Hi dlowwa
Is this one ok ?
if yes, can/should I submit it to replace this one : https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9143747 ?
thx for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
pre-screen photos at dawn
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 777MANHi, don’t be Disheartened, photography is a great thing and we all start our journey from various perspectives.
Originally posted by 777MANA key aspect is not new/latest hardware. Technique is learned and continues to develop that’s the main point, importantly aim to get as much right in camera as you can. Learn the exposure triangle, understand your current gear.Originally posted by dlowwa View PostAgree that it's not so much about having the best gear as it is knowing how to get the best out of what you have.
The end result is pretty much the same. They look in focus across the entire area, but too noisy and indeed lack of details (compared with your photo).
So the sensor must have some responsibility. Yet at 24Mpx and 100ISO it should be good enough. It may be, that my copy of the sensor and/or lens isn't on pair with the standards.
I believe your photo was taken with a full frame sensor... that for sure explains the low noise and high detailed.
However, there's lots of other photos taken with APS-C sensors with similarly quality... for sure they aren't low level cameras... but pro grade cameras.
Common sense tells that lens are the most important factor .... but all other parts working together should have some contribution (fast speed, low curtain shake, heavier thus less hand shaking).
ah.. when started this hobby...I fought against the SW, kind of solve it... and now, when I was planning/thinking/believing I could evolve to next level.. I'm stuck with the HW.
Well, need to test a Canon 6d MkII (probably the most common gear around here) to see if there's/I can make a difference...
Thanks again both of you, for your time and advices
/rgds
a.m.
Leave a comment:
-
Agree that it's not so much about having the best gear as it is knowing how to get the best out of what you have. My example was not meant as a "if you can't get this kind of quality, don't bother uploading" so much as something to strive for, keeping in mind that like I said, even somewhat soft shots can be made to look good at 1280 if edited properly.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View PostThx dlowwa.
Well if this "..I consider decently sharp" is just "decent" I can't imagine what is a good sharp.
That image is in a complete different league. I don't have HW to match that. Game over.
My stuff is indeed soft stuff. Need to reconsider the hobby. Starts to get to stressful.
Not having the right tools for the job. Wait for a week for the decision. Not been able to control the quality, always with the heart in the hands..
ah.. there must be a better way.
Thanks again for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
Dana is a very experienced, good photographer . He also shares that experience freely helping others willing to learn/listen.
A key aspect is not new/latest hardware. Technique is learned and continues to develop that’s the main point, importantly aim to get as much right in camera as you can. Learn the exposure triangle, understand your current gear.
Asking here is a good thing. Many will help.
Regards T
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View PostYeah, that's pretty soft. Still, at nearly 5000pix, you should be able to hide it well enough when sizing down to 1280 or so.
Here's something I consider decently sharp, straight out of the camera, only cropped to show more of the aircraft:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]25743[/ATTACH]
Well if this "..I consider decently sharp" is just "decent" I can't imagine what is a good sharp.
That image is in a complete different league. I don't have HW to match that. Game over.
My stuff is indeed soft stuff. Need to reconsider the hobby. Starts to get to stressful.
Not having the right tools for the job. Wait for a week for the decision. Not been able to control the quality, always with the heart in the hands..
ah.. there must be a better way.
Thanks again for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View PostThx dlowwa. Well, it looks , the "soft" plague just land on my photos and I can't get rid of it.
Can you help me understand it ? is it a HW or SW problem ?
I'm including an original out off the camera file. is it soft already at origin ?
thanks for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
Here's something I consider decently sharp, straight out of the camera, only cropped to show more of the aircraft:
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post1. soft, centering
2-5 borderline soft, but no major issues
Can you help me understand it ? is it a HW or SW problem ?
I'm including an original out off the camera file. is it soft already at origin ?
thanks for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View PostIn the air vs. on the ground. Both are in the air = similar.
thx again for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
Leave a comment:
-
#You have an empty area on the right side of the histogram : "scientifically" underexposed…
#Indeed, the gap on the right edge clearly shows underexposure.
Thx zomeu, dlowwa. Ah.. finally a "scientific" way to measure/identify darkness. Just great. thx.
#Same side, same stage of flight. Similar guidelines were updated a few years ago, you might want to review them.
I've review the rules :
2.6 Similar
Means that you have a similar photo already in the database. Please upload only your best photos, try to be creative. Similar refers to:
- a photo taken from the same sequence the same day e. landing, taxiing, ramp parking or take off
or
- same registration, similar angle or composition or same background taken on different dates.
- Close up views and full or partial views of an a/c taken at the same angle, are generally considered similar.
If a new upload is of a significantly better quality, we may consider accepting it.
We will only accept a certain number of cockpit or window shots taken in the same aircraft (normally no more than two).
What I should consider as "same stage of the flight" ?
One is landing, the other is taking off
One is accelerating, the other is decelerating
One is level, the other is 30º up
/rgds
a.m.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View PostHi dlowwa
Can you give me some guidance on this rejection : https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7359336
1) Dark: Is there any practical method to identify a dark photo ? any histogram that shows that ?
Originally posted by a.m. View Postwhat make these photos similarly ?
Leave a comment:
-
-
Hi dlowwa
Can you give me some guidance on this rejection : https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7359336
1) Dark: Is there any practical method to identify a dark photo ? any histogram that shows that ? what's the line between personal preferences and a "scientific approach" ?
2) Similarly photo :
This photo was taken
a) when the planning was in a landing attitude
b) from a position below the plane
c) in a 90º
d) in the beginning of the runway
e) different days, time of the day and backgrounds
the other which may have been considered as similarly : https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9269991
a) was taken when the plane was in a take off attitude
b) from a position above the plane
c) in the end of the runway
d) from a angle behind the plane
e) different days, time of the day and backgrounds
what make these photos similarly ?
/rgds
a.m.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: