Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 366

Thread: wkd001- Editing advice

  1. #61
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana, thank you for your words. Do understand what you're saying, Don't know how to fix everything properly.
    Having issues with several pre-screened and rejected shots with casts
    Has it something to do with white balance.
    With the KLM 789, could desaturate the green colours, and also gave it more contrast, but for my idea, it doesn't care
    As earlier mentioned, i could play with midtones/shadows, but with the low sun, I don't think will help, because the histogram will fall too far to the right.
    It's included again

    Attachment 12198

    For comparison I include another KLM shot of a T7, (also for pre-screen) but I think it will suffer the same fate. It has for me the same story as the 789.

    Attachment 12199

    I will re-work the TK A320, later to remove the dust-spot properly I deerly forgot ( )and the other mentioned points.:
    The TAP A319 will remain personal As I don't know how to remove the noise field properly in only lightroom. ( I don't have PS)
    Just needs some (minor) tweaking. See left side here:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113 (1).JPG 
Views:	43 
Size:	1,021.0 KB 
ID:	12205

    Contrast also low on the 777.

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Just needs some (minor) tweaking. See left side here:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113 (1).JPG 
Views:	43 
Size:	1,021.0 KB 
ID:	12205

    Contrast also low on the 777.
    Dana, thank you for your explanation.

    Tried to work with your advice, think I made improvements, but not sure at all, if it's a;; good as it's diffcult for me and a new add to editing process for me.

    Include three shots,

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113-3.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	925.6 KB 
ID:	12245
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0128-3.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.15 MB 
ID:	12246
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0150-2.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	1,005.8 KB 
ID:	12247

    The TK A320 is re-edited with at least removing the dust spot.
    The KLM 777 is taken seconds earlier as the previous shot in this thread, as with the previous with the light was against me, with the sun in a worser postion as this one.
    Tried to remove the green tint in all the edits and also to add contrast in two different ways.

  3. #63
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana, thank you for your explanation.

    Tried to work with your advice, think I made improvements, but not sure at all, if it's a;; good as it's diffcult for me and a new add to editing process for me.

    Include three shots,

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113-3.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	925.6 KB 
ID:	12245
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0128-3.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.15 MB 
ID:	12246
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0150-2.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	1,005.8 KB 
ID:	12247

    The TK A320 is re-edited with at least removing the dust spot.
    The KLM 777 is taken seconds earlier as the previous shot in this thread, as with the previous with the light was against me, with the sun in a worser postion as this one.
    Tried to remove the green tint in all the edits and also to add contrast in two different ways.
    Color looks fine, but I'd add a bit more contrast to the KLs.

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Color looks fine, but I'd add a bit more contrast to the KLs.
    Dana , happy with your answer about the color. The right contrast remains difficult for me.
    Tried something about the 789, I'll include it again.
    Will keep the 777 at bay for this moment as a big part of the aircraft is in the dark and as I'm not sure if that can be properly fixed.

    This is the 789 again.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113-3.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	933.4 KB 
ID:	12263

    Also two more for pre-screen

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0102.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12264
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0124.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	777.4 KB 
ID:	12265

  5. #65
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana , happy with your answer about the color. The right contrast remains difficult for me.
    Tried something about the 789, I'll include it again.
    Will keep the 777 at bay for this moment as a big part of the aircraft is in the dark and as I'm not sure if that can be properly fixed.

    This is the 789 again.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113-3.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	933.4 KB 
ID:	12263

    Also two more for pre-screen

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0102.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12264
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0124.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	777.4 KB 
ID:	12265
    Contrast still much too low. Given the light conditions should cause such weak shadows, I'd bet it's being caused by your processing, possibly by using the shadow/highlight, clarity, or other such tool.

