Uploading to Anet/JP? Pre-Screen Here! [Archive]

T-Bird76

2009-07-22, 07:46 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2598635

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604389

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604396

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2598630

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2598268

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2596641

Serigo I'm sorry to say I doubt any of those shots will make it.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604389
this shot has signs of clone marks all over the sky and the contrast is off.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2598630
This shot is soft, and there's major clone marks in the sky.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604396
This one is very soft and again there's signs of clone marks in the sky and its under exposed.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2598268
There's to much contrast in the picture and the horizon is leaning to the left, it needs .5 cw rotation.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2596641
This shot is very soft and there's clone mark and dust spots in the sky.

MarkLawrence

2009-07-22, 08:28 PM

I'm still battling with a new laptop/monitor combination - any of the monitor configuration experts going to be in South Florida soon?? I'll supply dinner!! :)

I don't think this will - but - I thought I'd try...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2596424

And...then...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2596432

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2598056

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604182

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604201

T-Bird76

2009-07-22, 08:52 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2596432
Bit of noise throughout the plane Mark.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2598056
Same with the noise and soft.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604182
Lots of heat haze and oversharpened.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2604201
50/50...could use more contrast and a touch of noise.

The A/C one looks fine...although the plane needs a paint job :)

MarkLawrence

2009-07-24, 06:20 AM

The A/C one looks fine...although the plane needs a paint job :)

Gosh - unfortunately - someone else didn't see that - a myriad of rejections....

- Dark / Underexposed
- Oversharpen
- Too much or too little contrast
- JPG compression artefacts

T-Bird76

2009-07-24, 01:54 PM

MarkLawrence

2009-07-25, 08:20 AM

Appeal it Mark.

Appealed.

MarkLawrence

2009-07-25, 05:32 PM

Thanks Tom - appeal successful..

Matt Molnar

2009-07-27, 02:04 AM

What do you think about this? (Shot by a friend with my camera, processed by me)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2611174

T-Bird76

2009-07-27, 09:59 AM

What do you think about this? (Shot by a friend with my camera, processed by me)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2611174

These shots generally get rejected for being cut off. This shot will probably follow that trend as well as it being to dark. There may be a motive rejection with this shot as well.

threeholerglory

2009-07-27, 04:35 PM

i was considering submitting this one....thoughts?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2546/3762526475_5bfda67541_o.jpg

njgtr82

2009-07-27, 07:58 PM

hey Mike, first thing I noticed was some noise under the wings and signs of heat haze on the leading edge of the right wing

heeshung

2009-07-28, 08:43 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2612982

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2612990

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2613018

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2613055

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2613111

T-Bird76

2009-07-29, 08:47 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2613018
The horizon is leaning to the left on this shot, you need .5 cw rotation.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2613055
Might get a similar rejection, you already uploaded a wing shot.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2613111
Def not going to make it in, you can barely see the wing. Its simply not enough subject to make it.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2612990
This one is fine.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2612982
This one is fine.

heeshung

2009-07-30, 11:06 PM

Appreciate it, helps a lot.

heeshung

2009-07-31, 11:32 AM

First 1600px submission:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2617326

Thoughts?

T-Bird76

2009-07-31, 08:25 PM

First 1600px submission:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2617326

Thoughts?

Looks good, maybe a bit bright but I think its ok.

Delta777LR

2009-08-03, 03:29 PM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 8532cx.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/i1249327572.8532cx.jpg)

T-Bird76

2009-08-03, 03:42 PM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/i1249327572.8532cx.jpg

Far to dark Serigo.

Matt Molnar

2009-08-03, 04:05 PM

Any idea why this got a "categories wrong or missing" reject?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2611174

Delta777LR

2009-08-03, 04:21 PM

My next try is,

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o37/sergair/IMG_4500copy.jpg

T-Bird76

2009-08-03, 04:25 PM

Any idea why this got a "categories wrong or missing" reject?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2611174

Probably night shot Matt, looks to be dusk.

T-Bird76

2009-08-03, 04:26 PM

My next try is,

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o37/sergair/IMG_4500copy.jpg

Blurry Serigo and the contrast is far to harsh. It needs less contrast but the blurriness can't be fixed.

Matt Molnar

2009-08-03, 04:35 PM

Any idea why this got a "categories wrong or missing" reject?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2611174

Probably night shot Matt, looks to be dusk.
Hmm, it was early morning. Oh well.

