Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pkautzsch - Editing Advice

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

  • #16
    Not special for them or Norwegian, Alaska is a different case becausee afaik there's only 1 or 2 with the different/variation on tail and are special schemes.
    The picture is too blurry to be accepted unfortunately

    Regards
    Alex

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
      Freebird "golden" tail: does this one need "special scheme" category?
      Asking because their aircraft all have different tail colors - same question would apply to a few other airlines too, Norwegian or Alaska come to mind.
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]12918[/ATTACH]
      If all the tails are different, then not special scheme. Norwegian, Frontier, etc.. do not receive special scheme category. Alaska..all the tails are the same, so not sure what you're talking about there.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
        If all the tails are different, then not special scheme. Norwegian, Frontier, etc.. do not receive special scheme category. Alaska..all the tails are the same, so not sure what you're talking about there.
        Thank you Dana Mixed up Alaska and Frontier.

        Worked on some rejects, are the new versions ok now?
        1. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302088
        New: Click image for larger version

Name:	0344_I-ADJU_n.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	772.4 KB
ID:	1021763

        2. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302082
        New: Click image for larger version

Name:	0317_D-AIPC_n.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	939.4 KB
ID:	1021764

        3. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302079
        New: Click image for larger version

Name:	0289_UR-PSA_n.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	864.5 KB
ID:	1021765

        4. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302075
        New: Click image for larger version

Name:	0272_SU-GEJ_n.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	918.7 KB
ID:	1021766

        Thank you

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
          Thank you Dana Mixed up Alaska and Frontier.

          Worked on some rejects, are the new versions ok now?
          1. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302088
          New: [ATTACH=CONFIG]13049[/ATTACH]

          2. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302082
          New: [ATTACH=CONFIG]13050[/ATTACH]

          3. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302079
          New: [ATTACH=CONFIG]13051[/ATTACH]

          4. Old: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6302075
          New: [ATTACH=CONFIG]13052[/ATTACH]

          Thank you
          Exposure/sharpness looks ok on all, but the noise/compression is still noticeable in the sky, even on the ones that weren't originally rejected for noise.

          Comment


          • #20
            Another round of doubts.

            Would this have a chance, the aircraft obviously not being centered?
            1. Click image for larger version

Name:	0570_HS-TGW_Tower.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	710.1 KB
ID:	1022005

            Any missed issues on those?
            2. Click image for larger version

Name:	0589_HS-TGW.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	793.8 KB
ID:	1022007
            3. Click image for larger version

Name:	0591_HS-TGW.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	792.4 KB
ID:	1022008

            Difficult light conditions - good enough?
            4. Click image for larger version

Name:	0646_OE-LBZ.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	878.7 KB
ID:	1022009
            5. Click image for larger version

Name:	0869_TC-SNN.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	586.0 KB
ID:	1022010

            Thank you

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
              Another round of doubts.

              Would this have a chance, the aircraft obviously not being centered?
              1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]13323[/ATTACH]

              Any missed issues on those?
              2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]13325[/ATTACH]
              3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]13326[/ATTACH]

              Difficult light conditions - good enough?
              4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]13327[/ATTACH]
              5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]13328[/ATTACH]

              Thank you
              1. depends on the screener I guess. Probably not for me, but might be possible
              2-3 they are similar. please choose one
              4. dark/contrast
              5. borderline dark

              Comment


              • #22
                Thank you Dana once more for your patience

                Here's a recent reject, reason "contrast" but I don't really know what to make of that looking at the histogram. It's one of these "too muchor too little?" questions.
                I'd suspect "too much" since that's what I've tried to work on a few times before. Wings too dark? Or is it too little contrast between fuselage and clouds?
                1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6344186

                Three sharpness candidates here.