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Contrast still much too low. Given the light conditions should cause such weak shadows, I'd bet it's being caused by your processing, possibly by using the shadow/highlight, clarity, or other such tool.
    Dana,

    Due to your words, my workflow normally contains, to keep white tones,and highlights at zero. Normally I don't even use higlights as they could cause halos way too easy in my opinion.
    I don't use the clarity tool as well ,as it gives really strange effects to photos and with the overprocessed-reject posibility in mind.
    I do have a vivacity tool in my lightroom. I used it a little on my photos. It couldn't be a big problem to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
    Normally I add maximum +25 to the contrast when necessary in my opinion. Maybe I should do more sometimes?
    The problem seems to me , I've used the shadows tool way too much to remove almost all the shadows. It wasn't necessary indeed.
    Also my apologies not using your example of the KL 789 properly. I think this is the closest I've reached to it right now.
    Noticed at all that the histograms are stretching far more out as one the previous posts

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113-3.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	928.4 KB 
ID:	12298

    Will also include the Pegasus 738 once more. Will keep the Etihad at bay, but both received a similar treat as the KL789, but the Etihad gives me a lot of doubts

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0124.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	768.0 KB 
ID:	12299

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Got this one also rejected https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6248934

    Added some sharpening to it. Want to know if it's good right now.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8751-2.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.11 MB 
ID:	12300

  8. #68
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Got this one also rejected https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6248934

    Added some sharpening to it. Want to know if it's good right now.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8751-2.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.11 MB 
ID:	12300
    To me there is a lot of compression going on there and also needs some more contrast.

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    To me there is a lot of compression going on there and also needs some more contrast.
    James, due to the compression noticed by you (I can't find it but that's my problem) this one will remain personal.

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana,

    Due to your words, my workflow normally contains, to keep white tones,and highlights at zero. Normally I don't even use higlights as they could cause halos way too easy in my opinion.
    I don't use the clarity tool as well ,as it gives really strange effects to photos and with the overprocessed-reject posibility in mind.
    I do have a vivacity tool in my lightroom. I used it a little on my photos. It couldn't be a big problem to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
    Normally I add maximum +25 to the contrast when necessary in my opinion. Maybe I should do more sometimes?
    The problem seems to me , I've used the shadows tool way too much to remove almost all the shadows. It wasn't necessary indeed.
    Also my apologies not using your example of the KL 789 properly. I think this is the closest I've reached to it right now.
    Noticed at all that the histograms are stretching far more out as one the previous posts

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113-3.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	928.4 KB 
ID:	12298

    Will also include the Pegasus 738 once more. Will keep the Etihad at bay, but both received a similar treat as the KL789, but the Etihad gives me a lot of doubts

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0124.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	768.0 KB 
ID:	12299
    If some of you got time, during these period.....

    But more important at the moment.

    Merry Christmas to all involved accepting, rejecting, trying to help me improving my photos, viewing and liking my photos.

    Thank you all for getting around 160 photos accepted in about eight monts at this website, as I started uploading already two years ago, but kept it at bay for around 1,5 years.
    Feeling at home here, will try to improve and keep on uplading photos when necessary with help from all of you.

  11. #71
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,384

    Default

    Thanks and Merry Xmas to you too !!!!

    Alex

  12. #72
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana,

    Due to your words, my workflow normally contains, to keep white tones,and highlights at zero. Normally I don't even use higlights as they could cause halos way too easy in my opinion.
    I don't use the clarity tool as well ,as it gives really strange effects to photos and with the overprocessed-reject posibility in mind.
    I do have a vivacity tool in my lightroom. I used it a little on my photos. It couldn't be a big problem to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
    Normally I add maximum +25 to the contrast when necessary in my opinion. Maybe I should do more sometimes?
    The problem seems to me , I've used the shadows tool way too much to remove almost all the shadows. It wasn't necessary indeed.
    Also my apologies not using your example of the KL 789 properly. I think this is the closest I've reached to it right now.
    Noticed at all that the histograms are stretching far more out as one the previous posts

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0113-3.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	928.4 KB 
ID:	12298
    Better, but maybe still a touch weak. Borderline for acceptance, but it'd be ok for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Will also include the Pegasus 738 once more.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0124.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	768.0 KB 
ID:	12299
    Same as above: better, but maybe a touch dark. Borderline, but would be acceptable for me.