Delta777LR

2009-08-03, 04:40 PM

These im not sure but a little help will be great for me,

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o37/sergair/IMG_4581copy_edited-1.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o37/sergair/IMG_4607copy_edited-1copy.jpg

I just finished brightening this same shot

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o37/sergair/CXcopy.jpg

I could see a tiny bit of grain on some but im still editing

T-Bird76

2009-08-03, 05:11 PM

Any idea why this got a "categories wrong or missing" reject?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2611174

Probably night shot Matt, looks to be dusk.
Hmm, it was early morning. Oh well.

applies to dusk shots as well.

MarkLawrence

2009-08-08, 12:43 PM

I'm not sure about this one - it's not often I can get two SF340's in one shot - but - does it work?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2628299

T-Bird76

2009-08-08, 12:46 PM

I'm not sure about this one - it's not often I can get two SF340's in one shot - but - does it work?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2628299

Mark she's heat hazed to death. Sorry mate

MarkLawrence

2009-08-08, 01:33 PM

Thought so - I'll take it out - pity - it was a unique shot...Thanks Tom!

threeholerglory

2009-08-12, 07:55 PM

got another shot at this one....thoughts?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3540/3815483033_a46bfa76c6_b.jpg

wunaladreamin

2009-08-13, 07:56 PM

Dust spots here bro.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5299/3815483033a46bfa76c6b.jpg

AirtrafficController

2009-08-17, 09:33 PM

Top lit too much?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2642652

T-Bird76

2009-08-17, 09:53 PM

Top lit too much?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2642652

The contrast from the top to bottom is off. The bottom of the plane is lacking contrast while the top is within acceptable ranges, this shot can go either way.

jerslice

2009-08-31, 01:56 AM

Screeners; yes or no?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3871459456_f39b98b29a_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2433/3870676227_87c70ff84a_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3872444198_73c1b73bfb_o.jpg

MarkLawrence

2009-09-20, 12:54 PM

Are these too dark? I'm still struggling with this monitor set up...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2688870

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2688871

threeholerglory

2009-09-23, 12:29 PM

i shot these a while back but i was considering uploading....thoughts/opinions on either?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2484/3547156783_59a45b81a1_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/3547219745_70b992a63a_b.jpg

Delta777LR

2009-09-30, 04:22 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2703120

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2703112

Any opinions?

T-Bird76

2009-09-30, 10:43 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2703120

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2703112

Any opinions?

50/50..the first one has some noise, the second on is slightly over sharpened but might make it through. Serigo also set the date on your camera, it shows 2004:10:18 16:22:53.

Delta777LR

2009-09-30, 11:34 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2703120

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2703112

Any opinions?

Serigo also set the date on your camera, it shows 2004:10:18 16:22:53.

Ouch! thanks for the heads up Tom

heeshung

2009-10-07, 04:08 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2714252

Any problems with composition?

chrisparypa

2009-10-07, 08:36 PM

I think that Geico Skytyper #3 is breaking a composition.... I like it anyway :) pretty cool picture - rare... but they probably need clear view on the plane... btw Skytypers - one of my favorite groups :))

flyboy 28

2009-10-07, 09:32 PM

Tossing this one out there...

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/rimshot74/c185jt.jpg

threeholerglory

2009-10-10, 08:13 PM

what do y'all think?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 100909.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/s1255219780.9857cessna-441rj-enroute-100909.jpg)

T-Bird76

2009-10-15, 04:10 PM

Tossing this one out there...

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/rimshot74/c185jt.jpg

Blurry and soft.

threeholerglory

2009-11-20, 01:22 AM

my first hugeness cockpit edit....

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/f1258694455.5091comanche-7581y.jpg

SmAlbany

2009-11-20, 10:00 AM

my first hugeness cockpit edit....

Looks pretty darn good to my non-screener eyes. If I could only read what the belly strobe interferes with ...

Delta777LR

2010-01-01, 11:35 AM

What these

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2822522

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2822530

sirloin

2010-02-25, 08:40 PM

Keep in mind, these photos have not been touched with an editor. Also, for some reason, they appear clearer in the original file. I'm sure some (if not all) need editing, but I need recommendations on how to go about that.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2627/4388750528_a15f7b097e_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4388754192_d972ab8e6d_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4388178969_04c115c6d0_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47849042@N05/

SmAlbany

2010-02-26, 04:36 PM

Keep in mind, these photos have not been touched with an editor. Also, for some reason, they appear clearer in the original file. I'm sure some (if not all) need editing, but I need recommendations on how to go about that.

