Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pre-screen photos at dawn

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

  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    2. borderline oversharpened/overprocessed
    4. ok
    Thx dlowwa

    Photo 2, wasn't the best one to start with.
    A bit darker, overcast, taken with lots of haze @45c/113F.
    The above border line, probably was the result of applying a mask/processing just to the sky. Probably needed some additional sharpner/halo work.

    Ok now I start to understand the sentence : "Photoshop can make miracles".

    thanks again for your time and help

    /rgds

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    How about this new version ?
    2. borderline oversharpened/overprocessed
    4. ok

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    How about this new version ?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. dark, heat haze, compression
    2. soft, overprocessed (pretty strong editing halos)
    Thx dlowwa

    All the sins in the Universe and a couple more I believe ..

    /rgds

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by PrestonFiedler View Post
    Not a screener, but EasyJet looks dark, noisy, compressed, Vueling appears to me to be blurry/soft, noisy, compressed, and possibly heat hazed.
    Thx Preston
    Boy, oh boy, there's no salvation from here...

    /rgds

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by PrestonFiedler View Post
    Not a screener, but EasyJet looks dark, noisy, compressed, Vueling appears to me to be blurry/soft, noisy, compressed, and possibly heat hazed.
    Thx Preston
    Boy, oh boy, there's no salvation from here...

    /rgds

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    Dear All


    Can you please comment/review these two ?

    Thx for your time and help

    /rgds
    1. dark, heat haze, compression
    2. soft, overprocessed (pretty strong editing halos)

    Leave a comment:


  • PrestonFiedler
    replied
    Not a screener, but EasyJet looks dark, noisy, compressed, Vueling appears to me to be blurry/soft, noisy, compressed, and possibly heat hazed.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Dear All


    Can you please comment/review these two ?

    Thx for your time and help

    /rgds
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    I use Photoshop CS5. 8 years old now, but still easily more than enough for editing of simple aviation photos.

    Time of day can also make a big difference on the amount of haze visible, so you don't necessarily need to wait for the season to change. I shoot a lot in the summer, but only in the hour / hour and a half before sunset.

    As for jpeg vs. RAW, both will be the same resolution if you've set your jpegs up that way, but the RAW file will contain a lot more information relating to color/exposure. If you trust your camera to get the jpeg processing right, there's not a huge advantage for RAW over jpeg. I still always shoot RAW since storage is cheap, and in the rare case the camera gets something like the white balance wrong, it's far easier to fix if you're working with a RAW file.
    Thanks dlowwa

    #As for jpeg vs. RAW, both will be the same resolution if you've set your jpegs up that way, but the RAW file will contain a lot more information relating to color/exposure
    In the past with my Olympus OM E-10... the JPEG was as good as the raw file.
    But with Nikon, I always seen the JPEG out of the camera as a bit soft. Anyway, as you mentioned storage is cheap nowadays, so I'll keep RAW


    #I use Photoshop CS5. 8 years old now, but still easily more than enough for editing of simple aviation photos.
    Well I may go for it. In the meantime I'm using/learning to use GIMP, Darkable and Mac OS standard Photo tools.
    I've used Nikon View... but as strange as it seems the the raw convert and the jpeg compressor isn't as good as in the other tools.

    Now I start to understand, the compress efects, halos and softness you mentioned..
    I was expecting to use the photos just as they come out of the camera...maybe just adjusting some color levels.

    But no, life (and good photos) do need some processing.

    So I'm fighting now with masks and layers and sharpening and low passs and and... .. the halos are still there..
    It looks GIMP and Photoshop handles halos/jagges removing in a different way.


    So one final request to you : can you edit one more photo ? the Vueling EC-MBS ?

    I would use then that and your previous editing as my benchmark
    Once I could replicate your work... I can try to pusblish some photos.

    thanks again for your time and help

    /rgds

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    Thx dlowwa

    Wow. It looks like a complete different photo... the detail is there (finally).

    I need badly to take some lessons on imaging editing... Which software are you using/recommend ?

    .. and one final request : can you edit one more photo ? the Vueling EC-MBS ?

    After this I'll change my "workflow":

    1) wait 3 months until Fall, before take any more photos (to reduce heat haze )
    2) take some edition lessons
    3) get another zoom lens.
    4) sent you a couple of my own craft beers

    thanks again for your time and help

    /rgds
    a.m.
    I use Photoshop CS5. 8 years old now, but still easily more than enough for editing of simple aviation photos.

    Time of day can also make a big difference on the amount of haze visible, so you don't necessarily need to wait for the season to change. I shoot a lot in the summer, but only in the hour / hour and a half before sunset.

    As for jpeg vs. RAW, both will be the same resolution if you've set your jpegs up that way, but the RAW file will contain a lot more information relating to color/exposure. If you trust your camera to get the jpeg processing right, there's not a huge advantage for RAW over jpeg. I still always shoot RAW since storage is cheap, and in the rare case the camera gets something like the white balance wrong, it's far easier to fix if you're working with a RAW file.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by Oleksiy Naumov View Post
    i used to shoot in RAW but the amount of overhead and no real benefits made me go back to jpeg. Life is so much easier now
    Thx Oleksiy

    You know, I'm taking RAW and JPEG at same time. But to tell you the trued I never looked at the jpeg image out of the camera as been a possibility.
    Always assumed that the RAW file would be better and specifically have more detail.

    Since we need to resize it to a tenth of the original resolution.. any additional bit of detail could make the difference.
    Anyway, I'll have a look... maybe the Nikon JPEG engine ends up by being good as hell

    Thanks
    /rgds

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Ok, so I took one of the RAW files you made available, and did a quick edit.

    I see three issues causing loss of quality that can be ranked thusly:

    1. distance - i.e. large crop needed (50%)
    2. heat haze (25%)
    3. lens softness (25%)

    Even though the large crop is causing the biggest problem, there is still enough of the frame left to produce a decent edit. Compare the edit I've done below to yours from above, and hopefully you will see a marked difference.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]17403[/ATTACH]

    That means for the most part, the quality problems evident (in the most recent set of photos anyway) are simply related to your editing. Not sure exactly where, but somewhere in your workflow you're going wrong.

    Thx dlowwa

    Wow. It looks like a complete different photo... the detail is there (finally).

    I need badly to take some lessons on imaging editing... Which software are you using/recommend ?

    .. and one final request : can you edit one more photo ? the Vueling EC-MBS ?

    After this I'll change my "workflow":

    1) wait 3 months until Fall, before take any more photos (to reduce heat haze )
    2) take some edition lessons
    3) get another zoom lens.
    4) sent you a couple of my own craft beers

    thanks again for your time and help

    /rgds
    a.m.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Ok, so I took one of the RAW files you made available, and did a quick edit.

    I see three issues causing loss of quality that can be ranked thusly:

    1. distance - i.e. large crop needed (50%)
    2. heat haze (25%)
    3. lens softness (25%)

    Even though the large crop is causing the biggest problem, there is still enough of the frame left to produce a decent edit. Compare the edit I've done below to yours from above, and hopefully you will see a marked difference.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0239.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	452.5 KB
ID:	1029356

    That means for the most part, the quality problems evident (in the most recent set of photos anyway) are simply related to your editing. Not sure exactly where, but somewhere in your workflow you're going wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oleksiy Naumov
    replied
    i used to shoot in RAW but the amount of overhead and no real benefits made me go back to jpeg. Life is so much easier now

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X