  13. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Better, but maybe still a touch weak. Borderline for acceptance, but it'd be ok for me.

    Could add a little more exposure and extra shadows, so will include it in the queue

    Same as above: better, but maybe a touch dark. Borderline, but would be acceptable for me.
    It's in the queue. Can't add more exposure due to the angle and a highlight warning I receive while attempting.

    Three more for check up

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0102.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12420
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0134.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	955.0 KB 
ID:	12421
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0170.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12422

    What can I do to improve these ones if necessary ( I expect it is)

    Thank you again

  14. #74
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    It's in the queue. Can't add more exposure due to the angle and a highlight warning I receive while attempting.

    Three more for check up

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0102.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12420
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0134.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	955.0 KB 
ID:	12421
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0170.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12422

    What can I do to improve these ones if necessary ( I expect it is)

    Thank you again
    1. I like! Should be ok
    2. Should be ok, maybe just watch the horizon (but I don't have any screening tools here to verify) also starting to verge on backlit.
    3. Contrast is off/overprocessed. Looks like excessive shadows use.

  15. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    1. I like! Should be ok
    2. Should be ok, maybe just watch the horizon (but I don't have any screening tools here to verify) also starting to verge on backlit.
    3. Contrast is off/overprocessed. Looks like excessive shadows use.
    James thank you for reply.

    The Etihad Cargo is in the queue as also the Easyjet with slight modifications.
    Keep the KL E175 at bay for at least a while

    Three more for corrections.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0131.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	925.8 KB 
ID:	12489
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0137.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	655.0 KB 
ID:	12490
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0128-3.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	1.15 MB 
ID:	12491

    Note to nr 2. Different shot as earlier shown in this thread.
    Note to nr 3. Re-edit of this reject. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6262059

  16. #76
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,384

    Default

    The 3 look acceptable to me

    Regards

    Alex

  17. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    The 3 look acceptable to me

    Regards

    Alex
    Alex, thank you for your answer.

    One final question before 2017 comes to a close.

    Does this one stands a chance?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0150-2.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	1,009.2 KB 
ID:	12563

    Lots of doubt about the contrast and the exposure...
    If not it will remain personal. No problem.

    Final words for me this year to wish the entire JP-Team and all other people who are for some reason interested in my activities here all the best for 2018!!!

  18. #78
    JetPhotos.Net Crew pdeboer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    near EHAM/AMS
    Posts
    3,760

    Default

    i like it, nice light in the engines!

  19. #79
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdeboer View Post
    i like it, nice light in the engines!
    Thank you Pamela !

    It's in the queue.

    All the best for 2018 for the entire team and everyone involved with JP on a certain way.

    Three for me with several doubts, from a short hour at runway 24 at Eham with various conditions.
    Want to offer them for pre-screen.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0239.JPG 
Views:	31 
Size:	576.6 KB 
ID:	12629
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0257.JPG 
Views:	37 
Size:	461.1 KB 
ID:	12630
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0266.JPG 
Views:	38 
Size:	585.6 KB 
ID:	12631

  20. #80
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Thank you Pamela !

    It's in the queue.

    All the best for 2018 for the entire team and everyone involved with JP on a certain way.

    Three for me with several doubts, from a short hour at runway 24 at Eham with various conditions.
    Want to offer them for pre-screen.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0239.JPG 
Views:	31 
Size:	576.6 KB 
ID:	12629
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0257.JPG 
Views:	37 
Size:	461.1 KB 
ID:	12630
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0266.JPG 
Views:	38 
Size:	585.6 KB 
ID:	12631
    1. ok
    2. too far
    3. soft

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •