Originally posted by ajaaron
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Editing Advice - Arnold Aaron
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ajaaron View PostIs this sharp enough for 1920px? hopefully not too much noise...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27504[/ATTACH]
PS - The spotting at Manchester (where this was taken) is absolutely spectacular!!
yes MAN is amazingLast edited by 777MAN; 2019-08-21, 20:32.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ajaaron View PostCould you be a bit more helpful please....Poor quality in what regard? - Is there too much noise for this size? - picture not sharp enough? - would it be better at say 1280, like this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27510[/ATTACH]
Comment
-
Just had this one rejected because I didn't include position of this spotting point in the remarks box - Photo otherwise acceptable from what I can make out.... Question.... Could I have this photo accepted into the database and I'll immediately update remarks box with details of position and description of location - never had a rejection based on the remarks alone before - should I appeal to this effect, and I'll add the remarks in right away? - Many thanks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ajaaron View PostJust had this one rejected because I didn't include position of this spotting point in the remarks box - Photo otherwise acceptable from what I can make out.... Question.... Could I have this photo accepted into the database and I'll immediately update remarks box with details of position and description of location - never had a rejection based on the remarks alone before - should I appeal to this effect, and I'll add the remarks in right away? - Many thanks.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27795[/ATTACH]
3.4.2 Spotting location
You will need to re-submit the photo with appropriate remarks/description.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ajaaron View PostWould this picture work, perhaps as a creative shot? - trying to be a little creative here...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27853[/ATTACH]
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by ajaaron View PostCan i just check my understanding of the 'aircraft cut-off' rules.... these photos below would not be rejected for 'cut-off', would they? the full body is included, and although tail fin is cut-off this is acceptable - am I correct? - Many thanks.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27952[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27953[/ATTACH]
Comment
-
Just had this one rejected... For unsharpened, over-processed and heat haze.
Couple of questions...
1. photo already sharpened almost to the max. - surely picture looks adeuately sharp?
2. Heat haze is only near runway surface, and not affecting any part of the aircraft - surely that would be permitted as its not affecting the aircraft itself?
3. Overprocessed - I can;t see any halos including when looking at the 'check for dust' tool - what are the signs here of overprocessing?
if picture reduced down to 1280px, is this likely to overcome the above issues?
Many thanks, I'm almost up to approaching 100 pics in the databse - it is so so addictive!
Arnold Aaron.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
Couple of questions...
1. photo already sharpened almost to the max. - surely picture looks adeuately sharp?
Originally posted by ajaaron View Post2. Heat haze is only near runway surface, and not affecting any part of the aircraft - surely that would be permitted as its not affecting the aircraft itself?
Originally posted by ajaaron View Post3. Overprocessed - I can;t see any halos including when looking at the 'check for dust' tool - what are the signs here of overprocessing?
Originally posted by ajaaron View Postif picture reduced down to 1280px, is this likely to overcome the above issues?
Comment
Comment