                2. too blurry?
                Click image for larger version

Name:	1487_VQ-BQK.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	663.7 KB
ID:	1022197

                3. enough sharpening?
                Click image for larger version

Name:	1509_HZ-ASD.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	632.6 KB
ID:	1022198

                4. I'd really like to upload this one for the light, but also not sure about sharpness and contrast.
                Click image for larger version

Name:	1588_TC-SEZ.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	702.0 KB
ID:	1022199

                Cheers, Peter

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                  Thank you Dana once more for your patience

                  Here's a recent reject, reason "contrast" but I don't really know what to make of that looking at the histogram. It's one of these "too muchor too little?" questions.
                  I'd suspect "too much" since that's what I've tried to work on a few times before. Wings too dark? Or is it too little contrast between fuselage and clouds?
                  1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6344186
                  Yeah, contrast is a little bit too strong on that one.

                  Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                  Three sharpness candidates here.

                  2. too blurry?
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]13537[/ATTACH]

                  3. enough sharpening?
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]13538[/ATTACH]

                  4. I'd really like to upload this one for the light, but also not sure about sharpness and contrast.
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]13539[/ATTACH]

                  Cheers, Peter
                  Don't really see blur/softness being an issue on the first two, and only just maybe on the last. The benefit of working with images at 1024, you can hide a lot of flaws

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6596645
                    Had that one rejected for horizon and don't quite know what to make of it. I aligned the taxiway/runway signs since these are the only clearly visible verticals. Aircraft looks a bit leaning to the left, should I rather aim for the fuselage being horizontal here, ignoring runway sign verticals? Thank you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                      https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6596645
                      Had that one rejected for horizon and don't quite know what to make of it. I aligned the taxiway/runway signs since these are the only clearly visible verticals. Aircraft looks a bit leaning to the left, should I rather aim for the fuselage being horizontal here, ignoring runway sign verticals? Thank you
                      I'd give it just a little bit of CW, then it should be fine.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Long time of silence, a few questions.

                        1 - whttps://forums.jetphotos.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17584&d=1533767132ould this silhouette one have a chance?
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	7950_G-RJXL.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	726.2 KB
ID:	1029478

                        2 - overexposed?
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	7764_B-8196.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	714.0 KB
ID:	1029479

                        3 - overexposed?
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	7804_UR-CAK.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	644.1 KB
ID:	1029480

                        Thank you

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                          Long time of silence, a few questions.

                          1 - whttps://forums.jetphotos.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17584&d=1533767132ould this silhouette one have a chance?
                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]17582[/ATTACH]

                          2 - overexposed?
                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]17583[/ATTACH]

                          3 - overexposed?
                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]17584[/ATTACH]

                          Thank you
                          First two a bit soft, but otherwise ok.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Again, difficult lighting, any chance to those?

                            1.
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	1063_A4O-DE_TO.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	777.6 KB
ID:	1032454

                            2. too dark?
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	1020_A40-DE_TX_dunkler.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	918.5 KB
ID:	1032455

                            3. better? (on my monitor it looks a bit burnt out, but not quite relying on it)
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	1020_A40-DE_TX_heller.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	972.8 KB
ID:	1032456

                            As I recently got a few "oversharpen" rejects on what I thought was just fine, trying to re-calibrate my sharpening workflow. Sharpening ok on those two?

                            4.
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	0979_S5-AAV.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	843.5 KB
ID:	1032457

                            5.
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	0997_LX-LGG.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	887.3 KB
ID:	1032458

                            Thank you

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                              Again, difficult lighting, any chance to those?

                              1.
                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21205[/ATTACH]

                              2. too dark?
                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21206[/ATTACH]

                              3. better? (on my monitor it looks a bit burnt out, but not quite relying on it)
                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21207[/ATTACH]

                              As I recently got a few "oversharpen" rejects on what I thought was just fine, trying to re-calibrate my sharpening workflow. Sharpening ok on those two?

                              4.
                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21208[/ATTACH]

                              5.
                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21209[/ATTACH]

                              Thank you
                              1. soft, vignetting, borderline dark/contrast
                              2-3 #2 probably better
                              4. horizon, dirty
                              5. overexposed/contrast

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                wow, that was quick, thank you a lot! Seems I need to re-calibrate a bit more than just sharpening skills

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X