Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 116

Thread: Flying.Fonz - Editing advice

  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Hi,

    Could I have a quick check on this one please.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DL-A333-t_o-web.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	22307

    Cheers

  2. #62
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Hi,

    Could I have a quick check on this one please.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DL-A333-t_o-web.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	22307

    Cheers
    Borderline for contrast.

  3. #63
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Thanks. Could I check that it is too much contrast please.

    I had this one rejected for too little/much contrast and having sought advice, read up on it and corrected it, I was unsure and believed it was for too much contrast. Pointers for both would be greatly appreciated, make a significant difference to my development and hopefully less hassle for screeners.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VS-789-takeoff-web-copy-3.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	918.7 KB 
ID:	22319

    Many thanks

  4. #64
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,381

    Default

    Virgin, just like Aeroflot or Jet2 are airlines with metallic paint scheme. Those scheme are extremely dull when there's no good sunlight on them which is the case here. Honestly I'm not sure you can make it better than what you already did.
    Would it be my picture, I would keep it for the personal collection

    kind Regards
    Alex

  5. #65
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Thanks Alex. That is just the type of info I was looking for.

    Cheers
    Andy

  6. #66
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Hi and thanks for previous feedback which has been extremely useful. With that in mind I've made some adjustments to how I do things and I'd like a check on these two.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DL-A333-t_o-web.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	1.20 MB 
ID:	22365

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WK-A343-t-o-web.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	1.22 MB 
ID:	22366

    Cheers

  7. #67
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Hi and thanks for previous feedback which has been extremely useful. With that in mind I've made some adjustments to how I do things and I'd like a check on these two.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DL-A333-t_o-web.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	1.20 MB 
ID:	22365

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WK-A343-t-o-web.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	1.22 MB 
ID:	22366

    Cheers
    1. borderline color/contrast
    2. contrast, borderline soft

    Both lack contrast due to overcast conditions.

  8. #68
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Fab. Thanks.

  9. #69
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Hi,

    I'm looking for advice (not just from screeners but other members too) on a couple of photos that were recently rejected. I can see they're not quite right (not looking to repost them) but I want to understand what can be done to improve photos (aside from taking better ones) when we then observe approved photos that are not to quite the standard usually seen on JP.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-744-Landor-web.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	1.42 MB 
ID:	22473 (I'm aware its not quite horizontal but easily fixed)


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-747-Landor-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	985.8 KB 
ID:	22474

    I'd be interested in your thoughts on these two to upload. I worked on the advice given (frankly, my first attempt was shockingly bad). It may well be that a lower resolution may help.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-744-Landor-web-taxiing-1.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	1.45 MB 
ID:	22475

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-744-Landor-taxiing-2-web.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.28 MB 
ID:	22476

    As always, grateful for your advice.


    Cheers

  10. #70
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Hi,

    I'm looking for advice (not just from screeners but other members too) on a couple of photos that were recently rejected. I can see they're not quite right (not looking to repost them) but I want to understand what can be done to improve photos (aside from taking better ones) when we then observe approved photos that are not to quite the standard usually seen on JP.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-744-Landor-web.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	1.42 MB 
ID:	22473 (I'm aware its not quite horizontal but easily fixed)


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-747-Landor-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	985.8 KB 
ID:	22474

    I'd be interested in your thoughts on these two to upload. I worked on the advice given (frankly, my first attempt was shockingly bad). It may well be that a lower resolution may help.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-744-Landor-web-taxiing-1.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	1.45 MB 
ID:	22475

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-744-Landor-taxiing-2-web.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.28 MB 
ID:	22476

    As always, grateful for your advice.


    Cheers
    1. contrast a bit flat, and needs a touch of brightening, but otherwise should be ok
    2. sky in top of frame above stabilizer significantly darker than the rest. filter used?
    3-4 slight green cast/flat light. not sure if fixable

  11. #71
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Thanks for the thoughts.

    I haven't got a filter. I remember distinctly that the sky was different at that moment but no problem looking at it again.

    Cheers

  12. #72
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Hi,

    I'm looking for a quick check on these please.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-A319-BEA-web.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	698.4 KB 
ID:	22590 Can this one still be uploaded as a hot photo even though its been around for a couple of weeks?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KU-773-landing-web.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	965.9 KB 
ID:	22591

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	UA-772-landing-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	997.5 KB 
ID:	22592

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TK-773-land-web.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	1.23 MB 
ID:	22593

    Cheers

  13. #73
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Hi,

    I'm looking for a quick check on these please.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-A319-BEA-web.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	698.4 KB 
ID:	22590 Can this one still be uploaded as a hot photo even though its been around for a couple of weeks?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KU-773-landing-web.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	965.9 KB 
ID:	22591

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	UA-772-landing-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	997.5 KB 
ID:	22592

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TK-773-land-web.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	1.23 MB 
ID:	22593

    Cheers
    1. not hot
    2-3 borderline soft
    4. soft, contrast

  14. #74
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Is 1. ok or does it need further work?

    Thanks

  15. #75
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Is 1. ok or does it need further work?

    Thanks
    Maybe a touch soft, but otherwise ok.

  16. #76
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Thanks.

  17. #77
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Hi,

    Can you identify any issues with these two?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-Landor-744-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.67 MB 
ID:	22611

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Ae-A333-land-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.45 MB 
ID:	22612

    Cheers

  18. #78
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Hi,

    Can you identify any issues with these two?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BA-Landor-744-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.67 MB 
ID:	22611

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Ae-A333-land-web-copy.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.45 MB 
ID:	22612

    Cheers
    Second probably needs a bit of CW rotation, but otherwise they should be ok.

  19. #79
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Thanks.

    When is the cutoff for a hot photo? I think its a week since the top one came out so suspect it no longer is but just wanted to check for future reference.

    Cheers

  20. #80
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Thanks.

    When is the cutoff for a hot photo? I think its a week since the top one came out so suspect it no longer is but just wanted to check for future reference.

    Cheers
    Depends on the situation. 48 hours for some, only first image for others.

    Both of the most recent BA special schemes are long past their hot windows.

Posting Permissions

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