kevincargo - Editing Advice

[kevincargo]

All are somewhat compressed, and the last also has pretty strong vignetting.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why I'm still battling compression. Shooting and editing in RAW/tiff and exporting once at max JPG quality. Any ideas?

[dlowwa]

I cannot for the life of me figure out why I'm still battling compression. Shooting and editing in RAW/tiff and exporting once at max JPG quality. Any ideas?

Given the file sizes, I'd bet you're not actually exporting at max jpeg quality.

[kevincargo]

I'll do some more research and find the best way to get that max quality out of it.

Re: the following photo I had rejected - I'm assuming the backlit rejection is because of the amount of light hitting the tail, correct? I believe I've seen that reasoning before. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6683161

Slightly surprised this was rejected and this one was accepted as they were taken moments apart from the same location: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9014729

[dlowwa]

I'll do some more research and find the best way to get that max quality out of it.

Re: the following photo I had rejected - I'm assuming the backlit rejection is because of the amount of light hitting the tail, correct? I believe I've seen that reasoning before. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6683161

Slightly surprised this was rejected and this one was accepted as they were taken moments apart from the same location: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9014729

Both borderline, but the Air China has sun hitting most of the near fuselage, and at least part of the tail. Etihad has much less light on the fuselage, and almost none on the tail.

[kevincargo]

Both borderline, but the Air China has sun hitting most of the near fuselage, and at least part of the tail. Etihad has much less light on the fuselage, and almost none on the tail.

Makes sense. Moving on from it. Thanks Dana.

[kevincargo]

How do these look? Especially the ABC close up. I have another of the full aircraft if this isn't a good crop/doesn't have the quality.

[dlowwa]

How do these look? Especially the ABC close up. I have another of the full aircraft if this isn't a good crop/doesn't have the quality.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17268[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17269[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17270[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17271[/ATTACH]

1-3 ok
4. looks almost backlit

[kevincargo]

1-3 ok
4. looks almost backlit

Kind of expected it. Holding it cropped like that for the personal collection and I'll try uploading this one. Thanks Dana.

[pdeboer]

Kind of expected it. Holding it cropped like that for the personal collection and I'll try uploading this one. Thanks Dana.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17278[/ATTACH]

Similar to the other: almost backlit

[kevincargo]

Similar to the other: almost backlit

Looking like she's borderline regardless? Thought there was enough light on the tail. I'll try my chances with this one and see what the lucky screener thinks. Thank you for your feedback, Pamela!

[777MAN]

Looking like she's borderline regardless. Thought there was enough light on the tail. I'll try my chances with this one and see what the lucky screener thinks. Thank you for your feedback, Pamela!

Hi,
when you look at your original 'cropped' version of the ABC as Dana advised 'almost backlit ' then you have the full version with mids lifted its still backlit on the tail as per the guidelines and as Pamela advises further 'almost backlit' . Nice shot, however, I suspect as per my colleagues it will get a backlit rejection. Your call.
Regards T

[kevincargo]

Hi,
when you look at your original 'cropped' version of the ABC as Dana advised 'almost backlit ' then you have the full version with mids lifted its still backlit on the tail as per the guidelines and as Pamela advises further 'almost backlit' . Nice shot, however, I suspect as per my colleagues it will get a backlit rejection. Your call.
Regards T

I’ll take all of your guys’ advice and leave it on the hard drive. Appreciate all of your feedback!

[kevincargo]

New round. Still debating if I want to upload the ones with the light sneaking into the frame. Those were the clearest frames. I'm also wondering if the Falcon has enough quality to pass.

[dlowwa]

New round. Still debating if I want to upload the ones with the light sneaking into the frame. Those were the clearest frames. I'm also wondering if the Falcon has enough quality to pass.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17404[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17405[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17406[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17407[/ATTACH]

Some compression in the sky on the first two, which are also a bit low. The out of focus lamp post is not obstructing anything, but it is borderline distracting imho, so best to try to find an angle that avoids it in the future as images can be rejected for distracting clutter even if nothing is actually blocking the aircraft.

[kevincargo]

Some compression in the sky on the first two, which are also a bit low. The out of focus lamp post is not obstructing anything, but it is borderline distracting imho, so best to try to find an angle that avoids it in the future as images can be rejected for distracting clutter even if nothing is actually blocking the aircraft.

You know what that settles it for me. I always thought in my head “no obstruction, no problem” but seeing the word “distracting” and how well that lines up with my thoughts seals it. I was in one of those spots that is just full of those to shoot around that day. Gonna keep these put away. Thanks Dana!