Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pauwelsc - Editing advice

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

  • pauwelsc - Editing advice

    Hey JP!

    Interested in knowing what you think of these pictures. Not sure about the light conditions.

    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	HB-JJE.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.07 MB
ID:	1045062 2. Click image for larger version

Name:	OO-SSE.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.03 MB
ID:	1045063 3. Click image for larger version

Name:	OO-SSW.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	952.8 KB
ID:	1045064

  • #2
    Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Hey JP!

    Interested in knowing what you think of these pictures. Not sure about the light conditions.

    1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10709[/ATTACH] 2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10710[/ATTACH] 3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10711[/ATTACH]
    Poor light yes, but the first is also obstructed, the second blurry, and the third soft.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pauwelsc
      Went spotting today and I think the light was way better now! I hope you share my opinion

      1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10765[/ATTACH] 2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10766[/ATTACH] 3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10767[/ATTACH] 4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10768[/ATTACH] 5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10769[/ATTACH]
      All of these images would be rejected for soft, vignetting, noise, and compression. Sorry.

      Comment


      • #4
        I edited these ones who are clearly without vignetting. I hope some of them are good. Thank you for you useful advice, I really try to learn out of my errors.

        1. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-FWF.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	1.12 MB
ID:	1019865 2. Click image for larger version

Name:	LN-RGD.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	238.3 KB
ID:	1019866 3. Click image for larger version

Name:	OO-SNI.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.68 MB
ID:	1019867 4. Click image for larger version

Name:	oo-ssn.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	1.09 MB
ID:	1019868 5. Click image for larger version

Name:	OO-SSV.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.40 MB
ID:	1019869

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
          I edited these ones who are clearly without vignetting. I hope some of them are good. Thank you for you useful advice, I really try to learn out of my errors.

          1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10834[/ATTACH] 2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10835[/ATTACH] 3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10836[/ATTACH] 4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10837[/ATTACH] 5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10838[/ATTACH]
          They look over processed and bit compressed. Looking at the EXIF info, using ISOs higher than 200 for that kind of light is damaging the pictures itself. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? Are you cropping too much the whole frames?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by meneses24 View Post
            They look over processed and bit compressed. Looking at the EXIF info, using ISOs higher than 200 for that kind of light is damaging the pictures itself. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? Are you cropping too much the whole frames?
            I took thes pics in JPEG. I am a bit of a rookie so I use autofocus... I shot these ones with a 300mm so yes I chopper them. I get quit a lot pictures rejected for being over processed in fact, but I donít know how to solve it. Over processed means it gets a plastic look, no? What about number 4? I think itís the best of them? How can I fix the iso problem in the future? I really learn a lot from the advice your colleagues gave me already so I am always keen to learn!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
              I took thes pics in JPEG. I am a bit of a rookie so I use autofocus... I shot these ones with a 300mm so yes I chopper them. I get quit a lot pictures rejected for being over processed in fact, but I don’t know how to solve it. Over processed means it gets a plastic look, no? What about number 4? I think it’s the best of them? How can I fix the iso problem in the future? I really learn a lot from the advice your colleagues gave me already so I am always keen to learn!
              Autofocus is fine, actually everyone should use it in most situations. 300mm should be enough but if you crop them (located far from the airplane) the compression will start to show, even at 1024x768px. What program are you using for your photo editings?

              Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
              Over processed means it gets a plastic look, no?
              Exactly, excessive contrast, sharpness and colors in there. It works fine for me to have my camera settings in zero contrast/tone/saturation and perform all adjustments in the edition.

              Number four unfortunately shows this artifacts as well. For next time in this sunny light conditions you can set your ISO level at 160-200 max. Usually newer cameras have an auto ISO setting where you can select a min/max ISO setting. Also it will depend on you camera brand (Canon/Nikon/Pentax) and sensor type and how it behaves. What might behave good for me might be extremely different on your camera and so on.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by meneses24 View Post
                Autofocus is fine, actually everyone should use it in most situations. 300mm should be enough but if you crop them (located far from the airplane) the compression will start to show, even at 1024x768px. What program are you using for your photo editings?



                Exactly, excessive contrast, sharpness and colors in there. It works fine for me to have my camera settings in zero contrast/tone/saturation and perform all adjustments in the edition.

                Number four unfortunately shows this artifacts as well. For next time in this sunny light conditions you can set your ISO level at 160-200 max. Usually newer cameras have an auto ISO setting where you can select a min/max ISO setting. Also it will depend on you camera brand (Canon/Nikon/Pentax) and sensor type and how it behaves. What might behave good for me might be extremely different on your camera and so on.
                Well, indeed I was far away from the airplanes. 300mm should be ok for the wide bodies but for the smaller ones, 400mm would be more acceptable. That's why I have also decided to invest in such an equipment. So I did a lot of cropping and honestly I did not know it affects the compression. I don't use a specific photoshop program, I use 'Pictures' installed on my macbook, it has most of the same tools as some programs.

