Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reuben Morison - Prescreening/editing advice

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26443[/ATTACH]
    Debating this one too
    Likely a dark/contrast rejection as it's not really a silhouette shot, yet still too dark for regular night shot. Also too soft for 1920pix.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
      Likely a dark/contrast rejection as it's not really a silhouette shot, yet still too dark for regular night shot. Also too soft for 1920pix.
      Cheers, shame but thats life.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
        Cheers, shame but thats life.
        Doesn't mean it's a guaranteed rejection if you want to try, someone might disagree with me

        Comment


        • #19
          Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4301.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	839.9 KB
ID:	1041225
          Would this be acceptable here?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
            [ATTACH=CONFIG]26782[/ATTACH]
            Would this be acceptable here?
            Maybe if the NASA tail were more in focus.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
              Maybe if the NASA tail were more in focus.
              The NASA 747 is about 250m behind NXJ, so not really possible.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
                The NASA 747 is about 250m behind NXJ, so not really possible.
                1) more in focus, not simply in focus
                2) by adjusting the aperture setting, you are able to control something called depth of field (DOF), which is how much of the frame is in focus. By choosing a wider aperture like you did in this shot (f/5.6), you either weren't aware that this would affect the DOF, or if you were, made the conscious decision to go for a narrower DOF. Either way, had you stopped down the aperture a lot more, say to f/11 or smaller, a lot more of the frame would have been in focus, and your composition would have worked better.

                Or, in short - yes really possible.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                  1) more in focus, not simply in focus
                  2) by adjusting the aperture setting, you are able to control something called depth of field (DOF), which is how much of the frame is in focus. By choosing a wider aperture like you did in this shot (f/5.6), you either weren't aware that this would affect the DOF, or if you were, made the conscious decision to go for a narrower DOF. Either way, had you stopped down the aperture a lot more, say to f/11 or smaller, a lot more of the frame would have been in focus, and your composition would have worked better.

                  Or, in short - yes really possible.
                  Yeah. I was struggling with cloud which covered over for good after that shot, and a new lens which I haven't really learned yet

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Just wondering, would a photo of N7766E be hot now that it's been rebuilt and looking flyable, rather than the decrepit bare airframe of the last photo linked below?
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9871.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	1.21 MB
ID:	1041963
                    Discussing with another screener privately, he thought it probably would be hot, but wasn't sure since there's no rule on it

                    jetphotos.com/photo/9153317

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4354.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	215.8 KB
ID:	1042952
                      Would this be acceptable as a tower photo?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]28864[/ATTACH]
                        Would this be acceptable as a tower photo?
                        More hillside and blown out sun than tower.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0991.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	548.7 KB
ID:	1043479
                          Would this be acceptable? Looks borderline soft to me

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]29480[/ATTACH]
                            Would this be acceptable? Looks borderline soft to me
                            Yes it is a bit too soft for 1600pix.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                              Yes it is a bit too soft for 1600pix.
                              Unfortunately it's one of those shots that gets softer at lower resolution.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2905-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	831.9 KB
ID:	1043492 Would this one be sharp enough? Looks a little too soft to me.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2968.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	472.7 KB
ID:	1043493 I think this one is just sharp enough, not sure

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X