Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NEW Editing advice thread

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

  • ErwinS
    replied
    Originally posted by JVSpotter View Post
    Hi,
    What should I do, uploading with or without the tow tug?
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9947[/ATTACH]

    Thanks in advance!
    Since she is allready in the queue you will see the verdict when see is screened

    Leave a comment:


  • JesseV
    replied
    Hi,
    What should I do, uploading with or without the tow tug?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	SU-YAH-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	500.0 KB
ID:	1017843

    Thanks in advance!

    Leave a comment:


  • JesseV
    replied
    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
    The fin up at the top is correct in this case. General rule of thumb is to centre through the middle of the fuselage as much as possible without chopping off the fin as you have done..The centreing rejection is due to there being more space on the right side than the left.
    The second image example given by Julian is stretched in the vertical plane and has lost its correct aspect ratio.
    Thanks for your clarification Brian!

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Originally posted by vcruvinel View Post
    Hi! I did not understand this rejection I got:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6098942


    Reason(s) For Rejection:
    - Categories wrong or missing
    - Bad Info in the following field(s): Genre

    I've already appeal and got reject again but did not get any comments to correct. I've put a text clarifying the points of rejection.

    This registration has both Military and Civilian genres in the website (search), but the correct one is only Civilian. Just need to know what I did wrong to not do the same mistake again.

    Many thanks.
    The registration is listed in http://www.scramble.nl/military-database as being military. It requires business jet category as it is not part of an airline.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Originally posted by JVSpotter View Post
    Hi,
    Anyone who can help with the framing of this one?
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6103338
    Thanks in advance!
    The fin up at the top is correct in this case. General rule of thumb is to centre through the middle of the fuselage as much as possible without chopping off the fin as you have done..The centreing rejection is due to there being more space on the right side than the left.
    The second image example given by Julian is stretched in the vertical plane and has lost its correct aspect ratio.
    Last edited by brianw999; 2017-10-12, 10:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
    Is it now finally better also with colour and brightness? Will it has a chance for being accepted?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9875[/ATTACH]

    EDIT:
    What do you say to this Cockpitshot? I know the outside is to bright, but that's normal if sun is outside
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9876[/ATTACH]
    The first one is blurry. The cockpit shot is a classic example of where you should have exposed for the outside and used fill flash to expose the cockpit. Like this ....
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7209196
    Last edited by brianw999; 2017-10-12, 10:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • StefBrat
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Looks borderline for contrast.
    Both pictures? So a little less contrast?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
    Is it now finally better also with colour and brightness? Will it has a chance for being accepted?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9875[/ATTACH]

    EDIT:
    What do you say to this Cockpitshot? I know the outside is to bright, but that's normal if sun is outside
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9876[/ATTACH]
    Looks borderline for contrast.

    Leave a comment:


  • StefBrat
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Honestly, it would probably be better if you were able to figure it out on your own, as you're not going to have someone there to tell you for every single photo you edit. The easiest thing to do is use an editing tool like the crop or rectangular marquee tool in PS (ones that create perfectly horizontal lines), and use it to 'measure' the horizon. Play around with different adjustments until you find one that is right. It took me 10-15 seconds of playing around with your photo to see it needs in the neighborhood of 1.5 degrees ccw.
    Is it now finally better also with colour and brightness? Will it has a chance for being accepted?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6061-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.31 MB
ID:	1017787

    EDIT:
    What do you say to this Cockpitshot? I know the outside is to bright, but that's normal if sun is outside
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6046_klein.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	743.6 KB
ID:	1017788

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by kiwikieran View Post
    Hi all any thoughts on this? Also can any one recommend a good way to find dust spots with out uploading first please.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9874[/ATTACH]
    Thanks in Advanced.
    Looks OK here. Easiest way to find dust spots is to equalize the photo in your photo editing software.

    Leave a comment:


  • kiwikieran
    replied
    Hi all any thoughts on this? Also can any one recommend a good way to find dust spots with out uploading first please.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7067.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	149.3 KB
ID:	1017786
    Thanks in Advanced.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    Hello! I'd posted these in the pre-screening forum and was told that the BA 744 appeared backlit and the Thai 777 was too dark. Any suggestions for improvement, if there are any possible? I had tried to raise exposure on the 777 last time but the top then seemed overexposed. Thank you very much!

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9724[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9725[/ATTACH]
    Both are somewhat dark. Given the (poor) light, I'm not sure there is much you can do to improve them.

    Originally posted by 777MAN View Post
    Considering uploading this to illustrate the spotting location, would the aircraft be too small?
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9745[/ATTACH]
    It is suitable for Spotting Location.

    Originally posted by 777MAN View Post
    This one is a jet2 departing at night. I had a look at the db for any similar and found one james rowson took at the same location which included the aircraft turning creating a very similar effect which I liked.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9746[/ATTACH]

    Cheers Tony
    You can upload it as Airport Overview - Runway, though I can't guarantee the motive will be acceptable.

    Originally posted by kiwikieran View Post
    Hi all just wanting some input on this please.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]9867[/ATTACH]
    Thanks in advanced.
    Looks a little soft, and dust spot above the tail.

    Leave a comment:


  • kiwikieran
    replied
    Hi all just wanting some input on this please.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3147 (3).JPG
Views:	1
Size:	127.0 KB
ID:	1017779
    Thanks in advanced.

    Leave a comment:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Considering uploading this to illustrate the spotting location, would the aircraft be too small?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	G-EZFL.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	913.9 KB
ID:	1017667

    This one is a jet2 departing at night. I had a look at the db for any similar and found one james rowson took at the same location which included the aircraft turning creating a very similar effect which I liked.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	G-LSAA-night-dep-rwy-35.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	855.0 KB
ID:	1017668

    Cheers Tony

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    Hello! I'd posted these in the pre-screening forum and was told that the BA 744 appeared backlit and the Thai 777 was too dark. Any suggestions for improvement, if there are any possible? I had tried to raise exposure on the 777 last time but the top then seemed overexposed. Thank you very much!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	G-CIVL_EGLL_8343.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	563.8 KB
ID:	1017646
    Click image for larger version

Name:	HS-TKP_EGLL_TEST_7870.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	551.9 KB
ID:	1017647

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X