Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kyle McKinlay - Editing Advice

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

  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    Not to worry! I appreciate things get very busy Thanks for the feedback. I figured that might be the case with #5, though the buildings lines are vertical and there is minimal lens barrel distortion. Could it perhaps be that the clouds just appear "squint"? I'm not sure if the narrow 717 wing helps either.

    Leave a comment:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    Could I please ask for pre-screening on these images? Many thanks
    Hi Kylie

    Sorry for the delay in response I hadn't realised you had not had feedback from the team.
    1. Color/contrast
    2-3 - look ok
    5. Horizon
    T

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    How are these images? Many thanks

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27021[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27022[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27023[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27024[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27025[/ATTACH]
    Could I please ask for pre-screening on these images? Many thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    How are these images? Many thanks

    Click image for larger version

Name:	A6-EEW_EGPF_3354.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	495.7 KB
ID:	1041425
    Click image for larger version

Name:	157173_PHNP_1057.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	825.9 KB
ID:	1041426
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N494HA_PHKO_0190.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	584.5 KB
ID:	1041427
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N808PH_PHKO_0197.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	560.7 KB
ID:	1041428
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N480HA_PHOG_0257.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	623.7 KB
ID:	1041429

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    Thanks for the feedback!

    Leave a comment:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    Thank you, Tony! I've certainly managed to do a lot of reading on this topic now. So, I paid more attention to the luminosity histogram this time, but decided not to take the highlights fully to the right hand side as shown. Is this image acceptable to upload? Hopefully it's well exposed. Thank you

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26939[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26940[/ATTACH]
    Hi Kylie,
    Uploading it here - could do with brightening to avoid a dark/under rejection.
    The mids and highlights can be moved.
    T

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    Thank you, Tony! I've certainly managed to do a lot of reading on this topic now. So, I paid more attention to the luminosity histogram this time, but decided not to take the highlights fully to the right hand side as shown. Is this image acceptable to upload? Hopefully it's well exposed. Thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	A6-ENM_EGPF_V3_9480.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	556.8 KB
ID:	1041353
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot-(18).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.01 MB
ID:	1041354

    Leave a comment:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    Hi Tony, thanks for your help with this. I did read into the histogram differences between photoshop/lightroom and found out that the issue was due to cache levels when described by most forums. However, even when both histograms are refreshed fully, they still appear to be different; the Camera Raw 9.5 version showing the red clipping. It was also tried on Camera Raw 6 which again seems to be fine with no clipping...just my version unfortunately!

    I know it seems picky, and I’m not worrying specifically about this 777 image, but it is just so I know how to correct exposure in future without leading to major clipping. Is there any way to solve that? Thank you again!
    Hi Kylie,
    I replied to another uploader earlier re Lightroom/Photoshop and other edit progs... You need to look at the 'grey' luminance aspect only in assessing brightness and contrast. I'm old school, Brian summed this up nicely some time back and it still stands see: https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...-or-Luminosity.

    I also turn on the blinkies in the image editor (lightroom) together with left/right highlight boxes. When I screen I don't just accept the histogram, I look at outlier causal factors too i.e. sun flash, dark bushes, buildings, shadows and so on.
    Hope that helps T

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    Hi Tony, thanks for your help with this. I did read into the histogram differences between photoshop/lightroom and found out that the issue was due to cache levels when described by most forums. However, even when both histograms are refreshed fully, they still appear to be different; the Camera Raw 9.5 version showing the red clipping. It was also tried on Camera Raw 6 which again seems to be fine with no clipping...just my version unfortunately!

    I know it seems picky, and Iím not worrying specifically about this 777 image, but it is just so I know how to correct exposure in future without leading to major clipping. Is there any way to solve that? Thank you again!

    Leave a comment:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Hi Kylie,

    Each time you edit, you refresh the histogram (Lightroom doesnt reflect this) . In the latest version of Photoshop histogram you will see a small (top right ) warning triangle, you must refresh it each time you do an adjustment (eye opening). Seems like small beer, but it can mean a lot on adjustments. Does that reflect what you are seeing?

    PS the screenshots are too small for me (i guess anyone ) to offer comment on.

    Happy send me a RAW etc.. mate

    T
    Last edited by 777MAN; 2019-07-30, 22:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    Thanks for the feedback on the previous post. I'm having a more general editing issue, and was wondering if I could have advice please. When the same very simple edit is carried out on this image in Camera Raw 9.5 and in Lightroom separately, the histograms are very different. The Lightroom histogram shows a well exposed image, though the Camera Raw 9.5 version shows the reds being drastically blown out. I've reckoned this has caused me to do some strange edits to keep the image staying bright in the past, but I cannot find out why this difference exists. The edited image appears to be the exact same result from both programmes, though it is just very off putting of the CR9.5 which makes me think it has bad clipping.

    One might say to just use Lightroom if that is the case, though the lightroom screenshot is from someone else's PC and it is only this version of Camera Raw that I use.

    I'd greatly appreciate any insight as to why there is a difference between these two, so I can perhaps salvage some of my older shots that I thought were ruined due to slight clipping like this one

    I've attached two screenshots, and a version of the EK 777. Would the reds be too great in this example?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot (17).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	19.6 KB
ID:	1041329

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_9480.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	568.1 KB
ID:	1041334
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    How are these two images? May I also please have feedback with regards to the last post? Thank you very much.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26519[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26520[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26521[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26522[/ATTACH]
    "Ah, that’s a pity...even though it’s from the engine number 2? Thanks for the feedback."

    Figured I Had answered this, seems not.
    rejection = Heat Hazed
    Last edited by 777MAN; 2019-07-21, 19:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • pdeboer
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    How are these two images? May I also please have feedback with regards to the last post? Thank you very much.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26519[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26520[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26521[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26522[/ATTACH]
    First two have a contrast problem as the fuselage is not well lit and sort of blends in with the background. Number three and four look oversharpend to me

    Leave a comment:


  • pawelm
    replied
    Originally posted by KyleMcKinlay View Post
    Ah, that’s a pity...even though it’s from the engine number 2? Thanks for the feedback.
    I'm not a screener, but that's what I thought. It looks like exhaust gases

    Leave a comment:


  • KyleMcKinlay
    replied
    How are these two images? May I also please have feedback with regards to the last post? Thank you very much.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	N403SY_KMRY_2191.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	376.1 KB
ID:	1040991
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N227NN_KMRY_2230.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	462.0 KB
ID:	1040992
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N370HA_PHNL_1105.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	300.1 KB
ID:	1040993
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N829MH_PHNL_1143.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	379.5 KB
ID:	1040994

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X