Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Engin details.

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

  • Engin details.

    Hi there Freightdogg,

    I was just wondering what you did to get that engin detail into that KLM 777 (http://www.jetphotos.net/forums/view...=7409&start=15)

    I have some more head-on shots but gear and center of engins look like 1 big black spot.

    2 have them went to screening but didn't make it, rest still in queue, I think when I have some more detail in those area's they'll be beter.

    Reason for Rejection: Undersharpened (soft)
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=138073

    Reason for Rejection: Bad quality
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=138080

    Here are the unfiltered images. They have already been rotated to get level and already been cropped and resized.
    138073
    http://www.xiphias.dds.nl/JetPhotos/...unfiltered.jpg

    138080
    http://www.xiphias.dds.nl/JetPhotos/...unfiltered.jpg

    I don't get it, worked on them with Neat Image and I thought they came out pretty good, especialy the big one.

    Thanks,



    Michael
    Profile | AVIATION-PHOTOGRAPHY.nl

  • #2
    just briefly:

    Try to stay away from 1600x... shots. that first rejection is definitely right on, yet you could probably make it acceptable if you downsize it to 1024x... first. In most cases, a really neat 1024x... image can be pretty crappy at 1600x...

    Comment


    • #3
      Just to expand on what Radomir said, basically if you don't have an SLR or a really high mega-pixel camera, like the F828, your pictures aren't going to turn out very good at 1600 pixels wide. But if your really good with your camera, you can get good shots with a crappy camera. Otherwise, 1024 should be your standard.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the tips. Will try resize to 1440 or 1280. Cam is 4MP and 1600x1200 is already downsized 2/3. Still need to get the engin details, those black holes suck I like what Freightdogg did to that KLM 772.

        Michael
        Profile | AVIATION-PHOTOGRAPHY.nl

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Michael,
          I hope you don't mind that I gave them a go too:


          The first was hard to sharpen up, especially around the flightdeck windows, without going too far on other parts of the shot. The second turned into a bit of a grain fest at 1024x768!

          Comment


          • #6
            If you want to see spinning blades, you are going to have to have some light in them. No post processing is going to bring out the blades in those shots.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for all your effords guys, it's realy appriciated. I'll go and give it a try again, hope queue goes down. Pictures have been processed but queue only getting bigger.

              Originally posted by JeffinDEN
              If you want to see spinning blades, you are going to have to have some light in them. No post processing is going to bring out the blades in those shots.
              Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Look at what Freightdogg got done here.
              [Original image
              Optimized by Freightdogg

              Look at the differance. But I guess wha't your trying to say is that you can't make something from nothing. In theat B772 there is already a little bit visible and that can be tweaked.

              Well, my pic processing should be getting better, at least better calibrated. Just got a Barco 21" monitor with calibration hardware and software. They were getting rid of it at work. Thing cost a small fortune 10 years ago. The're some minor issues with it but nothing the local handy man couldn't fix. Hope it works OK.. Should get better calibrated images.

              Thanks again guys.

              Have a happy and save new year. If any of you are flying during midnight some fireworks shots would be nice.

              Enjoy,


              Michael
              Profile | AVIATION-PHOTOGRAPHY.nl

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by xiphias
                Thing cost a small fortune 10 years ago. The're some minor issues with it but nothing the local handy man couldn't fix. Hope it works OK.. Should get better calibrated images.
                If it is 10 years old, don't waste your money on it. It has seen it's better days. The gas in the tube is already about 4-5 years past it's useful life.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JeffinDEN
                  If it is 10 years old, don't waste your money on it. It has seen it's better days. The gas in the tube is already about 4-5 years past it's useful life.
                  Ehm.. These monitors colors stay good for 50 years. That's why monitor costs $7.000. Monitor was still being used at my companies prepress office a couple of weeks ago. Just needs a tweak.
                  Profile | AVIATION-PHOTOGRAPHY.nl

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Michael,

                    Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I've been out of town and haven't been online at all. I am only home for a few hours and then right back out.

                    I didn't have time to play any with the JAL photos but just looking at them quickly I would say that the overcast conditions you were shooting under that day didn't offer enough light and contrast to get good engine details. I will give it a try when I get back home anyway just for fun. Should be back for the weekend if things go as currently planned.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by xiphias
                      Ehm.. These monitors colors stay good for 50 years. That's why monitor costs $7.000. Monitor was still being used at my companies prepress office a couple of weeks ago. Just needs a tweak.
                      O.k. if you believe that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Michael,

                        Well as promised I did give your JAL shots a try, but as I suspected there just wasn't enough available light to bring out the engine details with any success. Here's what I got for those shots...



                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X