Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matt737 - Editing Advice

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

  • Matt737 - Editing Advice

    Hi! I would like some feedback on this pic. I took it a few weeks ago, and it turned out pretty nice, at least to me . Any feedback is appreciated, thanks.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	4FDBA3B5-BAE0-4369-B77F-97BEC19F70E1.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	285.4 KB
ID:	1045134

  • #2
    Originally posted by matt737 View Post
    Hi! I would like some feedback on this pic. I took it a few weeks ago, and it turned out pretty nice, at least to me . Any feedback is appreciated, thanks.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]11233[/ATTACH]
    Hi, firstly I moved your post into the other forum where all the Editing Advice threads are.

    As for this photo, it's quite soft and it appears to have heat distortion in places. There also appears to be some compression artefacts, mainly in the sky top right. Maybe also some brightening up as it appears a little under-exposed too.

    Comment


    • #3
      Click image for larger version

Name:	8C7534EE-CE85-4C96-812B-25743C647601.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	165.0 KB
ID:	1020234
      How do y'all think the FR NEO will do? Then I also have a WN MAX that I was wondering about. The aircraft is centered horizontally, but not vertically, will it be accepted with some lighting edits?
      Click image for larger version

Name:	2F78F650-8C75-40E2-9C72-688AA6A2E72F.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.63 MB
ID:	1020236

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by matt737 View Post
        [ATTACH=CONFIG]11289[/ATTACH]
        How do y'all think the FR NEO will do? Then I also have a WN MAX that I was wondering about. The aircraft is centered horizontally, but not vertically, will it be accepted with some lighting edits?
        [ATTACH=CONFIG]11291[/ATTACH]
        Both would be rejected for:

        1. soft/blurry
        2. obstruction, glare/reflection, soft, compression, noise, horizon, composition/center, quality

        It would probably be a good idea if you read through the upload guidelines, and then perhaps took a look at some already accepted images to compare to the images you are hoping to submit. You might see that that unfortunately such images (second one specifically) are nowhere near the standards necessary to be accepted.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi again! I have read over the guidelines, and checked off all the standards needed to be accepted. Will these photos be accepted into the database?
          Click image for larger version

Name:	Miami Air 737-800 N748MA.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	318.1 KB
ID:	1020451
          Click image for larger version

Name:	United a320 N446UA.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	417.5 KB
ID:	1020452

          Comment


          • #6
            And also, this photo was rejected for being soft, and for their being image manipulation. Can someone educate me on what image manipulation is?
            JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by matt737 View Post
              Hi again! I have read over the guidelines, and checked off all the standards needed to be accepted. Will these photos be accepted into the database?
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]11554[/ATTACH]
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]11555[/ATTACH]
              Quality looks acceptable on both for me.

              Originally posted by matt737 View Post
              And also, this photo was rejected for being soft, and for their being image manipulation. Can someone educate me on what image manipulation is?
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6198539
              Screener left a note about the aspect/ratio, but I can't really see the issue, so maybe for this one it's safe to ignore that rejection reason.

              Comment


              • #8
                So then it is just undersharpened? I'm almost certain this image was either 16:9 or 3:2 when editing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by matt737 View Post
                  So then it is just undersharpened? I'm almost certain this image was either 16:9 or 3:2 when editing.
                  Very soft, yes, looks like due to heat haze which would mean it's probably not fixable. Also a bit dark/flat, but that's a moot point with the haze/softness.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I saved your image to my computer and equalized it in PS. Correct me if i'm wrong but the sky has a lot of compression artefacts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ok you are talkin about the Star Alliance 738 right? I think I see some weird stuff in the top right corner, if that's what you are talking about. Thank you!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi again JP community! I was wondering how this may preform in the queue.

                        1.Click image for larger version

Name:	United Express ERJ-175 N86334.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	328.6 KB
ID:	1020484

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by matt737 View Post
                          Hi again JP community! I was wondering how this may preform in the queue.

                          1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]11590[/ATTACH]
                          Looks ok to me

                          Regards
                          Alex

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Are these acceptable?
                            1.Click image for larger version

Name:	Southwest 737 MAX 8 N8716B.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	379.1 KB
ID:	1020499
                            2.Click image for larger version

Name:	American MD-83 N9622A.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	365.8 KB
ID:	1020500

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by matt737 View Post
                              Are these acceptable?
                              1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]11608[/ATTACH]
                              2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]11609[/ATTACH]
                              both would be rejected for:

                              1. overprocessed
                              2. soft/blurry

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X