Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre-screening Help

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Would this be an improvement on the photo above with your suggested changes? Thank you for your insight!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07290-2 PHBHN 022620.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	661.9 KB
ID:	1081782
    Slight improvement, yes, but still quite noisy and exposure/contrast likely to be an issue as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Would this be an improvement on the photo above with your suggested changes? Thank you for your insight!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07290-2 PHBHN 022620.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	661.9 KB
ID:	1081782

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Could you please provide some insight on this photo? Thank you!

    1) Any problems with noise or exposure?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07290 PHBHN 022620.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	677.6 KB
ID:	1081734
    Noise/compression noticeable, slightly underexposed, and might need a little CW rotation.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Could you please provide some insight on this photo? Thank you!

    1) Any problems with noise or exposure?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07290 PHBHN 022620.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	677.6 KB
ID:	1081734

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Would this crop be more acceptable? I thought that maybe the tow would be beneficial to the picture, but you are right that it does look a little skewed and takes away from the aircraft in the photo.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07134-2 N926DZ 022420.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	580.0 KB
ID:	1081622
    It's a subjective thing. I prefer the new version, but someone else might not like the winglet being cut, so..

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Would this crop be more acceptable? I thought that maybe the tow would be beneficial to the picture, but you are right that it does look a little skewed and takes away from the aircraft in the photo.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07134-2 N926DZ 022420.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	580.0 KB
ID:	1081622

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Attempting night photography for the first time and could really use your expertise on these photos as to what would be wrong with them. Thank you for your help in advance!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07134 N926DZ 022420.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	561.2 KB
ID:	1081615Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07139 N329DN 022420.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	582.4 KB
ID:	1081616
    Not a huge fan of the crop on the first, but both should be ok for quality.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Attempting night photography for the first time and could really use your expertise on these photos as to what would be wrong with them. Thank you for your help in advance!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07134 N926DZ 022420.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	561.2 KB
ID:	1081615Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC07139 N329DN 022420.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	582.4 KB
ID:	1081616

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Thank you for your help on the previous photos. I would like your insight on this photo in regards to exposure, contrast, and to see if the horizon looks unlevel to you. Thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06871 N234WN 022120.jpg
Views:	27
Size:	848.4 KB
ID:	1081547
    Contrast/exposure should be ok, but borderline for obstruction as the tug doesn't seem to be doing much in the image.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Thank you for your help on the previous photos. I would like your insight on this photo in regards to exposure, contrast, and to see if the horizon looks unlevel to you. Thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06871 N234WN 022120.jpg
Views:	27
Size:	848.4 KB
ID:	1081547

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Last attempt, would this fix the issues that you stated in the most recent post?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06864-3 600359 022120.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	323.3 KB
ID:	1081476
    Probably no longer a dark rejection, but contrast and softness issues remain.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Last attempt, would this fix the issues that you stated in the most recent post?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06864-3 600359 022120.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	323.3 KB
ID:	1081476

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Please let me know if this edit has fixed the issues that you had brought up in the earlier post. Thank you!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06864-2 600359 022120.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	334.7 KB
ID:	1081416
    Would be rejected for dark, contrast, and possibly soft.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Please let me know if this edit has fixed the issues that you had brought up in the earlier post. Thank you!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06864-2 600359 022120.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	334.7 KB
ID:	1081416

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Would this be a better version of the same aircraft, but from a different photo in the sequence?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06864 600359 022120.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	292.1 KB
ID:	1081357
    This would be rejected for soft, dark, and contrast.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X