Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: Siddarth - Editing Advice

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default Siddarth - Editing Advice

    Hi,

    Kicking off my editing advice thread with a pre-screening request. Is this pic ok to upload?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_5017.jpg 
Views:	107 
Size:	461.4 KB 
ID:	11133

    Regards,
    Siddarth

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Hi,

    Editing advice:
    Can I get some help on this reject. I had centered it factoring the canopy and engine intake. Also it is a very tight crop - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6207632

    Pre-screening:
    Are this pics acceptable for JP database
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4383.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	397.6 KB 
ID:	11437
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4351.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	423.0 KB 
ID:	11438
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4281.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	348.9 KB 
ID:	11439

    Regards,
    Siddarth
    Last edited by Siddarth.Bhandary; 11-20-2017 at 05:07 AM.

  4. #4
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Hi,

    Editing advice:
    Can I get some help on this reject. I had centered it factoring the canopy and engine intake. Also it is a very tight crop - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6207632
    Aircraft is too low, and you've cut off the nose probe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Pre-screening:
    Are this pics acceptable for JP database
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4383.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	397.6 KB 
ID:	11437
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4351.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	423.0 KB 
ID:	11438
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4281.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	348.9 KB 
ID:	11439
    1. contrast, color
    2. contrast, color
    3. motive (identifiable faces). personally I think it's also a terrible crop, though it is technically acceptable, so if you have one without people, you could try that.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Aircraft is too low, and you've cut off the nose probe.


    1. contrast, color
    2. contrast, color
    3. motive (identifiable faces). personally I think it's also a terrible crop, though it is technically acceptable, so if you have one without people, you could try that.
    Thanks Dana. Have re-uploaded the F-16 with a better composition. Will try to fix 1 and 2. 3 goes to personal collection.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Hi,

    Did I make a mistake in this upload? Remember selecting Genre as 'Civilian' and 'Night Shot' category, but I could be wrong - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6209782

    Regards,
    Siddarth

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Hi,

    Did I make a mistake in this upload? Remember selecting Genre as 'Civilian' and 'Night Shot' category, but I could be wrong - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6209782

    Regards,
    Siddarth
    Any help on this?

  8. #8
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,455

    Default

    military genre + cargo category needed.

    Regards
    Alex

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    military genre + cargo category needed.

    Regards
    Alex
    Thank you Alex.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Hi,

    This pic was rejected due to a yellow tinge - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6231697

    Have re-processed again with a different WB. Is this ok to upload?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_5373_1.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	376.1 KB 
ID:	11994

    Have a horizon rejection on this one - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6209737

    I had used the window panes as reference.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Horizon_Unlevel.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	360.1 KB 
ID:	11995

    Regards,
    Siddarth
    Last edited by Siddarth.Bhandary; 12-13-2017 at 06:41 AM.

  11. #11
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Hi,

    This pic was rejected due to a yellow tinge - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6231697

    Have re-processed again with a different WB. Is this ok to upload?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_5373_1.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	376.1 KB 
ID:	11994

    Have a horizon rejection on this one - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6209737

    I had used the window panes as reference.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Horizon_Unlevel.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	360.1 KB 
ID:	11995

    Regards,
    Siddarth
    #1: colours look better, but the photo now lacks contrast, mainly shadows
    #2: the windows are slightly leaning to the left. Try this trick:
    - open the photo in your browser
    - zoom into an area with know vertical lines, preferably edges of buildings (that way you can focus only on that area)
    - press the right mouse button on an edge and check the context menu with the vertical line on your photo
    - or: open a new window and use the edge of that new window

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Hi,

    Are these two pics suitable for JP database:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0013_WM.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	1,022.6 KB 
ID:	12249

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_5042_WM.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	501.6 KB 
ID:	12250
    The smoke in the background is from explosions to simulate the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Have a nice weekend.

    Regards,
    Siddarth

  13. #13
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Hi,

    Are these two pics suitable for JP database:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0013_WM.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	1,022.6 KB 
ID:	12249

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_5042_WM.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	501.6 KB 
ID:	12250
    The smoke in the background is from explosions to simulate the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Have a nice weekend.

    Regards,
    Siddarth
    1. quality is not there for 1920, but might be ok at 1280 or less.
    2. contrast is too low.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. quality is not there for 1920, but might be ok at 1280 or less.
    2. contrast is too low.
    Thank you Dana.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Hi,

    Can I get some help with these rejects:

    1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6270108. Since the tail and rear of the aircraft is in the shadow of the hangar, the aircraft is not uniformly exposed.

    2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6270125. I thought since the faces were not clearly identifiable, so this would be ok. In addition, I downsized to 1200px for this purpose. But I am worried about 'Digital Manipulation'. Does it mean I modified something in the pic? The only workflow I employed was 'Horizon Level -> Crop -> Levels -> Resize to 1200px -> Select Edges -> USM 50, 0.5 about 12 times'.

    3. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6260821. Any suggestions if this can be fixed. All my 6 Blue Angel pics were rejected with more or less the same reason.

    Thanks and regards,
    Siddarth
    Last edited by Siddarth.Bhandary; 12-27-2017 at 10:31 PM.

  16. #16
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Hi,

    Can I get some help with these rejects:

    1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6270108. Since the tail and rear of the aircraft is in the shadow of the hangar, the aircraft is not uniformly exposed.
    Indeed, and a such, might not be fixable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6270125. I thought since the faces were not clearly identifiable, so this would be ok. In addition, I downsized to 1200px for this purpose. But I am worried about 'Digital Manipulation'. Does it mean I modified something in the pic? The only workflow I employed was 'Horizon Level -> Crop -> Levels -> Resize to 1200px -> Select Edges -> USM 50, 0.5 about 12 times'.
    I checked the log; screener left remarks that the dark shading at the top looked like it might have been the result of a digital filter applied in post. Can't say that I necessarily agree, but that's evidently what the manipulation rejection was for. Motive is ok for me; as you said, faces aren't really identifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    3. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6260821. Any suggestions if this can be fixed. All my 6 Blue Angel pics were rejected with more or less the same reason.
    Color (yellow/green cast) might be fixable by adjusting the white balance, but the poor light (almost looks backlit) would be much more difficult to address.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Thanks Dana as always for the clarification.

    2. Whats interesting is that I did not get receive those screener comments in the e-mail. Here is a screenshot of what I got in the mail.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	28-12-2017 00-13-42.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	38.5 KB 
ID:	12455

    3. Let me see if I can rework the RAW files. The sun was definitely behind me (one of the reasons, I always do Wings Over Houston ), but I am assuming the morning overcast messed it up.

  18. #18
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Thanks Dana as always for the clarification.

    2. Whats interesting is that I did not get receive those screener comments in the e-mail. Here is a screenshot of what I got in the mail.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	28-12-2017 00-13-42.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	38.5 KB 
ID:	12455
    Sorry, should have been more clear: the remarks were left as an internal note, and were not meant to be passed on to you at the time.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW)
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Hi,

    Can I get some pre-screening advice on these pics.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_1331_WM.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	536.2 KB 
ID:	12486
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_1420_WM.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	683.2 KB 
ID:	12487
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_1440_WM.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	391.1 KB 
ID:	12488

    Regards,
    Siddarth

  20. #20
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Sorry, should have been more clear: the remarks were left as an internal note, and were not meant to be passed on to you at the time.
    May I add, the screener's remark to the photographer is only visible in the mail, not in the screening history shown above. It said "dark halo at the top, looks like a filter"

Posting Permissions

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