Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NEW Editing advice thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Originally posted by ErezS View Post
    Dear friends,

    I asking for your help with this reject.

    I can correct the exposure, but it's a bit difficult for me to agree about the ''Horizon unlevel"... if we look at the grid I think it's leveled according to the most verticals.
    Am I wrong?

    Thanks in advance,
    Erez.

    Strong ccw rotation needed., don't ask me for reference, it's my local airport.

    For the take-off shot. CW (0.3) rotation needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Originally posted by DirtyCrow View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5921275

    Can someone tell me where the Artifacts are? This picture is saved with quality 12 (max in photoshop).
    For trained eyes the sky looks very blotchy. Use the "check for dust" tool to see the big pixels yourself. This is often due to the use of filters during editing. No matter how high quality you save your shots, those filters will always kill your sky resolution.

    Regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • DirtyCrow
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5921275

    Can someone tell me where the Artifacts are? This picture is saved with quality 12 (max in photoshop).

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ErezS View Post
    Thank you, but in the first photo from Geneva one can see the two vertical objects, Why are they not considered as objects to be leveled?
    About the second photo I accept your opinion.
    Couldn't really see them clearly in the image you posted with the grid superimposed, but here it is:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	11535_1496804505.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	662.3 KB
ID:	1015941

    Clearly they are leaning to the right, which only reinforces what the horizontals are saying: this image needs CCW rotation. I think you understand the rules correctly, but are perhaps not seeing what the image shows properly.

    Leave a comment:


  • ErezS
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    use these as guide for level, in order from most to least reliable.

    1. Actual horizon
    2. STRONG (i.e. taking up more than 10% of the frame) verticals in the center
    3. Strong verticals towards the edges
    4. STRONG horizontals (again, taking up more than 10% of the frame) in the background
    5. Strong horizontals in the foreground
    6. Any other vertical/horizontal references.

    In your two images, the horizon is not visible, and there are no strong verticals (the buildings are far away and small to be reliable). Next would be strong horizontals, in the case of the first, the runway which, yes, indicates CCW is needed. In the second, the opposite is true, the strong horizontals suggest CW is needed. Both look like valid rejections (never mind the other rejection reasons) to me.
    Thank you, but in the first photo from Geneva one can see the two vertical objects, Why are they not considered as objects to be leveled?
    About the second photo I accept your opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ErezS View Post
    Dear friends,

    I asking for your help with this reject.

    I can correct the exposure, but it's a bit difficult for me to agree about the ''Horizon unlevel"... if we look at the grid I think it's leveled according to the most verticals.
    Am I wrong?

    Thanks in advance,
    Erez.
    Originally posted by ErezS View Post
    And what's wrong here?
    It seems to me simply excellent.
    use these as guide for level, in order from most to least reliable.

    1. Actual horizon
    2. STRONG (i.e. taking up more than 10% of the frame) verticals in the center
    3. Strong verticals towards the edges
    4. STRONG horizontals (again, taking up more than 10% of the frame) in the background
    5. Strong horizontals in the foreground
    6. Any other vertical/horizontal references.

    In your two images, the horizon is not visible, and there are no strong verticals (the buildings are far away and small to be reliable). Next would be strong horizontals, in the case of the first, the runway which, yes, indicates CCW is needed. In the second, the opposite is true, the strong horizontals suggest CW is needed. Both look like valid rejections (never mind the other rejection reasons) to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ErezS
    replied
    Originally posted by 71sbeetle View Post
    To me it looks like it needs some good CCW rotation, but that's just me
    Hi,
    Thanks, but according to which objects do you determine it?

    I'm really trying to understand the rules.
    Maybe I do not understand them after 15 years here.
    According to the rules, we have to make the level according to the vertical, right?
    Are the verticals here are crooked?

    Leave a comment:


  • ErezS
    replied
    And what's wrong here?
    It seems to me simply excellent.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • 71sbeetle
    replied
    Originally posted by ErezS View Post
    Dear friends,

    I asking for your help with this reject.

    I can correct the exposure, but it's a bit difficult for me to agree about the ''Horizon unlevel"... if we look at the grid I think it's leveled according to the most verticals.
    Am I wrong?

    Thanks in advance,
    Erez.
    To me it looks like it needs some good CCW rotation, but that's just me

    Leave a comment:


  • ErezS
    replied
    Dear friends,

    I asking for your help with this reject.

    I can correct the exposure, but it's a bit difficult for me to agree about the ''Horizon unlevel"... if we look at the grid I think it's leveled according to the most verticals.
    Am I wrong?

    Thanks in advance,
    Erez.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • ErezS
    replied
    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    The wing is still soft. Lines and edges are not sharply defined. The winglet is overexposed as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • ErezS
    replied
    Dear Friends,
    I will be grateful for any help for this photo.
    Especially about the contrast, it's seems to me fine, but maybe I'm wrong.
    Or maybe, as another option, I have another version, please see the attached file for the second version. is it better? Does its have a better chance for the 2nd version?
    I will be grateful for any help.
    Erez.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • fabinho1314
    replied
    The issue was already addressed, and the photo screened, thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • oc_aviation_
    replied
    Originally posted by fabinho1314 View Post
    Now changes in the livery are not hot?

    I recevid this invalid hot rejection...

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5928098
    Your photo is not appearing, but in terms of liveries, small changes in liveries wouldn't be considered hot. If it is the airlines new livery or a new special livery they have, those are acceptable hots. However, if there are already photos in the database of the plane in the livery you have depicted, it is not an acceptable hot, to what I know.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X