Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 378

Thread: wkd001- Editing advice

  1. #81
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,518

    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.

    Attachment 12629
    Attachment 12630
    Attachment 12631
    1: Could use a bit more contrast
    2: Same here
    3: Borderline soft

    All of them fixable, IMO.

  2. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LX-A343 View Post
    1: Could use a bit more contrast
    2: Same here
    3: Borderline soft

    All of them fixable, IMO.
    Gerardo, thank you for your answer.

    Dropped the Easyjet in the Queue with additional sharpening.

    Can't increase the contrast to the KLM A330 for some reason,
    think there is just not enough light, can't get the shadows very strong. Will have to check it very good or keep it personal.
    The Transavia should be better.
    It's included again.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0257.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	463.0 KB 
ID:	12672

    And a re-edit of a photo earlier in this thread.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0170.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12673

  3. #83
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Gerardo, thank you for your answer.

    Dropped the Easyjet in the Queue with additional sharpening.

    Can't increase the contrast to the KLM A330 for some reason,
    think there is just not enough light, can't get the shadows very strong. Will have to check it very good or keep it personal.
    The Transavia should be better.
    It's included again.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0257.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	463.0 KB 
ID:	12672

    And a re-edit of a photo earlier in this thread.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0170.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	1.37 MB 
ID:	12673
    1. orange tint, and needs tighter crop
    2. blue tint, and very weak contrast

  4. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. orange tint, and needs tighter crop
    2. blue tint, and very weak contrast
    Dana ,Thank for your clear answer.
    At first my apologies for missing your answer on my previous post. I 've only seen the second answer.
    Dropped the KLM A330 in the queue with increased contrast.
    The Cityhopper E175 wil remain personal as tried two different things to increase contrast and both were called too weak.
    As I see the photo now there is also improper light at the aircraft which creates imposibilliy for good contrast.

    Re-edit of the Transavia. Made a tighter crop and reworked the white balance.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0257-2.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	775.3 KB 
ID:	12753

    Two more for pre-screen.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_9929.JPG 
Views:	29 
Size:	678.3 KB 
ID:	12754
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8319.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	655.6 KB 
ID:	12755

  5. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Three more for check up above the previous request.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8180.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	591.2 KB 
ID:	12798
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6850.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	766.4 KB 
ID:	12799
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6897.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	736.2 KB 
ID:	12800

  6. #86
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana ,Thank for your clear answer.
    At first my apologies for missing your answer on my previous post. I 've only seen the second answer.
    Dropped the KLM A330 in the queue with increased contrast.
    The Cityhopper E175 wil remain personal as tried two different things to increase contrast and both were called too weak.
    As I see the photo now there is also improper light at the aircraft which creates imposibilliy for good contrast.

    Re-edit of the Transavia. Made a tighter crop and reworked the white balance.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0257-2.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	775.3 KB 
ID:	12753

    Two more for pre-screen.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_9929.JPG 
Views:	29 
Size:	678.3 KB 
ID:	12754
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8319.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	655.6 KB 
ID:	12755
    1. a little yellow, and softness on tail
    2. bit too high, and also tail softness
    3. too high

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Three more for check up above the previous request.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8180.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	591.2 KB 
ID:	12798
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6850.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	766.4 KB 
ID:	12799
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6897.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	736.2 KB 
ID:	12800
    Slight green tint on the first two; contrast a bit low on the third.

  7. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. a little yellow, and softness on tail
    2. bit too high, and also tail softness
    3. too high



    Slight green tint on the first two; contrast a bit low on the third.
    Dana, thank you for clear answers.
    Improved versions of the Flybe and Ai Algerie are in the queue.

    Offering improved versions of the Delta and the TUI again for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8180.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	591.9 KB 
ID:	12829
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6897.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	895.6 KB 
ID:	12830

    I also want to know what I should improve on this one.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8715-2.JPG 
Views:	31 
Size:	460.1 KB 
ID:	12831

  8. #88
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana, thank you for clear answers.
    Improved versions of the Flybe and Ai Algerie are in the queue.

    Offering improved versions of the Delta and the TUI again for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8180.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	591.9 KB 
ID:	12829
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6897.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	895.6 KB 
ID:	12830

    I also want to know what I should improve on this one.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8715-2.JPG 
Views:	31 
Size:	460.1 KB 
ID:	12831
    First two look ok.

