Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

YanS - Editing Advice

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

  • YanS
    replied
    Hello everyone,

    It would be nice to know if these two might have a chance to be accepted.

    1. Click image for larger version  Name:	DSC01926v2.JPG Views:	0 Size:	790.9 KB ID:	1103114 I'm not sure about contrast and horizon on this one. Does this A350 also fall under the business jet-category?

    2. Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0436v4.jpg Views:	0 Size:	622.4 KB ID:	1103115 This picture was rejected for being too soft yesterday so I added some sharpness but I don't know if it was enough or maybe even too much.


    Thanks for your answers,
    All the best,
    Yannick

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hello everyone,

    today this i got a rejection for this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8596399 ). It seems to me that I have selected the wrong genre (civilian instead of military).
    However I understand point 1.2.5 of the guidelines in the way that government-aircraft should be uploaded as civilian. Or is the genre military as the aircraft is operated by the Luftwaffe/Air Force and not directly by the government?

    Thanks in advance
    Best regards
    Yannick
    Operated by air force = military.

    Leave a comment:


  • YanS
    replied
    Hello everyone,

    today this i got a rejection for this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8596399 ). It seems to me that I have selected the wrong genre (civilian instead of military).
    However I understand point 1.2.5 of the guidelines in the way that government-aircraft should be uploaded as civilian. Or is the genre military as the aircraft is operated by the Luftwaffe/Air Force and not directly by the government?

    Thanks in advance
    Best regards
    Yannick

    Leave a comment:


  • YanS
    replied
    Hi dlowwa,

    from my perspective the advice was actually pretty usefull.
    maybe I‘ll consider an appeal as I‘m pretty confident looking at the horizon. I think as well that the horizon looks a bit off on a first glance but there are some poles in the far background and they seem to be vertical.

    Best regards
    Yannick

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hello everyone,

    today this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8592950 ) was rejected for being soft and for too much or too little contrast. To be honest I personally do not see any problems with neither the contrast nor with the sharpness. But as both aspects don’t seem to be something where the line between acceptable and not acceptable can be definded with mathematical accuracy in this case I wanted to ask here in the forum first if it might be worth an appeal.

    Thanks for your answers
    All the best
    Yannick
    Sharpness looks ok to me; contrast maybe a bit harsh, but close to acceptable as well. Biggest problem I see is it looks like it needs a little CCW rotation. Sorry I know that's not much help..

    Leave a comment:


  • YanS
    replied
    Hello everyone,

    today this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8592950 ) was rejected for being soft and for too much or too little contrast. To be honest I personally do not see any problems with neither the contrast nor with the sharpness. But as both aspects don’t seem to be something where the line between acceptable and not acceptable can be definded with mathematical accuracy in this case I wanted to ask here in the forum first if it might be worth an appeal.

    Thanks for your answers
    All the best
    Yannick

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hello again,

    A pre-screening on these older ones would be nice.
    All images a touch soft, but don't see any issues with horizon, myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • YanS
    replied
    Hello again,

    A pre-screening on these older ones would be nice.
    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6934v2.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	733.8 KB
ID:	1085045
    2.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4857v2.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	715.5 KB
ID:	1085046
    3.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0286v2.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	672.7 KB
ID:	1085047
    4.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8091v2.jpg
Views:	13
Size:	656.7 KB
ID:	1085048

    I'm not sure about colour on the first and I think the horizon on the second and fourth might be a little off...


    Thanks for your answers,
    Best regards,
    Yannick

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hi everyone,

    I'm a little unsure about some aspects on these ones.
    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8083v2.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	545.9 KB
ID:	1084585 2.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8131 1v2.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	623.3 KB
ID:	1084586
    3.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8122v2.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	684.8 KB
ID:	1084587
    In general I'm not totally happy with contrast/exposure on all three. #3 was shot through the window of the visitor-platform so an eye on problems with that would be nice .

    Thanks for your feedback,
    Best regards and stay healthy,
    Yannick
    1) and 2) Not perfect, but acceptable
    3) looks a bit too dark and also unlevel (needs CW rotation)

    Leave a comment:


  • YanS
    replied
    Hi everyone,

    I'm a little unsure about some aspects on these ones.
    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8083v2.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	545.9 KB
ID:	1084585 2.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8131 1v2.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	623.3 KB
ID:	1084586
    3.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8122v2.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	684.8 KB
ID:	1084587
    In general I'm not totally happy with contrast/exposure on all three. #3 was shot through the window of the visitor-platform so an eye on problems with that would be nice .

    Thanks for your feedback,
    Best regards and stay healthy,
    Yannick

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hello everyone,

    Some thoughts on these would be great .
    1.
    2.

    I'm not sure about contrast on the second one.

    Thanks for your answers,
    Yannick
    Both would be ok for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • YanS
    replied
    Hello everyone,

    Some thoughts on these would be great .
    1.
    2.

    I'm not sure about contrast on the second one.

    Thanks for your answers,
    Yannick
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hello again,

    since Christmas I'm shooting with a new camera, so a feedback on these would be great to have.
    Borderline soft/contrast on the first two, but would be ok for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • YanS
    replied
    Hello again,

    since Christmas I'm shooting with a new camera, so a feedback on these would be great to have.

    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC00123 1v3.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	612.2 KB
ID:	1077610
    2. Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC00404v2.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	699.9 KB
ID:	1077611
    3. Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC00409v2.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	769.5 KB
ID:	1077612
    This is also the first time I post something with attachments in the new forum-design, so if anything is not correct / could be done better on that side, please tell me!

    Hope you had a good start into 2020
    All the Best,
    Yannick

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hi again,

    I'm a little unsure about some things on these and it would be nice if someone could have a look on them .
    1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]29311[/ATTACH] (not sure about heat haze/compression and contrast)
    2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]29312[/ATTACH] (worried about contrast)
    3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]29313[/ATTACH] (not sure about colour, horizon and exposure)

    Thanks for your help,
    Best regards,
    Yannick
    1. ok
    2. horizon (cw)
    3. borderline noise/(low) contrast

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X