Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UnderExposed in Torino

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

  • UnderExposed in Torino

    Once again here comes someone who cannot find his rear end with both hands when it comes to digital photo processing.

    Here is a photo that was rejected for being underexposed... what's new?



    In my humble PC I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0. I do not understand how I can improve the photo so it looks so clear one wonders if the image is a window? Can anyone give my a step-by-step? I have read a lot of technical threads and I sincerely do not know from where to start.

    I also do not own a fancy dSLR but a Canon Powershot S5. Is this the problem? Do I need more than f4,0 or f5,0?

    I really do not know from where to start. Any help - even the most obvious or basic. Thank you and cheers.
    ___________________________________________



    Alberto

  • #2
    Underexposed ?? I'm at work and don't have Photoshop available but it looks more like soft and lacking in contrast to me ! May be a little overexposed but correcting the contrast could well fix that.

    I'm not familiar with PS Elements 3 so I don't know what tools you have available in that software.

    f5 - f5 is a bit wide for aviation photography. You stand a good chance of losing depth of field at that setting. If you can use aperture priority on your camera I'd suggest setting f8 and letting the shutter speed do its own thing, provided it doesn't get too slow.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Alberto,

      I agree with Brian, it doesn't look overexposed.

      It's a bit soft and there are many dustspots visible below the fuselage. You will have to get rid of those spots using the the clone tool.

      Roel.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ive had a quick go using the version you posted here and this is what i produced, i have also had to save it at a lower rate to be able to upload it here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Fellas

          Thank you for the prompt help.

          I agree I might have said something wrong in my overall low morale situation concerning the underexposed comment.

          I guess what Ollie did might be acceptable to JetPhotos reviewers? If that is the case, what did you do? I am embarrassed to admit my use of PS Elements 3.0 is not good at all. Can you run me through the steps you took?

          Is there an overall benchmark steplist for understanding if we are about to upload a 100% sure rejection?
          Cheers.
          ___________________________________________



          Alberto

          Comment


          • #6
            Looks a little noisy to me but a definite improvement on the low contrast original.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by aceriana
              Is there an overall benchmark steplist for understanding if we are about to upload a 100% sure rejection?
              Cheers.
              lol

              There is an excellent guideline online with an explanation of all the rejection reasons with examples and links to workflows:

              http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=44854


              Roel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Roel

                Thank you for the thread with all the loading info. A good starting point.

                Now I have an existential doubt. Are all photos accepted in Jetphotos subject to some sort of manipulation via Photoshop or similar tool? Does anyone load a non-digitally enhanced photo (besides cropping to correct size)?

                Does this in some way reduce our ability as photographers? lol
                If digital enhancement is the way, we can point and shoot at anything moving in the air (no need to worry about light, aperture, etc.), digitally enhance the photo and make it look like someone from National Geographic took the shot.

                I hope this is not the road.
                Cheers.
                ___________________________________________



                Alberto

                Comment


                • #9
                  If digital enhancement is the way, we can point and shoot at anything moving in the air (no need to worry about light, aperture, etc.), digitally enhance the photo and make it look like someone from National Geographic took the shot.
                  Take your photo above an try to "make it look like someone from National Geographic took the shot" .... good luck!!!!

                  Every photo here and in the whole world, where digital photos are used, is shot with a camera and then "digitally developped" in a photo editor. The same things, which were done in the dark room in ancient times are now done on the PC.
                  Last edited by LX-A343; 2008-08-29, 18:49.
                  My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This is my attempt with a bit of noise reduction applied.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Fellas - thank you for the help.

                      However, Diezel kindly put a link with a very clear explanation for uploading photos. Furthermore in that link - about halfway through Chris Kilroys explanation is a link to a guide to Photoshop by Jid. This a fine step by step.

                      Does anyone know of a step by step for Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0?
                      Jid's step by step has items not found in PS Elements. I am sort of a klutz using PS and step by steps are what I need. If someone had some insight on PS Elements that would be great.

                      Cheers.
                      ___________________________________________



                      Alberto

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                        f5 - f5 is a bit wide for aviation photography. You stand a good chance of losing depth of field at that setting. If you can use aperture priority on your camera I'd suggest setting f8 and letting the shutter speed do its own thing, provided it doesn't get too slow.
                        Just thought I'd point out that the rules applying to DSLRs don't always apply to point-and-shoots. Because of their tiny sensors point-and-shoots use lenses with very short focal lengths (6 to 72mm in the case of the S5) so depth of field is unlikely to be a problem in aviation photography.

                        Indeed f8 is often the smallest aperture available with point-and-shoots. Apparently f8 on a point-and-shoot is a lot smaller than f8 on a DSLR (again because of the focal length difference) and you're advised not to stop down all the way because it will increase picture softness due to the diffraction effect.

                        Charles


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thanks Charles, I didn't know that.

                          Come and say hello if you see me at the Malta airshow. I'll probably be at St Pauls Bay on the Saturday and Luqa statics on the Sunday. If I can get the missus to agree I'll also be at the spotters platform on Friday.

                          Brian.
                          Last edited by brianw999; 2008-09-16, 11:03.
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Will do Brian. So I can recognise you more easily can you wear your red marshalling outfit complete with orange gloves?

                            If you're aiming to catch airshow arrivals on the Friday, the spotter's platform might not be the best place depending on the direction they arrive from. If they take rwy 13, some of them could stop well short of the platform before doubling back to the static display area so you won't get good photos. If rwy 13 is in use you'd be better off getting up to Hal Farrug beneath the flight path. PM me if you want more info.

                            Charles


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Charles,
                              I'll post this here in case it helps anyone else. This GoogleEarth pic shows point A as a possible for 13 arrivals. I assume that you mean point B when you refer to Hal Farrug.
                              I seem to remember point A as being by a block stone wall overviewing a fuel point. Is this still accessible ?

                              ....and on the subject of orange overalls and gloves...would that be with or without suspender belt and latex mask ??



                              Anyway, the picture...

                              luqaspots.jpg
                              Last edited by brianw999; 2008-11-24, 11:41.
                              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X