Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sergio - Editing advice

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

  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. blurry, oversharpened
    2. blurry, heat haze
    3. blurry, backlit, heat haze
    4. blurry, backlit, oversharpened, heat haze, obstruction, noisy
    5. blurry, oversharpened
    Thank you, dlowwa!

    Wow, this is bad news indeed, I applied the same workflow I used for my photos in ZRH that got accepted, and used a sharper lens this time

    I can easily fix the oversharpen issue, but is the blurry issue fixable in your opinion? I thought I used a good exposure time (1/250 - 1/320)... Too bad.
    Would you also, please, teach me the way you use to check if a photo is blurred? Some of them seemed good to me (not the A380, to be honest).

    Thank you for your patience.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio Canobbio View Post
    Hello! I'm back with some new photos, thank you for the nice help & advice!

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]21140[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]21141[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]21142[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]21143[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]21144[/ATTACH]
    1. blurry, oversharpened
    2. blurry, heat haze
    3. blurry, backlit, heat haze
    4. blurry, backlit, oversharpened, heat haze, obstruction, noisy
    5. blurry, oversharpened

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    Hello! I'm back with some new photos, thank you for the nice help & advice!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 CS-TJF DSC_3741.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	769.5 KB
ID:	1032390 Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 EC-LVP DSC_3810.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	835.5 KB
ID:	1032391 Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 EI-GGN DSC_3835.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	967.8 KB
ID:	1032392 Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 A6-EOB DSC_3848.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	962.8 KB
ID:	1032393 Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 D-AEWF DSC_3750.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	818.0 KB
ID:	1032394

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio Canobbio View Post
    I'm sorting out my old photos.

    Would these be ok? I thought about "terminal" for photos 1 and 2; "cabin" for 3 (DPRK crew in a Tu-204) and the plane for 4.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]19123[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]19125[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]19124[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]19126[/ATTACH]

    Thank you in advance for the help.
    Most, if not all, would be a motive or obstruction rejection.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    I'm sorting out my old photos.

    Would these be ok? I thought about "terminal" for photos 1 and 2; "cabin" for 3 (DPRK crew in a Tu-204) and the plane for 4.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 DSC_4380 EDDF.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	794.1 KB
ID:	1030736 Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 FYWH Windhoek DSC_3860.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	726.1 KB
ID:	1030738 Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 DSC_2660 P-632 ZKPY.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	585.2 KB
ID:	1030737 Click image for larger version

Name:	1200 DSC_0739 HL7460 RKSS.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	665.9 KB
ID:	1030739

    Thank you in advance for the help.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio Canobbio View Post
    Yes, sorry about not thinking of showing you the idea. BTW, I would like to say that your assiduous help is really really really appreciated. Thank you.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18952[/ATTACH]
    That crop doesn't work for me personally, but I can't speak for everyone. If I had to guess, I'd say most likely it would be a cut off/motive rejection.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    I'm not sure any crop of the end of the wing that doesn't include the winglet completely would work, but I'd need to see to be more certain.
    Yes, sorry about not thinking of showing you the idea. BTW, I would like to say that your assiduous help is really really really appreciated. Thank you.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1200b ZS-SJE window megaliesberg.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	968.7 KB
ID:	1030602

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio Canobbio View Post
    Thank you, dlowwa, for the explanation. This make sense.

    In your opinion, would the photo work, if I crop out the upper and left sides so that the visible part of the wing is only the rear one?
    I'm not sure any crop of the end of the wing that doesn't include the winglet completely would work, but I'd need to see to be more certain.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Yes.
    You will not find any guidelines for such things, as they are subjective, just as you will not find any guidelines on exactly how much contrast is correct.
    Thank you, dlowwa, for the explanation. This make sense.

    In your opinion, would the photo work, if I crop out the upper and left sides so that the visible part of the wing is only the rear one?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio Canobbio View Post
    Hello. I got this photo rejected:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18883[/ATTACH]

    with the following reason: "Part of aircraft cut off"

    Is the problem keyed to the fact that the winglet is cut off?
    Yes.

    Originally posted by Sergio Canobbio View Post
    In a broader sense, is there anywhere in the forum a topic about rules such as "at least 3 aircrafts on a ramp" or "the winglet must not be cut off in a wing view" which are not included in the guidelines?
    You will not find any guidelines for such things, as they are subjective, just as you will not find any guidelines on exactly how much contrast is correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    Hello. I got this photo rejected:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	40997_1537465820.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.02 MB
ID:	1030538

    with the following reason: "Part of aircraft cut off"

    I already uploaded successfully a couple of other "wing view" photos, with a lesser amount of wing visible:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	24292_1536315463.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	926.5 KB
ID:	1030539 Click image for larger version

Name:	36127_1537443890.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	887.0 KB
ID:	1030540

    Is the problem keyed to the fact that the winglet is cut off? In a broader sense, is there anywhere in the forum a topic about rules such as "at least 3 aircrafts on a ramp" or "the winglet must not be cut off in a wing view" which are not included in the guidelines? Thank you for your help.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    Hi,
    Ramp shots need at least 3 aircrafts to be considered as ramp view. Plane which is the main subject, is indeed totally backlit which results in poor contrast. As you are shooting from the plane with the wing visible you should upload it with the info of the plane you're in.
    Vignetting is way too strong and please check forum for more details on how to get rid of it.
    Sure it's an interesting shot but since organised aviation tours have been common in DPRK, we got really good pics from Air Koryo's fleet or Pyongyang activity so it's not that rare anymore.

    Kind regards
    Alex
    Thank you Alex, these are very useful explanations!

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Hi,
    Ramp shots need at least 3 aircrafts to be considered as ramp view. Plane which is the main subject, is indeed totally backlit which results in poor contrast. As you are shooting from the plane with the wing visible you should upload it with the info of the plane you're in.
    Vignetting is way too strong and please check forum for more details on how to get rid of it.
    Sure it's an interesting shot but since organised aviation tours have been common in DPRK, we got really good pics from Air Koryo's fleet or Pyongyang activity so it's not that rare anymore.

    Kind regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio Canobbio
    replied
    I submitted this photo:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	61447_1536312912.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	633.1 KB
ID:	1030344

    as a "ramp" photo, because I knew it did not meet the standards for an "aircraft" photo, but I thought it could be interesting to see a glimpse of the airport activity in Pyongyang.

    I got it rejected for:
    - Backlit
    - Too much or too little contrast
    - Bad Info: Airline,Aircraft,Registration,Serial Number/CN
    - Vignetting not allowed

    I'm quite sure the info was right (ramp, ZKPY), am I wrong in something? Serial of the aircraft in which I was sitting is needed maybe? I applied this rule: "for airport photos of Control Towers, Terminals, etc., type in the airport 4 letter (ICAO) code in both the Registration and Airport fields" with leaves no room for the airplane registration number. It is also said that "an airport overview taken from inside an aircraft, with part of the wing visible should be uploaded as wing view", but in the rule 1.2.6 it is not stated that the registration of the airport should be changed with the one of the airplane. Sorry to bother, I'm just trying to understand.

    Is the "no backlit" a requirement even for aircrafts in a "ramp" photo? I think the subject is the ramp activity and not the aircraft.

    Vignetting is due to the airplane window polarization, which is quite common in wing views, I think.


    Thank you in advance for any advice.

    Leave a comment:


  • pdeboer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sergio Canobbio View Post
    Hello. May I ask for a pre-screening evaluation? Thank you.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18391[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18392[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18393[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18394[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18395[/ATTACH]
    No 1 borderline oversharpened, 2-4 seem acceptable, no. 5 is backlit

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X