Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RSD hue/color - editing advice

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

  • RSD
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    I agree, nice image, but very likely a rejection for soft.
    Yeah that s what I thought. Thx

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RSD View Post
    Hello everyone,
    Would you say this one has a chance? The quality is not there, but the shot is quite nice [ATTACH=CONFIG]25106[/ATTACH]
    I agree, nice image, but very likely a rejection for soft.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSD
    replied
    Hello everyone,
    Would you say this one has a chance? The quality is not there, but the shot is quite nice Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02426.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	477.0 KB
ID:	1039755

    Leave a comment:


  • RSD
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Nothing technically wrong with the angle (it won't be rejected for this), though some (myself included) don't find it a particularly attractive angle. Given the livery is not really visible, the image will also likely be excluded from FR24.



    Dark liveries are a little harder to judge, but looking at the tail and sky, there is some room for brightening to occur.
    Thx I ll keep that in mind and add the exp on the sunwing.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RSD View Post
    1 - If sharp enough, this kind of angle/composition is then acceptable ?
    Nothing technically wrong with the angle (it won't be rejected for this), though some (myself included) don't find it a particularly attractive angle. Given the livery is not really visible, the image will also likely be excluded from FR24.

    Originally posted by RSD View Post
    3- So with a black livery, one should go higher in the exposition to compensate ? I actually turned it down before the pre screen export, I guess I had a better gut feeling before
    Dark liveries are a little harder to judge, but looking at the tail and sky, there is some room for brightening to occur.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSD
    replied
    Hello,

    Thanks. Looks like you re doing a lot on this advice aspect of the website, appreciated. I wish I had read the thread on pre screening thread before, it's done now. The requirements make sense.
    Regarding your pre screen, cool, i'm getting there. May I ask regarding 1 and 3.
    1 - If sharp enough, this kind of angle/composition is then acceptable ?
    3- So with a black livery, one should go higher in the exposition to compensate ? I actually turned it down before the pre screen export, I guess I had a better gut feeling before
    Thx for your help

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Hi, please read this when you get the chance:

    https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ning-from-crew

    As per #4, we'd like you to keep all of your editing/prescreening requests to a single thread.

    Originally posted by RSD View Post
    Here are 5 pics that I really like. What do you think ?
    Thx in advance
    1. soft
    2. ok
    3. dark
    4-5 ok

    Leave a comment:


  • RSD
    replied
    [Editing advice ] Pre-screening. Until i get to 10

    Hello,

    Thanks for the help recently. I down to 3 now wohoo.
    I would like to use that method of pre screening, at least until I reach the 10 goal line.

    Here are 5 pics that I really like. What do you think ?
    Thx in advance
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RSD View Post
    Thanks for the feedback. I actually had put -5 vibrance. I believe that the logo is quite color saturated on the painting itself, for having seen that aircraft many times. Do you think it is worth a appeal ?
    As I said, the cyan/blue is a little too strong, so if the appeal came to me, I would reject it again. I advise correcting the color as I suggested in the example, and then re-submitting.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSD
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Doesn't look too bad to me; cyan/blue a bit strong but other than that looks ok.

    See right side here:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]24335[/ATTACH]
    Thanks for the feedback. I actually had put -5 vibrance. I believe that the logo is quite color saturated on the painting itself, for having seen that aircraft many times. Do you think it is worth a appeal ?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by RSD View Post
    Hello,

    Still trying to demystify the screening process here. ( thank you on previous threads)
    I have just got results for 2 airplanes, with the 313 accepted where I was certain of rejection and the b738 rejected where I sure of acceptance.
    Another interesting fact, if I may, is the exact opposite screening result at planespotters, where the same 2 exports were screened.

    Nevertheless, I would like to try to understand how this hue/color saturation is judged here
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7277671

    I m guessing it is an over saturation, since the hue is unchanged. I do not believe it is an under.

    Thank you
    Doesn't look too bad to me; cyan/blue a bit strong but other than that looks ok.

    See right side here:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	48620_1556675063.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	798.5 KB
ID:	1035021

    Leave a comment:


  • RSD
    started a topic RSD hue/color - editing advice

    RSD hue/color - editing advice

    Hello,

    Still trying to demystify the screening process here. ( thank you on previous threads)
    I have just got results for 2 airplanes, with the 313 accepted where I was certain of rejection and the b738 rejected where I sure of acceptance.
    Another interesting fact, if I may, is the exact opposite screening result at planespotters, where the same 2 exports were screened.

    Nevertheless, I would like to try to understand how this hue/color saturation is judged here
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7277671

    I m guessing it is an over saturation, since the hue is unchanged. I do not believe it is an under.

    Thank you
Working...
X