Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

jworks158 - Prescreening/Editing Advice

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by jworks158 View Post
    Hi,

    Over the last year I have been working hard to improve the quality of my shots, as well as my editing.
    1.

    Click image for larger version Name:	N417XJ * Brighten + Crop + Sharpen + De noise.jpg Views:	0 Size:	476.0 KB ID:	1097064​2:
    Click image for larger version Name:	N814WA * Crop + Brighten + Sharpen.jpg Views:	0 Size:	440.2 KB ID:	1097063
    3:
    Click image for larger version Name:	D-AIKQ * Darken + Crop + Sharpen – Version 2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	562.5 KB ID:	1097065
    Images are all soft with strong purple fringing. Last one also pretty heavily heat hazed.

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    Hi,

    Over the last year I have been working hard to improve the quality of my shots, as well as my editing.
    1.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	N417XJ * Brighten + Crop + Sharpen + De noise.jpg Views:	0 Size:	476.0 KB ID:	1097064​2:
    Click image for larger version  Name:	N814WA * Crop + Brighten + Sharpen.jpg Views:	0 Size:	440.2 KB ID:	1097063
    3:
    Click image for larger version  Name:	D-AIKQ * Darken + Crop + Sharpen – Version 2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	562.5 KB ID:	1097065

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Soft, dirty, and somewhat compressed - although not nearly as badly as the previous versions.

    Don't use LR myself, so no idea what a '77' setting equates to, but I would certainly be using the highest quality setting possible.
    I was able to find a quality setting in apple photos, so here is image with the more satisfying edits, but hopefully with less compression. (I changed the size of the photo before it was exported at highest quality to .jpeg)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	N909NA V2 Cropped + Sharpened + Darkened.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	769.5 KB
ID:	1040102

    If that isn't up to spec I have attached the original unedited file (though compressed from CR2 to jpeg). So that you are able to let me know if this photo is salvageable.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0289.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.15 MB
ID:	1040103

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by jworks158 View Post
    Thank you for your detailed description, I followed up with some additional reading on compression this morning. Since I don't have personal access to any professional software, which would allow me to change compression level, I was able to locate a copy of Lightroom (LR) at my universities library. This was my first time using LR

    Unfortunately I did have to start from scratch (going back to the original CR2 Raw file) with the editing process. However I am hoping this turned out alright. I used a quality setting of 77 when exporting from LR.

    How is this?
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25494[/ATTACH]
    Soft, dirty, and somewhat compressed - although not nearly as badly as the previous versions.

    Don't use LR myself, so no idea what a '77' setting equates to, but I would certainly be using the highest quality setting possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Pixels per inch are for printing, and has no relevance for images intended for display digitally. You need to save at a higher quality/lower compression setting. The newer image is still heavily compressed.
    Thank you for your detailed description, I followed up with some additional reading on compression this morning. Since I don't have personal access to any professional software, which would allow me to change compression level, I was able to locate a copy of Lightroom (LR) at my universities library. This was my first time using LR

    Unfortunately I did have to start from scratch (going back to the original CR2 Raw file) with the editing process. However I am hoping this turned out alright. I used a quality setting of 77 when exporting from LR.

    How is this?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N909na61419.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	243.1 KB
ID:	1040101

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by jworks158 View Post
    What would you use as a better compression ratio.

    I compressed #5 above the original picture of 3823 2150 to 1280  720 with a 400 pixel per inch resolution.
    Below I have attached the image using a resolution of 72 pixels per inch. Is that better?[ATTACH=CONFIG]25473[/ATTACH]
    Pixels per inch are for printing, and has no relevance for images intended for display digitally. You need to save at a higher quality/lower compression setting. The newer image is still heavily compressed.

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    5. compression. not military.
    What would you use as a better compression ratio.

    I compressed #5 above the original picture of 3823 2150 to 1280  720 with a 400 pixel per inch resolution.
    Below I have attached the image using a resolution of 72 pixels per inch. Is that better?Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0289.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	173.5 KB
ID:	1040090

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by jworks158 View Post
    Hi, Over the last week I have been trying to put your advice into practice, during both shooting, and editing.

    1. N754EV Skywest Company Livery
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25465[/ATTACH]

    All aircraft in the photos below are not currently in the JetPhotos Database

    2. N883UP I am concerned that the "entering movement area" sign may be an obstruction
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25466[/ATTACH]

    3. N855UP
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25467[/ATTACH]

    4. N602NN
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25468[/ATTACH]

    5. N909NA Would this be military? or not because it is NASA?
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25469[/ATTACH]

    Thanks I really appreciate your help!
    1. too far, overprocessed, compression
    2. soft/blurry, heat haze, color, noise, compression, obstruction
    3. too far, soft, color, compression
    4. soft, color, compression, borderline centering
    5. compression. not military.

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    Hi, Over the last week I have been trying to put your advice into practice, during both shooting, and editing.

    1. N754EV Skywest Company Livery
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N754EV682019.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	105.3 KB
ID:	1040082

    All aircraft in the photos below are not currently in the JetPhotos Database

    2. N883UP I am concerned that the "entering movement area" sign may be an obstruction
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N883UP6819.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	237.8 KB
ID:	1040083

    3. N855UP
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N855UP6819.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	369.1 KB
ID:	1040084

    4. N602NN
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N602NN6919.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	247.6 KB
ID:	1040085

    5. N909NA Would this be military? or not because it is NASA?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N909NA682019.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	173.5 KB
ID:	1040086

    Thanks I really appreciate your help!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by jworks158 View Post
    Thank you,

    Do you think these are salvageable?
    Possibly, but without seeing the originals or better edits, couldn't say for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. soft, cut off, centering, borderline contrast
    2. soft, too far, centering
    3. soft, too far, centering, vignetting, color (strong purple fringing)
    4. soft, dirty
    Thank you,

    Do you think these are salvageable?
    Last edited by jworks158; 2019-06-07, 17:02. Reason: Word change

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by jworks158 View Post
    I purchased a DSLR this week and my photos have improved drastically.

    How are these?

    1.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25262[/ATTACH]
    2.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25263[/ATTACH]
    3. Not in Database
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25264[/ATTACH]
    4.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25265[/ATTACH]
    1. soft, cut off, centering, borderline contrast
    2. soft, too far, centering
    3. soft, too far, centering, vignetting, color (strong purple fringing)
    4. soft, dirty

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    I purchased a DSLR this week and my photos have improved drastically.

    How are these?

    1.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9228.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	186.0 KB
ID:	1039896
    2.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9255.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	81.6 KB
ID:	1039897
    3. Not in Database
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9275.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	157.2 KB
ID:	1039898
    4.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9689.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	184.0 KB
ID:	1039899

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by jworks158 View Post
    Would this be better version of N734CK, it has quite a lot less processing. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24935[/ATTACH]

    Do you think any of the other photos are salvageable? What can I do to improve them one by one?
    This image is not uploadable. You can only submit images at a maximum of 1280pix. Will also need a significantly tighter crop, any other quality issues notwithstanding.

    Leave a comment:


  • jworks158
    replied
    Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post
    Unfortunately, all of them would be rejected. Main reasons being: too far, overprocessing, compression, centering, colours
    Would this be better version of N734CK, it has quite a lot less processing. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9966.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	1.90 MB
ID:	1035515

    Do you think any of the other photos are salvageable? What can I do to improve them one by one?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X