Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre-screening Advice for LewisW295 Please

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post

    Okiedokie, had a feeling the contrasts wouldn't be. Kind of renders the next bit moot but for clarification....

    I thought the limit was 50% of the gear? 1, okay that may be down to the NG being at the very limit but 4 still has the center point quite clearly above the grass dip so that's why I'm querying the gear limit.
    50% is just a guideline, and usually applies when it seems there was no way to avoid it. If a better angle or timing would have reduced the blockage, then it wouldn't really apply.

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Probably not.



    Gear is blocked.
    Okiedokie, had a feeling the contrasts wouldn't be. Kind of renders the next bit moot but for clarification....

    I thought the limit was 50% of the gear? 1, okay that may be down to the NG being at the very limit but 4 still has the center point quite clearly above the grass dip so that's why I'm querying the gear limit.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post

    Fixable on any of the contrasts?
    Probably not.

    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post
    Also, why are 1 and 4 obstruction rejections?
    Gear is blocked.

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    1. contrast, obstruction
    2. contrast, soft, obstruction
    3. borderline contrast, ok for me
    4. contrast, obstruction
    5. contrast, borderline backlit
    Fixable on any of the contrasts? 5 obviously not. Also, why are 1 and 4 obstruction rejections? The 777 I understand, but 50% of the nose gear is visible on both?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post
    Oof. A good trip to the fence today. 4 new shots and a resized image for SONE. I am correct in saying that I can upload 1280 x 720? First initial edits done. One is a bit "stylistic" as I was bored whilst waiting for the A321 to arrive. If it's FUBAR then I'll leave it be. All of these are from RAW files and seem, to me, to be much sharper.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0980.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	448.6 KB
ID:	1102887Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0969.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	456.1 KB
ID:	1102888Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0907.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	547.9 KB
ID:	1102889Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0962.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	556.7 KB
ID:	1102890Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0957.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	751.1 KB
ID:	1102891
    1. contrast, obstruction
    2. contrast, soft, obstruction
    3. borderline contrast, ok for me
    4. contrast, obstruction
    5. contrast, borderline backlit

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Oof. A good trip to the fence today. 4 new shots and a resized image for SONE. I am correct in saying that I can upload 1280 x 720? First initial edits done. One is a bit "stylistic" as I was bored whilst waiting for the A321 to arrive. If it's FUBAR then I'll leave it be. All of these are from RAW files and seem, to me, to be much sharper.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0980.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	448.6 KB
ID:	1102887Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0969.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	456.1 KB
ID:	1102888Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0907.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	547.9 KB
ID:	1102889Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0962.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	556.7 KB
ID:	1102890Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0957.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	751.1 KB
ID:	1102891

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Whenever you adjust one thing, all others tend to be affected.



    Depends on your camera settings.



    1. low in frame
    2. harsh contrast
    1. Well that image is a write off then. Aircraft was a bit low in the original.
    2. Okay, I'll soften it up this evening.

    In regards to museum pieces, if they aren't in the system but not flying, they aren't really hot are they? I'll be down at a museum tomorrow where I know there's at least 2 airframes not in the DB.

    Also, aircraft being used as spares sources for another.... Do these count as wrecks?
    ​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post
    For 2, lack of contrast from changing the the color back? I'll reupload
    Whenever you adjust one thing, all others tend to be affected.

    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post
    In the meanwhile, I've been tampering with RAW files again.... Is it normal to find the exports of RAW files to be sharper than JPEGs from the camera?
    Depends on your camera settings.

    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0907.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	592.9 KB
ID:	1102836Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0132.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	882.4 KB
ID:	1102837
    1. low in frame
    2. harsh contrast

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    1. contrast looks ok, but brightening it a bit has made some areas appear a bit softer (this often happens).
    2. borderline contrast
    3. quality ok for me
    Okay. I'll resharpen the Lynx tomorrow. For 2, lack of contrast from changing the the color back? I'll reupload 3 when I've cleared out some more images...

    In the meanwhile, I've been tampering with RAW files again.... Is it normal to find the exports of RAW files to be sharper than JPEGs from the camera?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0907.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	592.9 KB
ID:	1102836Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0132.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	882.4 KB
ID:	1102837

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post

    A few things done tonight. I've played with the contrast on the Lynx by reducing overall contrast and lightening the shadows slightly. The vignetted Citation had a color discrepancy which I've now adjusted (aside from color, nothing has changed in my eye but I just want to make sure I haven't bodged the colors up).

    Now, I also had this rejection: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8578979

    I have now resharpened the image, could I get feedback on the new edit or is that not allowed on rejections?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0919.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	486.9 KB
ID:	1102779Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0891.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	548.9 KB
ID:	1102781Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0712.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	589.6 KB
ID:	1102780
    1. contrast looks ok, but brightening it a bit has made some areas appear a bit softer (this often happens).
    2. borderline contrast
    3. quality ok for me

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Exposure is ok, but I see someone could possibly confuse the harsh contrast/shadows with underexposure.
    A few things done tonight. I've played with the contrast on the Lynx by reducing overall contrast and lightening the shadows slightly. The vignetted Citation had a color discrepancy which I've now adjusted (aside from color, nothing has changed in my eye but I just want to make sure I haven't bodged the colors up).

    Now, I also had this rejection: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8578979

    I have now resharpened the image, could I get feedback on the new edit or is that not allowed on rejections?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0919.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	486.9 KB
ID:	1102779Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0891.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	548.9 KB
ID:	1102781Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0712.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	589.6 KB
ID:	1102780

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post
    4. A slight pull back on the shadows maybe or is the issue more than that?
    Exposure is ok, but I see someone could possibly confuse the harsh contrast/shadows with underexposure.

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    1-2. ok for me
    3. soft, contrast
    4. vignetting gone, but in brightening you've pushed the contrast up a bit so I'd consider it borderline
    1/2. Epic. They will join the que when I have some slots again.
    3. Well that's better than expected for a shot that I thought would be a noise rejection at least!
    4. A slight pull back on the shadows maybe or is the issue more than that?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by LewisW295 View Post

    Okay, rookie attempt no.1 at rectifying the vignetting manually. I've also resharpened BOPC. No other adjustments were made to the vignette rejection edits.

    EDIT: I've also added an utter longshot. This being an experiment with RAW editing for the first time. Whilst I'm expecting a contrast rejection, could you please feedback on any other rejections as well?
    1-2. ok for me
    3. soft, contrast
    4. vignetting gone, but in brightening you've pushed the contrast up a bit so I'd consider it borderline

    Leave a comment:


  • LewisW295
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Possibly.



    Noticeable in three corners, especially right side.
    Okay, rookie attempt no.1 at rectifying the vignetting manually. I've also resharpened BOPC. No other adjustments were made to the vignette rejection edits.

    EDIT: I've also added an utter longshot. This being an experiment with RAW editing for the first time. Whilst I'm expecting a contrast rejection, could you please feedback on any other rejections as well?

    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0947.jpg Views:	0 Size:	585.2 KB ID:	1102711
    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0891.jpg Views:	0 Size:	551.7 KB ID:	1102710

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0616.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	506.0 KB
ID:	1102712
    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0919.jpg Views:	0 Size:	524.5 KB ID:	1102709

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X