Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 112

Thread: pauwelsc - Editing advice

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default pauwelsc - Editing advice

    Hey JP!

    Interested in knowing what you think of these pictures. Not sure about the light conditions.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HB-JJE.jpg 
Views:	194 
Size:	1.07 MB 
ID:	10709 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSE.jpg 
Views:	175 
Size:	1.03 MB 
ID:	10710 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSW.jpg 
Views:	176 
Size:	952.8 KB 
ID:	10711

  2. #2
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Hey JP!

    Interested in knowing what you think of these pictures. Not sure about the light conditions.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HB-JJE.jpg 
Views:	194 
Size:	1.07 MB 
ID:	10709 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSE.jpg 
Views:	175 
Size:	1.03 MB 
ID:	10710 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSW.jpg 
Views:	176 
Size:	952.8 KB 
ID:	10711
    Poor light yes, but the first is also obstructed, the second blurry, and the third soft.

  3. #3
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Went spotting today and I think the light was way better now! I hope you share my opinion

    1. Attachment 10765 2. Attachment 10766 3. Attachment 10767 4. Attachment 10768 5. Attachment 10769
    All of these images would be rejected for soft, vignetting, noise, and compression. Sorry.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    I edited these ones who are clearly without vignetting. I hope some of them are good. Thank you for you useful advice, I really try to learn out of my errors.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FWF.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	10834 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	LN-RGD.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	238.3 KB 
ID:	10835 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SNI.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	1.68 MB 
ID:	10836 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oo-ssn.jpg 
Views:	91 
Size:	1.09 MB 
ID:	10837 5. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSV.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	1.40 MB 
ID:	10838

  5. #5
    JetPhotos.Net Crew meneses24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Josť, Costa Rica
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    I edited these ones who are clearly without vignetting. I hope some of them are good. Thank you for you useful advice, I really try to learn out of my errors.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FWF.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	10834 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	LN-RGD.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	238.3 KB 
ID:	10835 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SNI.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	1.68 MB 
ID:	10836 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oo-ssn.jpg 
Views:	91 
Size:	1.09 MB 
ID:	10837 5. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSV.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	1.40 MB 
ID:	10838
    They look over processed and bit compressed. Looking at the EXIF info, using ISOs higher than 200 for that kind of light is damaging the pictures itself. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? Are you cropping too much the whole frames?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meneses24 View Post
    They look over processed and bit compressed. Looking at the EXIF info, using ISOs higher than 200 for that kind of light is damaging the pictures itself. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? Are you cropping too much the whole frames?
    I took thes pics in JPEG. I am a bit of a rookie so I use autofocus... I shot these ones with a 300mm so yes I chopper them. I get quit a lot pictures rejected for being over processed in fact, but I donít know how to solve it. Over processed means it gets a plastic look, no? What about number 4? I think itís the best of them? How can I fix the iso problem in the future? I really learn a lot from the advice your colleagues gave me already so I am always keen to learn!

  7. #7
    JetPhotos.Net Crew meneses24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Josť, Costa Rica
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    I took thes pics in JPEG. I am a bit of a rookie so I use autofocus... I shot these ones with a 300mm so yes I chopper them. I get quit a lot pictures rejected for being over processed in fact, but I don’t know how to solve it. Over processed means it gets a plastic look, no? What about number 4? I think it’s the best of them? How can I fix the iso problem in the future? I really learn a lot from the advice your colleagues gave me already so I am always keen to learn!
    Autofocus is fine, actually everyone should use it in most situations. 300mm should be enough but if you crop them (located far from the airplane) the compression will start to show, even at 1024x768px. What program are you using for your photo editings?

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Over processed means it gets a plastic look, no?
    Exactly, excessive contrast, sharpness and colors in there. It works fine for me to have my camera settings in zero contrast/tone/saturation and perform all adjustments in the edition.

    Number four unfortunately shows this artifacts as well. For next time in this sunny light conditions you can set your ISO level at 160-200 max. Usually newer cameras have an auto ISO setting where you can select a min/max ISO setting. Also it will depend on you camera brand (Canon/Nikon/Pentax) and sensor type and how it behaves. What might behave good for me might be extremely different on your camera and so on.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meneses24 View Post
    Autofocus is fine, actually everyone should use it in most situations. 300mm should be enough but if you crop them (located far from the airplane) the compression will start to show, even at 1024x768px. What program are you using for your photo editings?



    Exactly, excessive contrast, sharpness and colors in there. It works fine for me to have my camera settings in zero contrast/tone/saturation and perform all adjustments in the edition.

    Number four unfortunately shows this artifacts as well. For next time in this sunny light conditions you can set your ISO level at 160-200 max. Usually newer cameras have an auto ISO setting where you can select a min/max ISO setting. Also it will depend on you camera brand (Canon/Nikon/Pentax) and sensor type and how it behaves. What might behave good for me might be extremely different on your camera and so on.
    Well, indeed I was far away from the airplanes. 300mm should be ok for the wide bodies but for the smaller ones, 400mm would be more acceptable. That's why I have also decided to invest in such an equipment. So I did a lot of cropping and honestly I did not know it affects the compression. I don't use a specific photoshop program, I use 'Pictures' installed on my macbook, it has most of the same tools as some programs.

    Thank you for the great tip to check my ISO level! Again, I had no clue at all I had to change this, I am definitely going to do this in the future.
    The camera I have is the Nikon D3300 so maybe it can work out to set those setting to zero?

    I will exclude these pictures from my queue as they are most likely to get rejected. I will take these tips in mind for the future and hopefully I can provide some better pictures to the database.