I like all 3 of those shots and I would say that they have good potential.

My main comment: If you want to successfully load to a.net or jetphotos, watch your aspect ratio. Both of those sites will want pictures in the range of 3:2 to 4:3. The KLM shot looks too square. Lufthansa looks like it might be close to 4:3, but you'll want to check it. Lingus has lot of dead space - crop to 3:2 and lose as much dead space as you can.

On my current monitor, your exposures look decent - KLM is back lit but I like it anyway. KLM also looks like it is in need of some sharpening.

Lufthansa doesn't need much sharpening in my opinion, but a.net might give you a hard time becuase of the person in the pic.

Best of luck,
Dan

seahawks7757

2010-04-10, 08:06 AM

lijk604

2010-04-10, 12:01 PM

Thinking about trying this one. Not sure what happened to the RR logo on the enging though. I resized this one after I cropped it before I started editing it. Anyone have any solutions and feed back on this edit?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/4507767120_bca4302467_o.jpg

I'm thinking way too oversharpened, and too much contrast. Knowing the sites guidelines, it's probably too low in the frame as well.

wunaladreamin

2010-04-10, 02:58 PM

It's also very noisy and could use some cw rotation. As far as the contrast goes, start back with your original shot and pay close attention to your histogram.

seahawks7757

2010-04-11, 04:16 AM

ok, might scrub this one beacuse I shot it low and that is as centered as she is going to get and JP I know hates that, so I'll see what I do tonight.

Greg_NY

2010-04-11, 06:24 PM

Any advice with this one. It has been rejected twice due to horizon unlevel. I have now rotated it so that the light posts are vertical.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=2959351

Thanks

seahawks7757

2010-04-11, 06:54 PM

I am working on a few 787 shots again. Some of these are first releases-

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/4512233668_c6f0e38320_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/4511878367_41d5494c46_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4512054695_af49476af2_o.jpg

seahawks7757

2010-04-12, 12:00 AM

I submitted the first and third

Delta777LR

2010-05-11, 08:06 PM

Any chance for this?

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/IMG_2713.jpg

lijk604

2010-05-11, 10:43 PM

Looks a bit soft all around Sergio, and due to the clouds there is very little contrast on the forward fuselage. Too bad, it's a great catch.

Vivek777Kaul

2010-05-13, 11:54 PM

Could i please get a critique for these pics..

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/460 ... 9c2c_o.jpg (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4605169585_7aa5189c2c_o.jpg)

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 8737-1.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/r1273808131.2235dsc_8737-1.jpg)

Much appreciated... :D

nssd70

2010-05-26, 10:31 PM

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4643809184_4a63c60116_b.jpg What do you think?

Doug

NIKV69

2010-05-27, 01:42 AM

Well you seem like you can hold that camera steady Doug but we got to work on getting good light on your subject. Your shot is too dark and try to zoom in a tad more.

Could i please get a critique for these pics..

anet link is not working and the BA777s looks pretty good, front titles seem a little off but probably because the fuselage is not lit evenly. Seems level.

aStRojet

2010-07-03, 09:18 PM

This was a week before
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3057206
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3057187
I was at Lauderdale today and the weather was terrible!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3064924
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3064918
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3064928
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3064921
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3064933
any sort of tips would be much appreciated
Thanks

josciak

2010-07-03, 11:13 PM

I like the two Spirit planes shot. Joe O

aStRojet

2010-07-04, 10:50 AM

Thanks joe :D

ANITIX87

2010-07-06, 01:50 PM

Hi, guys! Here are a few from my JFK outing on Saturday. They're in the queue, but there are a couple I'm not convinced will make it:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/c1278357636.6601n502ua_final.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/l1278357573.0817n492ta_final.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/c1278357521.4269n382an_final.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/h1278357128.9745g-vbug_final.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/u1278356968.0623cc-cxk_final.jpg

Thanks, all! I'll have more images after my first round of screening, and once I'm ready to upload more images!

TIS

seahawks7757

2010-07-07, 05:08 AM

First one looks a little over sharpened or just a bad lock on the tail. The rest though should make it but will probably get the normal BS rejection. Also American is a little dark.

ANITIX87

2010-07-07, 09:53 AM

First one looks a little over sharpened or just a bad lock on the tail. The rest though should make it but will probably get the normal BS rejection. Also American is a little dark.
Thanks!! I'll leave them in the queue, and ask some more questions about my next batch when that goes in!

TIS

NIKV69

2010-07-07, 02:04 PM

The AA 767 color or WB is way off too.

ANITIX87

2010-07-07, 02:28 PM

The AA 767 color or WB is way off too.
According to Photoshop, in that image, white is white, and gray is gray. It's just backlit (last shot of the day at Woodmere) so it looks goofy. Haha. But it's my only shot of an AA 767 with winglets from that day, so that's the best I'm gonna get. I'm leaving it in on the off-chance a screener hits "Accept" by mistake.

TIS

seahawks7757

2010-07-08, 04:45 AM

Chris102

2010-07-08, 10:29 PM

Just submitted these two. Any thoughts?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... esized.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/t1278642412.3747159359_5_resized.jpg)

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... esized.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/b1278642211.7851159359_1_resized.jpg)

Chris102

2010-07-09, 02:40 PM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... esized.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/q1278700620.861590404v5_resized.jpg)

any thoughts on this one? I can't seem to get the horizon level...

seahawks7757

2010-07-09, 04:33 PM

The ground on that third shot is going to be rough as it looks like it is unlevel everywhere period.

seahawks7757

2010-07-11, 02:43 AM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3073220

sporky

2010-07-21, 06:14 PM

Thinking about trying my first attempt to JetPhotos and/or Airliners, but wanted to get a feel for whether these shots stand a chance.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4815092870_19a5fc7599_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4814469645_8d39c1622e_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4139/4815092804_e750277388_b.jpg

Any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.

-Tad

seahawks7757

2010-07-22, 03:55 AM

#1 Looks good, don't see anything wrong with it. Just an old awesome classic bird!
#2 cut the tail off by a hair so that might lead them to being as ass.
#3 Looks good but again that hair of the tail.
And #4 I am just impressed to see you actually edit a few shots. Lookin good buddy. :wink:

lijk604

2010-07-22, 08:34 AM

#1 & #2 are really nice shots, but they may be a bit dark...basing this on my last rejection from JP. #3 looks good but as has been noted, that little bit of stabilizer you cut off may earn you a rejection.

I personally love the two Everts birds, someday I'll make the pilgrimage.

nssd70

2010-07-27, 01:30 PM

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/4834487145_3b0fdb4efd_b.jpg

What do you think?

Doug

adscram14

2010-07-27, 10:14 PM

Looks good, Doug. It might need just a tad more sharpening, and maybe a little less brightness.

Chris102

2010-08-02, 02:17 PM

I was going through some old photos and Photoshopped some of them, potentially to upload. Any thoughts on these?

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/6jr.jpg
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/ ... 2/44mq.jpg (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/44mq.jpg)
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/ ... airbus.jpg (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/airbus.jpg)
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/bhc.jpg
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/fgs.jpg
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/ ... etstar.jpg (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/jetstar.jpg)
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/ ... mccain.jpg (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/mccain.jpg)
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/ ... yanair.jpg (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/ryanair.jpg)

Bellucciman

2010-09-25, 10:29 AM

First attempts at JPnet in quite some time. I'd love some advice!
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u127/Jetblue22L/JFK%2001-23-10/CCofJFK_A320_JBU_N563JB_01_23_10_5909-1.jpg
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u127/Jetblue22L/JFK%2001-23-10/JFK_A380_AF_F-HPJA_01_23_10_5921.jpg
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u127/Jetblue22L/JFK%2001-23-10/JFL_EAL_777_A6-ECG_01_23_10_5895.jpg

heeshung

2010-09-25, 10:41 AM

The Emirates is oversharpened.

Jbong

2010-11-06, 09:57 PM

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5151871846_e280bd4164.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5151871846/)
ElCentro4_Jbong (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5151871846/) by JasonKPHX (http://www.flickr.com/people/azspotters/), on Flickr

Your thoughts would be great. Thought it might be to high in the frame. Oh and the good pic will not have the watermark.

SDRivers

2010-11-07, 01:39 AM

Just Curious if any of these would "Fly"

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/AirChinaCargo747.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/CathayJFK.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/Emerites2.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/SouthAfricaJFK.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/Evergreen.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/JAL.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/KoreanAir.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/DL747JFK.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/AALGA.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/AALGA2.jpg

http://www.samdrivers.com/images/DLLGA.jpg

best.
Sam

seahawks7757

2010-11-07, 05:34 AM

Matt I think yours would stand a good chance of making it.

Sam, looking ok but needing a little work. Anything that has the tail cut off and what not will most definetly get rejected. Mind sharing what you shoot with and what editing you fo to your shots?