    Third one is almost backlit, but passable for me. However, there's a blurry smudge at the bottom of the frame, either a large dust spot, or where you have removed something?

  9. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    First two look ok.

    Third one is almost backlit, but passable for me. However, there's a blurry smudge at the bottom of the frame, either a large dust spot, or where you have removed something?
    Dana, thank you for quick answers and thoughts.

    Playing with some old photos due to a lack of possibilities to go to AMS and many times bad weather for photography as well.
    Checked the Finnair and seemed to have removed a pole. (I didn't remember)
    As I know it's not obstructing the aircraft and JP-rules accept these things I put it back in.
    Sun is at the back of the aircraft, there is not much shadow indeed at the aircraft, anyway I'll hhow the result again, but I'm afraid I lost the color again.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8715-3.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	806.3 KB 
ID:	12850

    Want to offer two more for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6847.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	1,022.0 KB 
ID:	12851
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6850.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	919.8 KB 
ID:	12852

    Second one is the Fokker just earlier at this page, tried to remove the green cast. i'm afraid I went too far in it. Want to know for sure.

  10. #90
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Checked the Finnair and seemed to have removed a pole. (I didn't remember)
    As I know it's not obstructing the aircraft and JP-rules accept these things I put it back in.
    I'll warn you that if you upload images with items removed, such as the pole above, it will result in 1) a permanent warning going on your uploader profile (visible to crew members when screening your images), and if repeated 2) a reduction in upload slots or 3) a complete upload ban. If you wish to avoid such measures, please review the upload guidelines on manipulation to see that such editing is strictly forbidden.

  11. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    I'll warn you that if you upload images with items removed, such as the pole above, it will result in 1) a permanent warning going on your uploader profile (visible to crew members when screening your images), and if repeated 2) a reduction in upload slots or 3) a complete upload ban. If you wish to avoid such measures, please review the upload guidelines on manipulation to see that such editing is strictly forbidden.
    Dana,

    I'm absolutely aware of the facts mentioned by you above.
    I edited this photo more than six months ago and I deerly forgot I removed the pole on this one. So please accept my apologies for that. If you don't want to receive the original version (with pole). Let me know. I'll keep it at personal. My editing flow is always to keep such things in the picture. For some reason, this one slipped through. If possible, check up the other ones. Again my apologies for the misunderstanding.

  12. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Some more for pre-screen.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6847.JPG 
Views:	37 
Size:	1,022.0 KB 
ID:	12910
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_6850.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	919.8 KB 
ID:	12911
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0348.JPG 
Views:	29 
Size:	1.50 MB 
ID:	12912
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0370.JPG 
Views:	28 
Size:	842.3 KB 
ID:	12913
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0393.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	612.9 KB 
ID:	12914

  13. #93
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,403

    Default

    Looks like you were not far from some of our crew members last sunday...

    Those 5 pics look acceptable, they even look very cool with all those poles... ok sorry

    Regards
    Alex

  14. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    Looks like you were not far from some of our crew members last sunday...

    Those 5 pics look acceptable, they even look very cool with all those poles... ok sorry

    Regards
    Alex
    Alex,

    Thanks a lot for your answer, appreciate your sense of humour.

    Yes I heard crew-members of JP were there, maybe nice for a meeting in the future.
    On April 14th and 15th I will be visiting Zurich with two friends,so who knows...
    Now back to topic...

    Won't upload the Finnair A350 at all, to avoid any troubles.
    Do I have to add special scheme to the Norwegian and the Nordica?

    Also five for advice and check-up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_3864.JPG 
Views:	29 
Size:	959.6 KB 
ID:	13015
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0317.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	613.1 KB 
ID:	13016
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0354.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	720.7 KB 
ID:	13017
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0374.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	471.3 KB 
ID:	13018
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0379.JPG 
Views:	30 
Size:	557.3 KB 
ID:	13019

  15. #95
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Alex,

    Thanks a lot for your answer, appreciate your sense of humour.

    Yes I heard crew-members of JP were there, maybe nice for a meeting in the future.
    On April 14th and 15th I will be visiting Zurich with two friends,so who knows...
    Now back to topic...

    Won't upload the Finnair A350 at all, to avoid any troubles.
    Do I have to add special scheme to the Norwegian and the Nordica?

