If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
3. enough sharpening?
4. I'd really like to upload this one for the light, but also not sure about sharpness and contrast.
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.
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
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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
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.
3. better? (on my monitor it looks a bit burnt out, but not quite relying on it)
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?
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?
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment