Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

kevincargo - Editing Advice

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

  • #76
    Everything look okay with this group?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	N800AN_KORD_081018_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	437.0 KB
ID:	1029514
    Click image for larger version

Name:	HL8010_KORD_081018_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	396.9 KB
ID:	1029515
    Click image for larger version

Name:	JA789A_KORD_081018_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	435.8 KB
ID:	1029516
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N674NK_KORD_081018_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	419.2 KB
ID:	1029517
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N614AS_KORD_081018_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	394.7 KB
ID:	1029518

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by kevincargo View Post
      Everything look okay with this group?

      [ATTACH=CONFIG]17626[/ATTACH]
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]17627[/ATTACH]
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]17628[/ATTACH]
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]17629[/ATTACH]
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]17630[/ATTACH]
      They are all borderline contrast (fuselage not well lit)

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by pdeboer View Post
        They are all borderline contrast (fuselage not well lit)
        Darn. Unfortunately getting to that time of year where the "good lighting" (i.e. morning and evening) is not at the best angle with the way traffic patterns flow at ORD (east and west). Might just have to wait until fall/winter when that sun moves a little lower and to the south a bit more to get more favorable lighting. Thanks for checking them out, Pamela.

        Comment


        • #79
          Hey team. I have a pair of new registrations to the DB plus a new aircraft type to the registration on the third image. All of these have some small issues I'm wondering are minor enough to add, namely some heat haze on the first and third, and obstruction & contrast issues on the second. Unfortunately, I was in the small public viewing area for PWK and wasn't able to improve my distance or angle to avoid these. Are these acceptable or should we forget about em?

          Click image for larger version

Name:	N312GS_KPWK_080818_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.32 MB
ID:	1029584
          Click image for larger version

Name:	N573EE_KPWK_081318_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.14 MB
ID:	1029585
          Click image for larger version

Name:	N607RP_KPWK_080818_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.27 MB
ID:	1029586

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by kevincargo View Post
            Hey team. I have a pair of new registrations to the DB plus a new aircraft type to the registration on the third image. All of these have some small issues I'm wondering are minor enough to add, namely some heat haze on the first and third, and obstruction & contrast issues on the second. Unfortunately, I was in the small public viewing area for PWK and wasn't able to improve my distance or angle to avoid these. Are these acceptable or should we forget about em?

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]17722[/ATTACH]
            [ATTACH=CONFIG]17723[/ATTACH]
            [ATTACH=CONFIG]17724[/ATTACH]
            1 & 3 indeed borderline for heat haze, but might be acceptable as new. 2 is fine.

            Comment


            • #81
              Hey everyone - feedback on this set?

              Click image for larger version

Name:	D-AIHZ_KORD_082218_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	360.4 KB
ID:	1029803
              Click image for larger version

Name:	OE-LAZ_KORD_082218_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	467.8 KB
ID:	1029804
              Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-EJN_KORD_082218_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	442.2 KB
ID:	1029805
              Click image for larger version

Name:	EC-LFS_KORD_082218_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	430.7 KB
ID:	1029806
              Click image for larger version

Name:	OY-KBD_KORD_081518_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	442.8 KB
ID:	1029807

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by kevincargo View Post
                Hey everyone - feedback on this set?

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]17981[/ATTACH]
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]17982[/ATTACH]
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]17983[/ATTACH]
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]17984[/ATTACH]
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]17985[/ATTACH]
                Borderline compression and oversharpening (2, 4, 5) but otherwise should be ok.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Hey, a quick question about obstruction. I submitted this one as a new registration this morning, full well understanding the risks of rejection with, say, the contrast of this image, knowing that sometime leniencies are given to new regs in the DB (but not expected). What I didn't even consider was obstruction caused by the ground equipment. I went back and read the latest guidelines about it and it seems like this is just a case by case decision to be made by the screener as to what feels like too much. Is there a quantifiable amount I should be wary of going forward?

                  I know the best answer to this is "avoid any obstruction at all" but in situations like this where improving your angle is not possible on a parked aircraft, I did the best I could. Not upset about it, just curious to hear a screener's thought.

                  JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by kevincargo View Post
                    Hey, a quick question about obstruction. I submitted this one as a new registration this morning, full well understanding the risks of rejection with, say, the contrast of this image, knowing that sometime leniencies are given to new regs in the DB (but not expected). What I didn't even consider was obstruction caused by the ground equipment. I went back and read the latest guidelines about it and it seems like this is just a case by case decision to be made by the screener as to what feels like too much. Is there a quantifiable amount I should be wary of going forward?

                    I know the best answer to this is "avoid any obstruction at all" but in situations like this where improving your angle is not possible on a parked aircraft, I did the best I could. Not upset about it, just curious to hear a screener's thought.

                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6775536
                    Ground equipment such as APU units, stairs, or luggage carts obstructing any part of the aircraft will almost always cause a rejection, unless the subject is extremely rare, as they are extraneous to the scene (i.e. they are avoidable and don't add anything to the photo). An exception will be tugs which are allowed to block part of the nose gear when moving the aircraft, as they can be considered part of the scene in that case.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      A few new ones to share with you guys.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	N813AN_KORD_082918_1280v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	367.4 KB
ID:	1030015
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	N755AN_KORD_083118_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	391.1 KB
ID:	1030016
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	N225UA_KORD_083118_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	405.5 KB
ID:	1030017
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	D-ABYA_KORD_083118_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	378.3 KB
ID:	1030018

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by kevincargo View Post
                        A few new ones to share with you guys.

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]18250[/ATTACH]
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]18251[/ATTACH]
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]18252[/ATTACH]
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]18253[/ATTACH]
                        1. dark/contrast
                        2. ok
                        3. heat haze, cut off
                        4. ok

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Does the contrast on this work with the back half of the plane still slightly cloud covered? There was about 3 seconds of this plane in the sunlight.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	N837AN_KORD_090418_1280v1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	419.8 KB
ID:	1030155

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by kevincargo View Post
                            Does the contrast on this work with the back half of the plane still slightly cloud covered? There was about 3 seconds of this plane in the sunlight.

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]18430[/ATTACH]
                            Should be acceptable.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Cheers, Dana. Thank you as always.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Does this seem acceptable?

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	D-AIHB_KORD_082318_1280v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	489.7 KB
ID:	1030178

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X