Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre Screening Advice - Robbie Mathieson

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post

    Nope. Just my normal 80D & 600D. ISO was overly high as I stupidly forgot to change it after taking some interior shots of a Globemaster. Have attached the full size originals.
    Ok.. those looks slightly overexposed of course, but nowhere nearly as bad as the versions in your previous post. What steps exactly did you take in between?

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    If that's the case, you would definitely want to look at your camera settings. No way they should come out looking like that if everything is set properly. Highlights are completely blown out and colors are extremely oversaturated. Were they taken with a different camera than normal?
    Nope. Just my normal 80D & 600D. ISO was overly high as I stupidly forgot to change it after taking some interior shots of a Globemaster. Have attached the full size originals.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post

    Hi Dana, those two aren't originals nor equalized, the originals are much brighter, will bin them.
    If that's the case, you would definitely want to look at your camera settings. No way they should come out looking like that if everything is set properly. Highlights are completely blown out and colors are extremely oversaturated. Were they taken with a different camera than normal?

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Sorry, not sure what you've done to the two images of the aircraft on static display, but they look terrible. Are those equalized versions you've posted by accident? The colors, contrast, and exposure are all badly off. The Qantas is much closer to being reasonable, just slightly overexposed/harsh contrast. The other two should be binned immediately if that's what the originals actually look like.
    Hi Dana, those two aren't originals nor equalized, the originals are much brighter, will bin them. Will try fix up the Qantas. Many Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi all, regarding these three images, for a while now I've been having a bit of trouble in terms of Overexposed. Can you please advise if they are now suitable for acceptance as I'm a bit worried, especially with the Qantas 737, that if I take any more exposure off the colours will become washed out. Many Thanks, Robbie
    Click image for larger version

Name:	VH-EMI c-n.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	661.8 KB
ID:	1085160Click image for larger version

Name:	VH-XZO.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	820.9 KB
ID:	1085157Click image for larger version

Name:	VH-XND.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	609.0 KB
ID:	1085158
    Sorry, not sure what you've done to the two images of the aircraft on static display, but they look terrible. Are those equalized versions you've posted by accident? The colors, contrast, and exposure are all badly off. The Qantas is much closer to being reasonable, just slightly overexposed/harsh contrast. The other two should be binned immediately if that's what the originals actually look like.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi all, regarding these three images, for a while now I've been having a bit of trouble in terms of Overexposed. Can you please advise if they are now suitable for acceptance as I'm a bit worried, especially with the Qantas 737, that if I take any more exposure off the colours will become washed out. Many Thanks, Robbie
    Click image for larger version

Name:	VH-EMI c-n.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	661.8 KB
ID:	1085160Click image for larger version

Name:	VH-XZO.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	820.9 KB
ID:	1085157Click image for larger version

Name:	VH-XND.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	609.0 KB
ID:	1085158
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    I see all sorts of specks below the aircraft, though I doubt they're actually dust spots on your sensor.
    Thanks Dana, I'll try a different shot and re-upload

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi all, regarding https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7905773. Obviously the colour can be fixed, but can you please advise on the dust spots. I've equalized in both photoshop and also using the JetPhotos equivalent, and cannot find any. Can you please advise where the dust spot is. Thanks, Robbie
    I see all sorts of specks below the aircraft, though I doubt they're actually dust spots on your sensor.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi all, regarding https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7905773. Obviously the colour can be fixed, but can you please advise on the dust spots. I've equalized in both photoshop and also using the JetPhotos equivalent, and cannot find any. Can you please advise where the dust spot is. Thanks, Robbie

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Last change to the guidelines regarding similars was a couple of years ago. Generally we allow one image per side/stage of flight (in the air on the ground) for a maximum of four - left side/right side in the air + left side/right side on the ground, but this is a general guideline and exceptions can be made if the images are quite different (obviously different sequences and dates). For your two examples, I'd say the accepted pair benefitted from a more lenient interpretation, while the rejected pair a little more strict, but subjective in both cases, obviously. In my personal opinion, the rejected pair despite being different sequences and are too similar (and the same date), and therefore the rejection was justified.
    okay, thanks Dana

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi guys, in my most recent batch I received a few rejections for similar - one example is https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7898241 compared to id 9612641 which was accepted. May I ask whether or not there has been a change in the upload guidelines? In the past, photos on aircraft on approach have never been considered as similar to those of an aircraft taking off, has this changed? As otherwise I fail to see how they can be considered similiar. See ID's 9519471 & 9115209 as an example. Many Thanks, Robbie
    Last change to the guidelines regarding similars was a couple of years ago. Generally we allow one image per side/stage of flight (in the air on the ground) for a maximum of four - left side/right side in the air + left side/right side on the ground, but this is a general guideline and exceptions can be made if the images are quite different (obviously different sequences and dates). For your two examples, I'd say the accepted pair benefitted from a more lenient interpretation, while the rejected pair a little more strict, but subjective in both cases, obviously. In my personal opinion, the rejected pair despite being different sequences and are too similar (and the same date), and therefore the rejection was justified.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi guys, in my most recent batch I received a few rejections for similar - one example is https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7898241 compared to id 9612641 which was accepted. May I ask whether or not there has been a change in the upload guidelines? In the past, photos on aircraft on approach have never been considered as similar to those of an aircraft taking off, has this changed? As otherwise I fail to see how they can be considered similiar. See ID's 9519471 & 9115209 as an example. Many Thanks, Robbie

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    This is not a military aircraft.
    Well, that would explain it. Thanks Dana

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi all, regarding https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7857381. Quite a few times this shot has been rejected for Bad Info and also Categories Wrong/Missing. Can you please advise what I'm doing wrong as I've been uploading it as Military, which I believe to be correct. I've just figured out that it also comes under business jet so will upload as that when I've re-edited.
    This is not a military aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi all, regarding https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7857381. Quite a few times this shot has been rejected for Bad Info and also Categories Wrong/Missing. Can you please advise what I'm doing wrong as I've been uploading it as Military, which I believe to be correct. I've just figured out that it also comes under business jet so will upload as that when I've re-edited.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X