wkd001- Editing advice

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=wkd001;n1113541]

Thanks Dana.

I've tried to rework the second of the previous post and especially on terms of dark and contrast.

1. bit better. would be ok for me.
2. indeed soft

[wkd001]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1113548]

1. bit better. would be ok for me.
2. indeed soft

Thanks a lot again Dana, I've tried my luck with the first.

Now I would like a prescreen on this image.
Biggest fear is softness, by heathaze and long focal length
Maybe the contrast is also too harsh.

Thanks in advance and regards.

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=wkd001;n1114086]

Thanks a lot again Dana, I've tried my luck with the first.

Now I would like a prescreen on this image.
Biggest fear is softness, by heathaze and long focal length
Maybe the contrast is also too harsh.

Thanks in advance and regards.

Don't really notice heat haze too much, but a bit soft (probably due to heat haze), and yes contrast is a bit harsh.

[wkd001]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1114095]

Don't really notice heat haze too much, but a bit soft (probably due to heat haze), and yes contrast is a bit harsh.

Thanks a lot for that Dana,I will try to rework it ,when the time is there.

I've received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9061889 for Horizon Unlevel and I don't really know which way to go with it.
The big pole is heat distorted in my eyes so seems not a good reference to me, so tried to use the small pole next to it.
But according to the horizontal references on the poles it seems I should give it a very smal touch of CW rotation?
Any guidance would be appreciated

Thanks in advance and regards.

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=wkd001;n1114276]

Thanks a lot for that Dana,I will try to rework it ,when the time is there.

I've received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9061889 for Horizon Unlevel and I don't really know which way to go with it.
The big pole is heat distorted in my eyes so seems not a good reference to me, so tried to use the small pole next to it.
But according to the horizontal references on the poles it seems I should give it a very smal touch of CW rotation?
Any guidance would be appreciated

Thanks in advance and regards.

Based on the pole, a tiny bit of CW is needed.

[wkd001]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1114285]

Based on the pole, a tiny bit of CW is needed.

Thanks Dana,

I've tried to rework it , but I'm afraid I've overdone with CW rotation, So it would be nice (or someone else from crew),could double check it again.
This it the reworked version.
Thanks in Advance and regards.

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=wkd001;n1114629]

Thanks Dana,

I've tried to rework it , but I'm afraid I've overdone with CW rotation, So it would be nice (or someone else from crew),could double check it again.
This it the reworked version.
Thanks in Advance and regards.

Horizon looks ok, but also softer than previous.

[wkd001]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1114663]

Horizon looks ok, but also softer than previous.

Thanks Dana,

In the end, another reworked version got accepted.

After some time no aviation again, I could go out again spotting but not in ideal circumstances, so I would like a prescreen on these three photos.

For both these two my worries are, (harsh) contrast/exposure, horizon, sharpness and due to to the weather, hazy/dirty sky

For this one, the same story as the previous two, but also I had to off-center (bit too high now) the aircraft, because otherwise I had to cut both the persons in half. Curious if this is accepted in this case.

If there is something I might have missed I would like to know as well.

Thanks in advance and regards.

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=wkd001;n1116947]

After some time no aviation again, I could go out again spotting but not in ideal circumstances, so I would like a prescreen on these three photos.

Contrast indeed a bit harsh on the first two. Centering should be ok on the third.

[wkd001]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1116961]

Contrast indeed a bit harsh on the first two. Centering should be ok on the third.

Thanks a lot Dana.

Would the first two get rejected for too harsh contrast if I submit them?

[dlowwa]

[QUOTE=wkd001;n1116992]

Thanks a lot Dana.

Would the first two get rejected for too harsh contrast if I submit them?

Probably, but couldn't guarantee it.

[wkd001]

[QUOTE=dlowwa;n1116997]

Probably, but couldn't guarantee it.

Thanks anyway Dana.

I've decided to try my luck with a revised version of the Kuwait 777, But you won't hear me as it fails.

I would like a prescreen on these two photos.
Would this composition work? Also curious on contrast, sharpening, horizon and exposure.
Not sure on Contrast, color, sharpening, horizon and exposure here.

Both shots were taken at the beginning of the evening here.

Thanks in advance and regards.

[dlowwa]

I would like a prescreen on these two photos.
Would this composition work? Also curious on contrast, sharpening, horizon and exposure.

A bit low, but acceptable for me. Motive rejection for the readable car plate.

Not sure on Contrast, color, sharpening, horizon and exposure here.

Slightly soft but otherwise ok for me.

[wkd001]

A bit low, but acceptable for me. Motive rejection for the readable car plate.



Slightly soft but otherwise ok for me.

Thanks again for that Dana.

I've read the guidelines. they say that blurring car plates is a little bit allowed.
Is this too much blurring? I also lifted the aircraft a little, but if the blurring is too much, I will take another snap of this aircraft without the other stuff included. And another question/prescreen.

Is the contrast also too harsh here? Also worried about the glare and maybe softness.

Thanks in advance and regards.

[dlowwa]

Thanks again for that Dana.

I've read the guidelines. they say that blurring car plates is a little bit allowed.
Is this too much blurring? I also lifted the aircraft a little, but if the blurring is too much, I will take another snap of this aircraft without the other stuff included. And another question/prescreen.

Is the contrast also too harsh here? Also worried about the glare and maybe softness.

Thanks in advance and regards.

Both would be ok for me.