SDRivers

2010-11-07, 08:25 AM

Using a D700 with a Nikon 70-200mm VR lens, shooting RAW, import using bridge (to replace metadata) then edit in photoshop, usually take the exposure up just a touch, lower the black up the clarity by two or three digits and then sharpen the edges and save. to upload them to here i downsized them to 100dpi and lowered there size..

gonzalu

2010-11-07, 08:44 AM

@SDRivers very nice images, some will likely get accepted ... I say CROPPING is a HUGE important point. They love tight crops and neat crops and centering is very important to the screeners. Color Balance is also important as is contrast. They don;t mind the belly/landing gear being totally black.

It took me 5 tries but I finally made it in :-)

1809251

gonzalu

2010-11-07, 08:46 AM

@JBong That image is sweet. I'd say to make a stronger case, make sre it is CENTERED top to bottom. If you "can't" because there is no room in the image, get as close as you can. They are really strict about centering... well at least from recent experience. :-)

adscram14

2010-11-07, 08:58 AM

@SDRivers- I highly doubt any of them will make it. Your images are very soft, uncentered, and could use a touch more contrast. Take a glace at this:
http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php
Good luck!
@JBong- Looks great from my eye.

seahawks7757

2010-11-07, 09:07 AM

I think that the Cathay and JAL ones would stand achance with a little more sharpening. The big thing though is just clarity, alot of the shots have a little blur/not locked on great. Do you use auto metering/focus or do you have it manually set in your camera?

SDRivers

2010-11-07, 11:29 AM

Yeah its all set to auto when I shoot, I have stigmatism so I rely on the auto-focus to pull focus.. funny thing, when I print these (using a durst theta 76) they print clear and crisp.

SDRivers

2010-11-07, 11:31 AM

@gonzalu I have a hard time with blacks being totally black, as I like having the detail in the shadows...

gonzalu

2010-11-18, 10:13 AM

That's to be expected during Full Sunlight and harsh top/down light. There can be lots of exposure variation from the top of the airframe to the bottom of the wheels in shadow. I tested this on a Swiss Air A340 the other day at Panera and the very top edge was 5 stops over the bottom of the wheel undercarriage... 15 stops!! The top of the white plane was I believe EV +15 and the wheels at EV -2 or -6 I can;t remember now... but that is about 15 stops of range. Well, our digital cameras don't handle that as well as film. My D3 has the best dynamic range of any of my digital cameras with about 8-10 maybe 11 from a 14bit RAW file. If I expose for the top of the white frame to not blow it, parts of the wheels will NOT GET any data recorded. Meanijng BLACK PIXELS. NO WAY to recover them. Our hobby is that tough. All we can hope for is to get a nice low flying shot over a CONCRETE runway to get natural reflection on the belly (or similar condittions) Over water = black. Over grass = black etc. etc. Now lots of more variables can help this or not.

Always remember the formula that on a digital file, data is split in chunks given to the various components and shadow data gets the LEAST on the left while each successive shade of gray gets double the previous one. You've heard of exposing to the right?

http://apture.s3.amazonaws.com/0000012ac4fe27cac63c75ee007f000000000001.B%20PHOTO %282%29.JPG

Well, if you see the above, the camera will actually store close to nothing for the shadows and you can't get a lot of data there to BEGIN with cause your sensor's latitude may be only a few stops.

I usually like to BLOW the very top edge of the plane if it is while and I am shooting from a low angle. This top edge can easily be pure white and the picture will still work. This gives me a bit more data in the shadows to INCREASE the exposure there in POST a little bit without too much noise/overdoign it for at least some detail... just some is needed.

Also keep in mind your camera may use the JPG in camera to show you the HIGHLIGHT BLINKIES or whatever you call them on your camera. This is typically worng because the JPG does not have as much latitude as the 14 bit raw file. I usually go .3 to 1 stop over this first blinkie as I know my file still has data in that highlight. For backlit shots I heavily overdo the blown skies...

OK now to your dark bellies. It is up to you to add some FILL LIGHT (LIGHTROOM) or HIGHLIGHT CONTRAST (PHOTOSHOP) but I would NOT overdo it. This has a negative effect. The human brain sees hard sunlight and shadows and EXPECTS dark darks and light lights! :cool:

If ytou like this discussion to go further we can enhance it with examples. But then we should move it to the Photography forum!

