Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nicholas Hesler/NickFlightX - Editing Advise

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

  • #16
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0175.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.07 MB
ID:	1031510

    How does this photo look? I am worried cause theres a big spike in the histogram for the bright side, but it clearly doesnt look over exposed. Thanks in advance!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]20045[/ATTACH]

      How does this photo look? I am worried cause theres a big spike in the histogram for the bright side, but it clearly doesnt look over exposed. Thanks in advance!
      Soft, and borderline for contrast.

      Comment


      • #18
        How do these photos look?

        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0056.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	570.0 KB
ID:	1031565

        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0089.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	733.2 KB
ID:	1031566

        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0116.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	700.1 KB
ID:	1031567

        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6543.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.38 MB
ID:	1031568

        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6583.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.32 MB
ID:	1031569

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
          How do these photos look?

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]20115[/ATTACH]

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]20116[/ATTACH]

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]20117[/ATTACH]

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]20118[/ATTACH]

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]20119[/ATTACH]
          1-3 soft/blurry, overprocessed
          4. ok
          5. borderline soft

          Comment


          • #20
            Would this one get rejected for obstruction due to the loader on the back? (This is not edited for a jetphotos upload)

            Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1449.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	310.5 KB
ID:	1031841

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
              Would this one get rejected for obstruction due to the loader on the back? (This is not edited for a jetphotos upload)

              [ATTACH=CONFIG]20480[/ATTACH]
              Most likely yes, since it is avoidable with better timing.

              Comment


              • #22
                How do these photos look?

                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7640.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.41 MB
ID:	1031897
                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7650.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1,024.0 KB
ID:	1031898
                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8861.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	666.6 KB
ID:	1031899
                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7749.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.31 MB
ID:	1031900
                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7795.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1,014.3 KB
ID:	1031901

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
                  How do these photos look?

                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]20570[/ATTACH]
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]20571[/ATTACH]
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]20572[/ATTACH]
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]20573[/ATTACH]
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]20574[/ATTACH]
                  1 looks acceptable, 2 and 3 are a bit dark, 4 and 5 look acceptable

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    How does this photo look?
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2282.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	728.2 KB
ID:	1032173

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
                      How does this photo look?
                      [ATTACH=CONFIG]20880[/ATTACH]
                      Quality looks fine.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


                        I got this rejected recently, and I am confused with the rejection. While the airplane is not very well lit, it is not back lit by definition. If you look at the taxiway center line, you can see that most of the shadow is on the far side of the center line, which shows that the plane is not back lit by definition. I appealed this a good time ago and haven't heard back which is why I am asking here.

                        Thanks

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          you could be right, not technically backlit by definition but like the senior replied to your appeal "fuselage is not well lit, correctly rejected" which I agree with. for such front lit shot of such a common aircraft I recommend you wait for a better chance

                          Regards
                          Alex

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            How does this photo look? Taken from an old camera, so not the best quality out there. Also, I am having trouble with uploading this pic. The airport, E16, does not appear to be in the data base. Cant find it anywhere.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01934.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	465.9 KB
ID:	1032505

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
                              How does this photo look? Taken from an old camera, so not the best quality out there. Also, I am having trouble with uploading this pic. The airport, E16, does not appear to be in the data base. Cant find it anywhere.

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21267[/ATTACH]
                              Some compression/oversharpening, but otherwise ok.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I am trying to upload the photo from the last post I made, but the airport is entered wrong into the database. Right now, it is entered into the database as "San Martin/South County - Q99" and has the country of "Wake Island". The upload page simply wont let me change the country to USA - California, it has already caused me a rejection. Further more, the airport now has the name/code of: "San Martin - E16". Any chance this can get fixed so I would be able to upload the photo?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X