pre-screen photos at dawn

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa

Will these two be considered similarly ?
Apart the angle , one is taxiing, the other is taking off.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9369162

thanks for your time and help
a.m.

Yes, likely to be considered similar.

[a.m.]

ah.. well, rules are rules
thx
a.m.

[dlowwa]

ah.. well, rules are rules
thx
a.m.

Guidelines, not necessarily rules. This one is open to interpretation, but as you can tell, in my opinion it's likely to be considered similar.

[a.m.]

Hi dlowwa

I'd the following rejected by horizon unlevel https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7557462. Will 0,5º CCW correct it ?
When having so many reference , vertical and horizontal and where at the sides probably distortion would foul ourselves... what's the rule of thumb to align it ?
Are the roff tops ( thus horizontal ) the best reference for alignment ?

how about this one ? is it ok ? I can see conflicting alignments between the vertical metal sheets in the wall of the structure and the houses in background for instance.
Since the metal structure seats in the middle of the images ( thus less potential distortion effect ) shouldn't it be the reference for alignment ?

thanks for your time and help

/rgds
a.m.

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa

I'd the following rejected by horizon unlevel https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7557462. Will 0,5º CCW correct it ?
When having so many reference , vertical and horizontal and where at the sides probably distortion would foul ourselves... what's the rule of thumb to align it ?
Are the roff tops ( thus horizontal ) the best reference for alignment ?

No, since it's visible, I'd simply look at the actual horizon. You'll see it's nowhere near level.

how about this one ? is it ok ? I can see conflicting alignments between the vertical metal sheets in the wall of the structure and the houses in background for instance.
Since the metal structure seats in the middle of the images ( thus less potential distortion effect ) shouldn't it be the reference for alignment ?

All verticals are leaning right = needs CCW rotation.

[a.m.]

Thx dlowwa

How about these two ?

#1) Trying to align using the fence poles... it would be impossible, because not all of the, are in sync... ( looks like a rolling effect )
So I choose to align by the tiny roof top, plus the "horizon" of the runway.

#2) again the poles "aren't in sync" , so I aligned them using the roff top, plus some trees ( the palm tree )

/rgds
a.m.

[dlowwa]

Thx dlowwa

How about these two ?

#1) Trying to align using the fence poles... it would be impossible, because not all of the, are in sync... ( looks like a rolling effect )
So I choose to align by the tiny roof top, plus the "horizon" of the runway.

#2) again the poles "aren't in sync" , so I aligned them using the roff top, plus some trees ( the palm tree )

/rgds
a.m.

Horizon should be ok on first one; second has conflicting verticals, but I'd rely more on the structure in the background than the fence, in which case is also looks ok to me.

[a.m.]

Hi dlowwa, already back from vacations ? or working remotely ?

Can you please review these ? thx
/rgds

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa, already back from vacations ? or working remotely ?

Still away, but stable Wifi connection now

Can you please review these ? thx
/rgds

1. dark, oversharpened
2. borderline dark

[a.m.]

Still away, but stable Wifi connection now

ah... great (for us) .... but probably not so fun for you

1. dark, oversharpened
2. borderline dark

well.. I'm getting "dark" photos, even on photos that supposed to be dark ... I'm still in the bottom of the learning curve here.
thx

[dlowwa]

ah... great (for us) .... but probably not so fun for you



well.. I'm getting "dark" photos, even on photos that supposed to be dark ... I'm still in the bottom of the learning curve here.
thx

Silhouette shots still need to be exposed properly. Aircraft doesn't have to be bright, but the whole frame can't be really dark either.

[a.m.]

Silhouette shots still need to be exposed properly. Aircraft doesn't have to be bright, but the whole frame can't be really dark either.

Ah.. didn't knew that. I admit I've darkened it a bit just to have a "better/more defined silhouette". Wrong move then.
I realized also that the background/sky isn't the best , to flat for my taste... not enough sparse clouds ... but better dawns will come
So, here's another try, with the normal out of the camera light.
Are these closer ?

/rgds
a.m.

PS: Sorry for asking you to review such boring photos.. I'll promise that I won't bore you in the next couple of weeks. Skip my post, have fun , pretend you still are in 1985 ... no wifi in sight

[dlowwa]

Ah.. didn't knew that. I admit I've darkened it a bit just to have a "better/more defined silhouette". Wrong move then.
I realized also that the background/sky isn't the best , to flat for my taste... not enough sparse clouds ... but better dawns will come
So, here's another try, with the normal out of the camera light.
Are these closer ?

/rgds
a.m.

PS: Sorry for asking you to review such boring photos.. I'll promise that I won't bore you in the next couple of weeks. Skip my post, have fun , pretend you still are in 1985 ... no wifi in sight

Better I suppose, but likely still too dark, especially the first. Better to move on from that one at least and try with better images.

[a.m.]

Better I suppose, but likely still too dark, especially the first. Better to move on from that one at least and try with better images.

Hi dlowwa, I'm assuming you are back, and enjoyed some great vacations.
How about these, from a foggy morning ? are they acceptable ?
Thx for your time and help

[dlowwa]

Hi dlowwa, I'm assuming you are back, and enjoyed some great vacations.
How about these, from a foggy morning ? are they acceptable ?
Thx for your time and help

1, 2, 4 very likely contrast rejections; 3 likely dark rejection.