I think they are not blurry, anyway how can improve them?

[peikojose]

These:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=129209 (Specially this one)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=129216

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=129212

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=129206

A friend help me and did this:

http://www.iupload.net/112003/josefixed.jpg

Damm, I had to support the very hot weather there to get these pics and now they are rejected! They are very important as they show aniversary tails, and the f16 pic show 5 F16 taxing to their hangar!!

How can I get them in?

Regards.

[xiphias]

Well.. They are blurry, I sharpend the first one and looks 100% better but if you just sharpen the original it would be better. Also, detals of the aniversary tails are so blurry that you can't realy see what they are.

Here's my simple sharpend version of the first mirage, I just used 16% sharpen in CompuPic (quick and dirty) and already looks better to me.



Good luck,


Michael

[peikojose]

Ok, thanks you very much sir.

I'll try to sharpen the original with that program and try to upload it again. And the aniversary tail is for the 30 years of the Mirage in Venezuela. If you do a search by "Venezuela" there are pics of only this tail.

Best regards.

[GrantT]

It could be my amateur eye but most of those don't look like they can be edited enough to meet Jet Photo's standard (prepared to be prooved wrong).

[JeffinDEN]

Those are great pictures! Seems you are a victim of submitting non-digital images thats all.

Look back a few months...you will see images far more blurry then those.

[philip]

wow very interesting aircraft there !

[peikojose]

At least this one was not rejected

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=196854

And, I'll do a "little" focus with PS (the Mirage one is done), and try again. Let's see what do they say. I thought these are GREAT pics, but maybe I'm too amateur.

Regards.

Pd: philip, it's a Marcel Dassault Mirage50DV, I did a quick search using Google, enjoy the results. Here

[Freightdogg]

To my eye the use of the word "blur" is incorrect. There is no motion blur, they are a bit on the soft side though. If you will be shooting on film a lot then a negative/slide scanner is a good idea rather than scanning from prints.

I played with your shots some to see how I could improve them;

[peikojose]

Thanks you very much!

I'm uploading them again!

Regards!!

[screaming_emu]

And freightdogg with the glove save. Awesome job Karl!