Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A few puzzling rejects...

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

  • psyops
    replied
    Brian - nicely done! Thanks for the efforts. I would say your PSskills are better than average easily.

    I agree, AC could not have picked a color better to blend in with the sky.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    I see your point about the engines and personally agree that they balance the backlit element of the fuselage but must also agree that the logo and airline name, which are smack in the middle of the frame and therefore catch the eye first, seem to be soft. The same applies to the cabin windows.

    The Air Canada colours are a bitch to portray in this kind of light. I don't think AC could have got a body colour closer to "light sky" if they tried ???

    A bit of playing around with PS CS2 .....Your original....






    In PS CS2, 3 passes of USM at 100, 0.2, 0. and 20% shadow..5% highlight.








    As always, I'm no PS expert but this version seems more balanced....but could still fail on "backlit", which is a shame as I rather like this shot.

    Screener comments perchance ??

    Leave a comment:


  • kukkudrill
    replied
    Originally posted by psyops
    Here is a soft and backlit rejection. I understand the backlit, but I thought it "worked" with the lighting effect on the engines. But the soft?
    Doesn't look soft to me either. If anything I would say slightly oversharpened. I suspect the screener was referring to the Air Canada titles, but I would think they look soft because of the reflections on the upper fuselage.

    Leave a comment:


  • psyops
    replied
    The first one was accepted upon appeal. Here is the link

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5789800

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL767-400ER
    replied
    "No image matches that id number", that's all I get for the first link. Did you perhaps miss-type the first ID?

    Leave a comment:


  • psyops
    started a topic A few puzzling rejects...

    A few puzzling rejects...

    This one, along with others, were rejected for underexposed and soft. I am not clear how this could considered underexposed, unless I am missing something. Also regarding softness, where is it soft? Maybe I have a monitor or eyeball problem.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1095112

    Pete

    Here is a soft and backlit rejection. I understand the backlit, but I thought it "worked" with the lighting effect on the engines. But the soft?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1095120
Working...
X