Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Editing Advice - YULplanespotting

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

  • Editing Advice - YULplanespotting

    Hi, I'd like to know if any of these pictures would be accepted into the database, and if not, what I should change. Thanks in advance for all the help!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	P1040300-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	298.7 KB
ID:	1045593 Click image for larger version

Name:	P1040428-1-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	471.4 KB
ID:	1045594 Click image for larger version

Name:	P1040619-1-3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	331.8 KB
ID:	1045595 Click image for larger version

Name:	P1040632-1-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	356.5 KB
ID:	1045596

  • #2
    Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
    Hi, I'd like to know if any of these pictures would be accepted into the database, and if not, what I should change. Thanks in advance for all the help!

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]15742[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]15743[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]15744[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]15745[/ATTACH]
    1: backlit
    2: Looks OK, at the verge of being backlit though
    3: OK
    4: Noise, weird contrast
    My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

    Comment


    • #3
      Hello again, would any of these pictures be accepted into the database? Thanks again for the help!
      Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050172-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	837.3 KB
ID:	1029133
      Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050209-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	735.4 KB
ID:	1029132
      Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050183-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	659.5 KB
ID:	1029134

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
        Hello again, would any of these pictures be accepted into the database? Thanks again for the help!
        [ATTACH=CONFIG]17123[/ATTACH]
        [ATTACH=CONFIG]17122[/ATTACH]
        [ATTACH=CONFIG]17124[/ATTACH]
        Can't give acceptance chances on un-edited images but these do look terribly soft/blurry.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
          Can't give acceptance chances on un-edited images but these do look terribly soft/blurry.
          Are they any better now?

          Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050172-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.22 MB
ID:	1029135 Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050209-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	967.5 KB
ID:	1029136 Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050183-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	927.1 KB
ID:	1029137

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
            Are they any better now?

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]17125[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]17126[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]17127[/ATTACH]
            As I said, since these are not the final images you will be submitting, it's pointless to comment on their chances of acceptance.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hello again! I'm back with some more pictures, and would like to know if any of these would be accepted into the database/what improvements should be made. Thanks in advance for the help!

              Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050925-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	663.9 KB
ID:	1029559Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050555-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	696.3 KB
ID:	1029560Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050843-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	684.7 KB
ID:	1029561Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050962-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	687.4 KB
ID:	1029562Click image for larger version

Name:	P1060003-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	685.1 KB
ID:	1029563

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
                Hello again! I'm back with some more pictures, and would like to know if any of these would be accepted into the database/what improvements should be made. Thanks in advance for the help!

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]17692[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17693[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17694[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17695[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17696[/ATTACH]
                These would all be rejected for soft, contrast, and overprocessed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                  These would all be rejected for soft, contrast, and overprocessed.
                  Are these any better? Also, for future reference, how does one correct contrast issues on a picture?

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050925-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	675.5 KB
ID:	1029565Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050555-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	726.1 KB
ID:	1029566Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050843-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	703.3 KB
ID:	1029567Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050962-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	735.3 KB
ID:	1029568Click image for larger version

Name:	P1060003-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	695.7 KB
ID:	1029569

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
                    Are these any better? Also, for future reference, how does one correct contrast issues on a picture?

                    [ATTACH=CONFIG]17700[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17701[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17702[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17703[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17705[/ATTACH]
                    In this specific case, I would guess it's due to whatever you are doing in your editing, be it boosting the shadows, or playing with the curves. The weak contrast goes hand in hand with the overprocessing. Figure out which step in your process is causing it, eliminate that step, and you will have fixed two of the problems at the same time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                      In this specific case, I would guess it's due to whatever you are doing in your editing, be it boosting the shadows, or playing with the curves. The weak contrast goes hand in hand with the overprocessing. Figure out which step in your process is causing it, eliminate that step, and you will have fixed two of the problems at the same time.
                      I've moved the shadows slider a lot closer to the pictures' original settings. Are there any improvements? Thanks again for all the help, really appreciate it!

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050925-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	661.3 KB
ID:	1029573Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050555-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	712.0 KB
ID:	1029574Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050843-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	695.6 KB
ID:	1029575Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050962-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	727.2 KB
ID:	1029576Click image for larger version

Name:	P1060003-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	686.3 KB
ID:	1029577

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
                        I've moved the shadows slider a lot closer to the pictures' original settings. Are there any improvements? Thanks again for all the help, really appreciate it!

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]17709[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17710[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17711[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17712[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17713[/ATTACH]
                        Better, but instead of 'moving it a lot closer to the original settings' maybe better to not even use that effect (i.e. set it to zero). It's obviously what's causing the problems.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                          Better, but instead of 'moving it a lot closer to the original settings' maybe better to not even use that effect (i.e. set it to zero). It's obviously what's causing the problems.
                          I have now set the shadows slider to its default position (set to zero). Are these passable or are they still overprocessed?

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050925-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	648.1 KB
ID:	1029593Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050555-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	702.0 KB
ID:	1029594Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050843-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	686.9 KB
ID:	1029595Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050962-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	720.7 KB
ID:	1029596Click image for larger version

Name:	P1060003-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	669.1 KB
ID:	1029597

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
                            I have now set the shadows slider to its default position (set to zero). Are these passable or are they still overprocessed?

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]17732[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17733[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17734[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17735[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]17736[/ATTACH]
                            Still weak contrast and halos visible. Something else must be causing it. Try starting with the RAW file with all settings to zero, and then convert to jpeg. If you don't have the RAW file, you'll need to figure out if the halos are in the original JPEG. If they are, there will be no way to remove them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                              Still weak contrast and halos visible. Something else must be causing it. Try starting with the RAW file with all settings to zero, and then convert to jpeg. If you don't have the RAW file, you'll need to figure out if the halos are in the original JPEG. If they are, there will be no way to remove them.
                              Hello again, I've started from scratch and have attempted to avoid creating halos in the process; is this batch any better?

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050925-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	638.7 KB
ID:	1029667Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050555-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	693.6 KB
ID:	1029668Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050843-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	681.2 KB
ID:	1029669Click image for larger version

Name:	P1050962-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	704.3 KB
ID:	1029670Click image for larger version

Name:	P1060003-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	671.6 KB
ID:	1029671

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X