                Thank you for the great tip to check my ISO level! Again, I had no clue at all I had to change this, I am definitely going to do this in the future.
                The camera I have is the Nikon D3300 so maybe it can work out to set those setting to zero?

                I will exclude these pictures from my queue as they are most likely to get rejected. I will take these tips in mind for the future and hopefully I can provide some better pictures to the database.

                Just to show you the crop:
                Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_1095.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	806.1 KB
ID:	1019900 (original) Click image for larger version

Name:	oo-ssn.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	1.09 MB
ID:	1019901 (edit)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Maybe these ones are better as they are taken at a smaller focal length.

                  1. Click image for larger version

Name:	OO-SSN1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.15 MB
ID:	1019906 2. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-FRO.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.16 MB
ID:	1019907 3. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-FWF.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	1.12 MB
ID:	1019909

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
                    Well, indeed I was far away from the airplanes. 300mm should be ok for the wide bodies but for the smaller ones, 400mm would be more acceptable. That's why I have also decided to invest in such an equipment. So I did a lot of cropping and honestly I did not know it affects the compression. I don't use a specific photoshop program, I use 'Pictures' installed on my macbook, it has most of the same tools as some programs.

                    Thank you for the great tip to check my ISO level! Again, I had no clue at all I had to change this, I am definitely going to do this in the future.
                    The camera I have is the Nikon D3300 so maybe it can work out to set those setting to zero?

                    I will exclude these pictures from my queue as they are most likely to get rejected. I will take these tips in mind for the future and hopefully I can provide some better pictures to the database.

                    Just to show you the crop:
                    [ATTACH=CONFIG]10883[/ATTACH] (original) [ATTACH=CONFIG]10884[/ATTACH] (edit)
                    Definitely the crop in there is too much for what an acceptable crop/quality may be handled. Unfortunately some spots are farther than we think from the action

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
                      Maybe these ones are better as they are taken at a smaller focal length.

                      1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10890[/ATTACH] 2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10891[/ATTACH] 3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10893[/ATTACH]
                      1-Bit dark. Still overprocessed, too much contrast there
                      2-Underexposed but overall good, just fix that
                      3-Soft, overprocessed. The sun glare on the windows are quite disturbing. Usually a few seconds after the light shines perfect on the whole fuselage.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by meneses24 View Post
                        1-Bit dark. Still overprocessed, too much contrast there
                        2-Underexposed but overall good, just fix that
                        3-Soft, overprocessed. The sun glare on the windows are quite disturbing. Usually a few seconds after the light shines perfect on the whole fuselage.
                        Better now?

                        1. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-FRO.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.23 MB
ID:	1019936 2. Click image for larger version

Name:	OO-SSN1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.24 MB
ID:	1019937

                        And I added these ones too:

                        3. Click image for larger version

Name:	G-CELE.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	939.1 KB
ID:	1019959 4. Click image for larger version

Name:	hb-jnd.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.05 MB
ID:	1019960 5. Click image for larger version

Name:	sp-enz.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	894.4 KB
ID:	1019961

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
                          Better now?

                          1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10926[/ATTACH] 2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10927[/ATTACH]

                          And I added these ones too:

                          3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10956[/ATTACH] 4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10957[/ATTACH] 5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10958[/ATTACH]

                          1. soft/heat haze
                          2. soft, contrast
                          3. ok
                          4. soft, backlit, color, contrast, noisy
                          5. borderline overexposed

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A quick note on the germanwings: it got rejected before and I did an appeal. The screeners advised to brighten the mid tones and to add some more contrast later on. I hope it is fixed now.

                            1. Click image for larger version

Name:	PH-HSA.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.17 MB
ID:	1020024 2. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-ENS.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.10 MB
ID:	1020025 3. Click image for larger version

Name:	D-AIQB.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.16 MB
ID:	1020026 4. Click image for larger version

Name:	CS-TJG.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.05 MB
ID:	1020027

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pauwelsc View Post
                              A quick note on the germanwings: it got rejected before and I did an appeal. The screeners advised to brighten the mid tones and to add some more contrast later on. I hope it is fixed now.

                              1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]11035[/ATTACH] 2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]11036[/ATTACH] 3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]11037[/ATTACH] 4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]11038[/ATTACH]
                              1. ok
                              2. soft
                              3. ok
                              4. ok

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X