshop noise reduction, I'd advise against that as it is utter crap imo. Nik is well worth the investment, again imo and ymmv. Now that I'm done with the preteen girl texting style, N732SK is almost a little too bright now, it is close to overexposed at the forward door. S80 wing view could stand a little brightness , and is the noisiest of the bunch. N939LR wing view is a little flat.
airkas1 wrote:MD80 tail: blurry, quality
794: not great, but maybe passable
732: a bit overexposed and weird colors, oversharpened. Marginal
Both newly uploaded are very noisy, blurry and quality. Honestly it looks like they were taken with a phone.
Runway28L wrote:N360UP: Still seeing banding, although that could just be rays of light?
N732SK: Noise underneath the forward part of the fuselage and a bit soft in some areas. Overall quality looks 50/50.
N939LR: OS, motive, noisy/blotchy sky.
fsx98 wrote:N939LR: With the motive rejection in mind, is this because the forward fuselage is clipped? I don't disagree with your opinion on motive but I was wondering why would this photo would be rejected for motive...
Kaphias wrote:fsx98 wrote:N939LR: With the motive rejection in mind, is this because the forward fuselage is clipped? I don't disagree with your opinion on motive but I was wondering why would this photo would be rejected for motive...
It's very awkward compositionally. The right half of the photo is empty except for the thin line of the wing, and the right has most of a fuselage, but not the nose. No real "subject".
fsx98 wrote:I have uploaded a similar shot of the N939LR tail, this time in portrait orientation:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6dfb2f1d51
Any opinions on this shot are greatly appreciated!
Kaphias wrote:fsx98 wrote:I have uploaded a similar shot of the N939LR tail, this time in portrait orientation:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6dfb2f1d51
Any opinions on this shot are greatly appreciated!
Won't make it, sorry. Can you see how the line where the top edge of the tail meets the sky appears to "ripple"? Also look at the sky, best word I can use is "splotchy". Photo looks like something I would take on my phone through a window using digital zoom.
fsx98 wrote:Kaphias wrote:fsx98 wrote:I have uploaded a similar shot of the N939LR tail, this time in portrait orientation:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6dfb2f1d51
Any opinions on this shot are greatly appreciated!
Won't make it, sorry. Can you see how the line where the top edge of the tail meets the sky appears to "ripple"? Also look at the sky, best word I can use is "splotchy". Photo looks like something I would take on my phone through a window using digital zoom.
Are you referring to as "heat haze?" It's where lines became wobbly from taking photos in extreme heat; I will also bin this shot as well, but thanks anyway!
fsx98 wrote:The N426AA cockpit was also rejected for blurry, compression, and underexposed; I have cropped out the areas that are blurry and increased the exposure slightly; photo is saved with minimal to no compression:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 15d0dd09ea
DL747 wrote:The cockpit still looks to have some blur to me. I don't think that one will work.
airkas1 wrote:fsx98 wrote:The N426AA cockpit was also rejected for blurry, compression, and underexposed; I have cropped out the areas that are blurry and increased the exposure slightly; photo is saved with minimal to no compression:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 15d0dd09ea
Unable to judge the quality on my work screen, but I'm not a fan of the crop. A cockpit like that just looks very unbalanced to me.
airkas1 wrote:Honestly I'd drop 426AA. Quality usually indicates that the quality just isn't there, even of fixable reasons are given (goes for any photo)
HarryLi wrote:N794AN : The quality of it is quiet marginal for me honestly. You can see that the sky is noisy especially those darker area and the areas under the wing.
UPS : Poor light condition and the level of it seems to need bit of CW rotation. The angle of it is not a good one and the tail and the body looks soft / blurry.
Cheers,
Harry
airkas1 wrote:Light-wise angle 1 is much better, although both photos are a bit marginal.
dutchspotter1 wrote:First of all I'm not a fan of "masking". If the photo isn't good at full-size, just throw it in the bin. Quality over quantity.
Most of these won't make it. You might have a chance with N722YX/N412YX/N739MA, although they are oversharped, so they will require some more editing.