    Also five for advice and check-up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_3864.JPG 
Views:	29 
Size:	959.6 KB 
ID:	13015
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0317.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	613.1 KB 
ID:	13016
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0354.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	720.7 KB 
ID:	13017
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0374.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	471.3 KB 
ID:	13018
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0379.JPG 
Views:	30 
Size:	557.3 KB 
ID:	13019
    1. Looks a little green to me plus a little dark.
    2. OK
    3. Maybe just a bit low in frame.
    4. Looks ok
    5. Looks ok

  16. #96
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    1. Looks a little green to me plus a little dark.
    2. OK
    3. Maybe just a bit low in frame.
    4. Looks ok
    5. Looks ok
    James thank you for your answers.

    All are in the queue, some with some slight re-editing except the Qatar 777

    Tried to raise the exposure and remove the green cast in two different ways.
    Althought I know it will be a difficult one to get accepted.
    It's here again.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_3864.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	957.4 KB 
ID:	13108

    Also four more for check-up and advice.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0298.JPG 
Views:	32 
Size:	737.5 KB 
ID:	13109
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0316.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	660.1 KB 
ID:	13110
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0458.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	815.0 KB 
ID:	13111
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0476.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	1.32 MB 
ID:	13112

  17. #97
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    James thank you for your answers.

    All are in the queue, some with some slight re-editing except the Qatar 777

    Tried to raise the exposure and remove the green cast in two different ways.
    Althought I know it will be a difficult one to get accepted.
    It's here again.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_3864.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	957.4 KB 
ID:	13108

    Also four more for check-up and advice.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0298.JPG 
Views:	32 
Size:	737.5 KB 
ID:	13109
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0316.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	660.1 KB 
ID:	13110
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0458.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	815.0 KB 
ID:	13111
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0476.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	1.32 MB 
ID:	13112
    1. borderline contrast/color
    2-5 no major issues I can see

  18. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. borderline contrast/color
    2-5 no major issues I can see
    Dana,

    Thank you for your time.
    Nr 2-5 are in the queue.

    Want to offer five other for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0379.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	557.1 KB 
ID:	13189
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0360.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	941.5 KB 
ID:	13190
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0307.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	776.4 KB 
ID:	13191
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0469.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	1.10 MB 
ID:	13192
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0479.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	808.9 KB 
ID:	13193

    Note to nr 1. Re-edit of this reject.https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6315803 . Don't understand the reason of the reject to be honest, but didn't feel that well about the photo, was too late to remove it, maybe some extra explanation is needed. Thought the exposure and saturation would be the problems by myself .
    Note to nr 2. Do already have a photo of this one in the db. Should not be similar IMO.
    Note to nr.3. Think it's too high, want to know for sure.

  19. #99
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana,

    Thank you for your time.
    Nr 2-5 are in the queue.

    Want to offer five other for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0379.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	557.1 KB 
ID:	13189
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0360.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	941.5 KB 
ID:	13190
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0307.JPG 
Views:	24 
Size:	776.4 KB 
ID:	13191
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0469.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	1.10 MB 
ID:	13192
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0479.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	808.9 KB 
ID:	13193

    Note to nr 1. Re-edit of this reject.https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6315803 . Don't understand the reason of the reject to be honest, but didn't feel that well about the photo, was too late to remove it, maybe some extra explanation is needed. Thought the exposure and saturation would be the problems by myself .
    Note to nr 2. Do already have a photo of this one in the db. Should not be similar IMO.
    Note to nr.3. Think it's too high, want to know for sure.
    Contrast was a bit low on the AA I suppose; looks fine to me now. Other four maybe a touch soft, but otherwise should be ok.

  20. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Contrast was a bit low on the AA I suppose; looks fine to me now. Other four maybe a touch soft, but otherwise should be ok.
    Dana, thank you for your time again, will do some necessary actions where needed.

    However got this one rejected. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6321901
    Reason was a highlight warning which kept the exposure way too low.
    Thought I couldn't repair this, but apparently I could.

    This is the re-edit I want to offer for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0476.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	1.33 MB 
ID:	13243

    Also two more.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0292.JPG 
Views:	29 
Size:	581.6 KB 
ID:	13244
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0388.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	820.2 KB 
ID:	13245

Posting Permissions

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