Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pre-screen photos at dawn

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

  • a.m.
    replied
    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.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by 777MAN
    Hi, don’t be Disheartened, photography is a great thing and we all start our journey from various perspectives.
    Thanks 777MAN, for the encouraging words/advice.

    Originally posted by 777MAN
    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.
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    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.
    Thanks dlowwa, I understand that and I've/I'm trying to get the best of it. I've 4 different lens, 2 kits lens and two primes. Tested them with different apertures, focal length, and speeds
    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:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    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:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    Thx 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.
    Hi, don’t be Disheartened, photography is a great thing and we all start our journey from various perspectives.

    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:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Yeah, 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]
    Thx 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.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


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

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DS3_1712.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	488.0 KB
ID:	1040307

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. soft, centering
    2-5 borderline soft, but no major issues
    Thx 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.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    Hi dlowwa
    can you please review these ? thx
    /rgds
    1. soft, centering
    2-5 borderline soft, but no major issues

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Hi dlowwa
    can you please review these ? thx
    /rgds
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    In the air vs. on the ground. Both are in the air = similar.
    Thx dlowwa. Putted this way, there's no margin for debate. Reading the guidelines, I would never saw them as restrict as this. But rules are rules and things are what they are.
    thx again for your time and help
    /rgds
    a.m.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    #Same side, same stage of flight.
    What I should consider as "same stage of the flight" ?
    In the air vs. on the ground. Both are in the air = similar.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    #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).
    #Same side, same stage of flight.
    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 30 up

    /rgds
    a.m.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    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 ?
    Indeed, the gap on the right edge clearly shows underexposure.

    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    what make these photos similarly ?
    Same side, same stage of flight. Similar guidelines were updated a few years ago, you might want to review them.

    Leave a comment:


  • zomeu
    replied
    You have an empty area on the right side of the histogram : "scientifically" underexposed...




    +1/4 Stop would probably fix it...

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    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 90
    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:

Working...
X