    Just to show you the crop:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_1095.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	806.1 KB 
ID:	10883 (original) Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oo-ssn.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	1.09 MB 
ID:	10884 (edit)

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Maybe these ones are better as they are taken at a smaller focal length.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSN1.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	1.15 MB 
ID:	10890 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FRO.jpg 
Views:	121 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	10891 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FWF.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	10893

  10. #10
    JetPhotos.Net Crew meneses24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Josť, Costa Rica
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Well, indeed I was far away from the airplanes. 300mm should be ok for the wide bodies but for the smaller ones, 400mm would be more acceptable. That's why I have also decided to invest in such an equipment. So I did a lot of cropping and honestly I did not know it affects the compression. I don't use a specific photoshop program, I use 'Pictures' installed on my macbook, it has most of the same tools as some programs.

    Thank you for the great tip to check my ISO level! Again, I had no clue at all I had to change this, I am definitely going to do this in the future.
    The camera I have is the Nikon D3300 so maybe it can work out to set those setting to zero?

    I will exclude these pictures from my queue as they are most likely to get rejected. I will take these tips in mind for the future and hopefully I can provide some better pictures to the database.

    Just to show you the crop:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_1095.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	806.1 KB 
ID:	10883 (original) Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oo-ssn.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	1.09 MB 
ID:	10884 (edit)
    Definitely the crop in there is too much for what an acceptable crop/quality may be handled. Unfortunately some spots are farther than we think from the action

  11. #11
    JetPhotos.Net Crew meneses24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Josť, Costa Rica
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Maybe these ones are better as they are taken at a smaller focal length.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSN1.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	1.15 MB 
ID:	10890 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FRO.jpg 
Views:	121 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	10891 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FWF.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	10893
    1-Bit dark. Still overprocessed, too much contrast there
    2-Underexposed but overall good, just fix that
    3-Soft, overprocessed. The sun glare on the windows are quite disturbing. Usually a few seconds after the light shines perfect on the whole fuselage.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meneses24 View Post
    1-Bit dark. Still overprocessed, too much contrast there
    2-Underexposed but overall good, just fix that
    3-Soft, overprocessed. The sun glare on the windows are quite disturbing. Usually a few seconds after the light shines perfect on the whole fuselage.
    Better now?

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FRO.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	1.23 MB 
ID:	10926 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSN1.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	1.24 MB 
ID:	10927

    And I added these ones too:

    3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G-CELE.jpg 
Views:	85 
Size:	939.1 KB 
ID:	10956 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hb-jnd.jpg 
Views:	205 
Size:	1.05 MB 
ID:	10957 5. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sp-enz.jpg 
Views:	112 
Size:	894.4 KB 
ID:	10958


  13. #13
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Better now?

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FRO.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	1.23 MB 
ID:	10926 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-SSN1.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	1.24 MB 
ID:	10927

    And I added these ones too:

    3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G-CELE.jpg 
Views:	85 
Size:	939.1 KB 
ID:	10956 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hb-jnd.jpg 
Views:	205 
Size:	1.05 MB 
ID:	10957 5. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sp-enz.jpg 
Views:	112 
Size:	894.4 KB 
ID:	10958

    1. soft/heat haze
    2. soft, contrast
    3. ok
    4. soft, backlit, color, contrast, noisy
    5. borderline overexposed

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    A quick note on the germanwings: it got rejected before and I did an appeal. The screeners advised to brighten the mid tones and to add some more contrast later on. I hope it is fixed now.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PH-HSA.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	1.17 MB 
ID:	11035 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-ENS.jpg 
Views:	174 
Size:	1.10 MB 
ID:	11036 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D-AIQB.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	11037 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CS-TJG.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	1.05 MB 
ID:	11038

  15. #15
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    A quick note on the germanwings: it got rejected before and I did an appeal. The screeners advised to brighten the mid tones and to add some more contrast later on. I hope it is fixed now.

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PH-HSA.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	1.17 MB 
ID:	11035 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-ENS.jpg 
Views:	174 
Size:	1.10 MB 
ID:	11036 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D-AIQB.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	11037 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CS-TJG.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	1.05 MB 
ID:	11038
    1. ok
    2. soft
    3. ok
    4. ok

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Thank you for the previous pre-screens! Wondering what you are thinking of these ones...

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FOZ.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	1.38 MB 
ID:	11088 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G-EZIJ.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	11089 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G-OZBE.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	1.11 MB 
ID:	11090 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HB-JYD.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	1.10 MB 
ID:	11091 5. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	M-GDRS.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	1.23 MB 
ID:	11092

  17. #17
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Thank you for the previous pre-screens! Wondering what you are thinking of these ones...

    1. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EI-FOZ.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	1.38 MB 
ID:	11088 2. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G-EZIJ.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	1.16 MB 
ID:	11089 3. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G-OZBE.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	1.11 MB 
ID:	11090 4. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HB-JYD.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	1.10 MB 
ID:	11091 5. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	M-GDRS.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	1.23 MB 
ID:	11092
    1. contrast a bit harsh, but probably ok.
    2. ok
    3-4 borderline soft
    5. very soft, almost blurry

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Would this get accepted as a cockpit shot? Thanks

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oo-tcq.jpg 
Views:	44 
Size:	379.2 KB 
ID:	11104

  19. #19
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pauwelsc View Post
    Would this get accepted as a cockpit shot? Thanks

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	oo-tcq.jpg 
Views:	44 
Size:	379.2 KB 
ID:	11104
    I would vote to reject it with the reason obstruction/clutter. The Captain's arm is distracting and the shot could have been taken without his arm in the way if he had moved it.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    I would vote to reject it with the reason obstruction/clutter. The Captain's arm is distracting and the shot could have been taken without his arm in the way if he had moved it.
    I thought the arm would be a problem... Thank you for your quick response. Maybe this one is better?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OO-TCQ front.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	1.19 MB 
ID:	11107

Posting Permissions

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