Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R Ferreira - Editing Advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RFS1393
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Not technically backlit, but probably a little too much shadow/dark.
    Ok, thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RFS1393 View Post
    Hello, I'm wondering if this would be consider backlit. The sun was very high and facing the aircraft. There's light on the tail, but I don't know if it's enough. Thanks Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1759 N335QT.jpg
Views:	11
Size:	543.5 KB
ID:	1120294
    Not technically backlit, but probably a little too much shadow/dark.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    Hello, I'm wondering if this would be consider backlit. The sun was very high and facing the aircraft. There's light on the tail, but I don't know if it's enough. Thanks Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1759 N335QT.jpg
Views:	11
Size:	543.5 KB
ID:	1120294

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RFS1393 View Post
    Hello, I would like some prescreening advice. Thanks
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0245 LX-KCL.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	802.4 KB
ID:	1118898
    Borderline dark/contrast and soft.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    Hello, I would like some prescreening advice. Thanks
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0245 LX-KCL.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	802.4 KB
ID:	1118898

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Soft/blurry and backlit. Not fixable.
    ok, thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RFS1393 View Post
    Hi, I would like some prescreening advice. Thanks.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8976 PT-MUH.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	1.34 MB
ID:	1118657
    Soft/blurry and backlit. Not fixable.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    Hi, I would like some prescreening advice. Thanks.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8976 PT-MUH.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	1.34 MB
ID:	1118657

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    This is neither a close-up, nor a wide angle view. Kind of awkward.
    Ok, thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RFS1393 View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9237922
    Hello, I got the rejection above. What's cut off, the right main landing gear? What should I do to make this photo acceptable? Thanks
    This is neither a close-up, nor a wide angle view. Kind of awkward.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9237922
    Hello, I got the rejection above. What's cut off, the right main landing gear? What should I do to make this photo acceptable? Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Subjective decision. The TAP 330 is a bit far to make the framing completely justifiable.
    Got it, thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RFS1393 View Post
    Hi, this composition would be acceptable? Thanks
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9453 PT-MSV.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	726.2 KB
ID:	1118199
    Subjective decision. The TAP 330 is a bit far to make the framing completely justifiable.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFS1393
    replied
    Hi, this composition would be acceptable? Thanks
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9453 PT-MSV.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	726.2 KB
ID:	1118199

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RFS1393 View Post

    Just checked that CS-TOP also has it, so it isn't special scheme, is that it?
    So it would seem.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X