Kyle McKinlay - Editing Advice

[KyleMcKinlay]

Okay, thanks for the feedback. I'll probably just leave the BH Air 320. When using a reverse vignette filter, the image now appears to have a circular pattern when equalized. Would this still be classed as bad post-processing? I've yet to find a reasonable 'anti-vignette' filter. Many thanks!

[dlowwa]

Thanks for the feedback and quick reply dlowwa. For no4, I thought it was acceptable if *roughly* no more than half of the gear are covered? Also, I understand vignetting for no5 due to the perimeter fence, but could you offer any advice/explanation with regards to the 'overprocessing'? Thanks, once again!

4. 1/2 covered only if unavoidable. Looks avoidable here by waiting for a better position
5. editing halos along the tree line

[KyleMcKinlay]

Thanks for the feedback and quick reply dlowwa. For no4, I thought it was acceptable if *roughly* no more than half of the gear are covered? Also, I understand vignetting for no5 due to the perimeter fence, but could you offer any advice/explanation with regards to the 'overprocessing'? Thanks, once again!

[dlowwa]

Hello! How are these photos? Thank you as always for your time.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16777[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16778[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16779[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16780[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16781[/ATTACH]

1. ok
3. borderline heat hazed/dark
4. borderline obstruction on gear (would be rejection for me)
5. borderline overprocessing/vignetting

[KyleMcKinlay]

Hello! How are these photos? Thank you as always for your time.

[KyleMcKinlay]

Great. Thanks LX-A343

[LX-A343]

Thanks dlowwa. That's something I need to be careful of then, as this angle tends to always have similar issues. Hopefully this shows some improvement? Thanks for your time

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16759[/ATTACH]

Looks good enough to me.

[KyleMcKinlay]

Thanks dlowwa. That's something I need to be careful of then, as this angle tends to always have similar issues. Hopefully this shows some improvement? Thanks for your time

[dlowwa]

How is this one? Many thanks

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16755[/ATTACH]

Likely a rejection for soft/noise.

[KyleMcKinlay]

How is this one? Many thanks

[dlowwa]

Decided to just go for the first image that had the tug, and can always upload the other later if the first is rejected. Thanks for the information on that one though! How are these? Many thanks as always for your time!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16728[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16729[/ATTACH]

Some minor issues (noise/sharpening & contrast, respectively), but nothing I would reject them over.

[KyleMcKinlay]

Decided to just go for the first image that had the tug, and can always upload the other later if the first is rejected. Thanks for the information on that one though! How are these? Many thanks as always for your time!

[dlowwa]

Okay, I had a feeling that might have been the issue with no2. In that case, due to the long queue wait time, could I also upload this image a few hours later and if no2 gets accepted, then I will delete no4 (below) from the queue? Thanks dlowwa!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16689[/ATTACH]

Your choice, but if we see two similar image in the queue, they can both be rejected for similar, even if the second one hasn't been screened yet. For that reason, I'd advise against doing that.

[KyleMcKinlay]

Okay, I had a feeling that might have been the issue with no2. In that case, due to the long queue wait time, could I also upload this image a few hours later and if no2 gets accepted, then I will delete no4 (below) from the queue? Thanks dlowwa!

[dlowwa]

How are these? They are all different aircraft. Thank you

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16677[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16679[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16678[/ATTACH]

Slight heat haze on the first, but quality ok otherwise. Tugs are generally allowed if towing aircraft, but it's blocking a significant amount of the aircraft on the second so borderline for obstruction.