Do you need any Pre-Screening? - Limited to CREW reply ONLY.

[twr75]

Boeing744,

Looks to be a little soft. However there appears to be some sort of jpeg artifacts around the edges, and any sort of sharpening will only make these worse. Give the sharpening a go and we'll have another look.

[Electric-Jet]

I gave it two more passes of USM. And it just gets worse.

[tsentsan]

One other point, IMHO it would receive the badangle rejection. Cant say the Belly shot is much fancied.

[MaxPower]

This one is edited, although I can see some undersharpen spots at some regions at the aircrafts, what do you think, screeners, Can I put this one in the queue??

[LX-A343]

I wouldn't upload it. The angle is questionable IMO. But above all, it seems soft, underexposed and lacking contrast.

Perhaps you can tweak it in Photoshop, but then there's still the angle, which I personally don't really like.

Cheers
Gerardo

[robw]

I was very lucky to fly over Mount Fuji on a brilliantly clear day and would like to get a shot of the wing view over it accepted. However there was a lot of dirt on the window and my original effort was rejected for sensor dust spots (which was the window dirt). I've done my best to clone out the dirt but would it be rejected for digitally manipulated? I've reduced the size of the image so it could be uploaded here so this image isn't the final version. I just would like some opinions regarding the dirt/dust. If it's no good would anyone with superior editing skills be able to have a go at my original or is it a hopeless cause.
Much appreciated.
PS Great thread idea!

[LX-A343]

Rob, there still some traces left of your cloning job. But apart from the quality, I think, the motive is a bit off. The visible part of the wing is too small and too far away, it's almost disturbing an otherwise perfect shot.

Gerardo

[robw]

Thanks Gerardo. It was unfortunate that this was the best I could do to get the wing and the mountain in the shot. Looks like it'll have to be one for the personal collection. At least it might get seen by a few in this thread!!

[BA747-436]

Awesome view of Fuji! Overall though yeah the photo is quite 'dirty' in the sky area, and as Gerardo said not really enough of the wing showing.

[MaxPower]

So the angle is not quite amazing, maybe I should move next time a little more to the left so im completely below the aircraft !

-----------------------

Okey, these ones are in the queue, but I decided to show them here first to our screeners, so I can pull them out in time from the queue, if its not good enough to database standards..

Part missing or good enough ?
Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) » Airbus A340-313X OY-KBC
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=869247

Sharp or not ?
Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) » Airbus A340-313X OY-KBI
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=869238

Too Dark,maybe need more light ?
Varig » McDonnell Douglas MD-11 PP-VTJ
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868469

Too Dark,maybe need more light ?
Blue1 » British Aerospace Avro RJ100 OH-SAN
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868467

Slight backlit, front aft ??
Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) » McDonnell Douglas MD-87
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868466

Thanks for help !

[AJ]

Hi John.
1. Yeah, it does look cut off, a crop closer to the nose and tail cone may be better. Also it appears oversharpened.
2. Also has major jaggies indicating oversharpening. The nose and slats have also been overexposed.
3. Looks okay, perhaps overcontrast but not excessive.
4. Looks okay.
5. Looks fine.

Cheers!

[MaxPower]

Hi John.
1. Yeah, it does look cut off, a crop closer to the nose and tail cone may be better. Also it appears oversharpened.
2. Also has major jaggies indicating oversharpening. The nose and slats have also been overexposed.
3. Looks okay, perhaps overcontrast but not excessive.
4. Looks okay.
5. Looks fine.

Cheers!

1. So it doesnt matter if I crop a little bit cloer to the tail cone and nose, so wouldnt it be a reject if the horisontal Stabilisers are missing in the frame ?

2. So this is a no-can-do ? Last opinion, I guess I have to pull this out from the queue.

3. Okey, when I look at it again, it does look like it is overcontrasted, but its good to hear that its not excessive, so I dont haev to start over again to the original !

4. and 5. Great. Thanks for your help AJ !

[sluger020889]

I was sitting on the beach in between arrivals (thats my crap there at the bottum) and thought this would be an intersting shot. Will it hold up motive wise?

[egll]

No it won't unfortunately, there is just nothing going on in the bottom third of the shot to draw a viewers attention, and the gap between the plane and the water is just too big.

Next time try and wait until something is happening in that bottom third and try a portrait shot (1024x683) with something big like a 747 on approach instead of a silly little 320.

I have no idea what traffic you get at this spot, but even if you don't get heavy stuff I hope you get what I am trying to say in the above paragraph.



Matt

[sluger020889]

ok thanks. 747s come around TPA as often as the A380 flys into LGA, lol, so if one should ever show up, I'm gonna be going for something a bit more conventional. But thanks for your imput, and I understand what you're were getting at, rule of thirds.