Jbong

2010-11-29, 03:02 AM

Your thought would be AWESOME.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/5217256294_02a713b9d7_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5217256294/)
140 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5217256294/) by
JasonKPHX (http://www.flickr.com/people/azspotters/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5216643439_905591ef8f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5216643439/)
445 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5216643439/) by JasonKPHX (http://www.flickr.com/people/azspotters/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/5216642195_0e778894e2_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5216642195/)
N1115_JBong (http://www.flickr.com/photos/azspotters/5216642195/) by JasonKPHX (http://www.flickr.com/people/azspotters/), on Flickr

gonzalu

2010-12-27, 12:13 PM

Jason,

All three have a great chance I think... however the USAir, I would put the nose right up against the right hand frame. Also should make sure the wheel is either fully shown or only the nose shows :-)

JDANDO

2011-01-04, 10:53 PM

Hey guys;

Any chance for this one? Abysmal conditions, but it was nice to get the double Sun Country.

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/1S7T1309n710sy/1147217345_FgEQk-X2.jpg

gonzalu

2011-01-04, 11:09 PM

Really great chance... I would give it a bit more contrast perhaps.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1147234678_ScxFG-O.jpg

JDANDO

2011-02-20, 06:06 PM

Hey guys, sitting at home watching the snow fall and was wondering about this one.

Any chance for a "ramp" shot? I have of image to play with in terms of cropping, etc.

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Airplanes/an124/1S7T4803a/1163830253_xpSDt-XL.jpg

Zee71

2011-02-20, 07:26 PM

JDANDO

2011-02-20, 07:53 PM

Jermey in my opinion a tighter crop of the two aircraft and having them in the center of the frame might help as well as other adjustments are needed. My concern about the image is that both planes are placed in the lower 3rd of the frame, so therefore, I think you'll have a rough time centering the planes in the frame.

Hi Mark;
I agree with your comment. I thought I had more image to play with. After a bit of playing with it and a PhotoShop crash (lost all my actions :mad: ) here it what I have. I guess it is another one for the personal collection.

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Airplanes/editting-help/1S7T4803b/1193407353_VcFxv-X2.jpg

heeshung

2011-02-20, 08:57 PM

Here are my takes:

http://horriblephotography.com/albums/Misc/jd1.jpg

http://horriblephotography.com/albums/Misc/jd2.jpg

Any chance we could get the originals in full res? Or you could PM me them; I think both have potential. I especially like the skyline as the ramp backdrop.

RomNYC

2011-02-25, 03:36 PM

I'm about to upload this one... Any comments and suggestions? Or is it destined to be a fail?

http://piczasso.com/i/tsgzk.jpg

NIKV69

2011-02-25, 03:50 PM

Never thought SCX would touch the 700s but great shot getting both 700 and 800 in same frame!

gonzalu

2011-02-25, 04:43 PM

I'm about to upload this one... Any comments and suggestions? Or is it destined to be a fail?

http://piczasso.com/i/tsgzk.jpg

Rom,

Looks great to me... maybe a tad contrasty for my taste, but that is only an opinion, not a fault. It would likely make it as is ;-)

The sky has a bit of pronounced grain ... maybe due to sharpening? Do you mask your sharpening at all?

RomNYC

2011-02-25, 04:50 PM

Thanks Manny. Yes it does have some grain... if only I knew what "masking my sharpening" meant! I know I only sharpened the aircraft, not the sky. Any way I can get rid of it?

Here's a new attempt.

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1425/dsc01372r.jpg

gonzalu

2011-02-25, 07:08 PM

I think it looks much better in this version... again, it is just [my] preference, so you really should select [your] favorite :cool:

By masking I mean do you isolate the areas to sharpen with a LAYER MASK in Photoshop... let me know if you know about layer masks or not and we'll take it from there. If you;re processing from RAW, the RAW developers in Photoshop and Lightroom have built in masking controls with visual feedback which are far easier than doing layer masks in the main interface. For final sharpening I use USM and [it] has a built in masking mechanism to isolate large swaths and concentrate the effect on just the contrast edge boundaries. I've been working on a video to show some of the few tricks and tips I use to post process my aviation images.

JDANDO

2011-02-26, 02:51 PM

Here are my takes:....Any chance we could get the originals in full res? Or you could PM me them; I think both have potential. I especially like the skyline as the ramp backdrop.

Thanks for the edits Mark. PM sent on the fullsize images.

Never thought SCX would touch the 700s but great shot getting both 700 and 800 in same frame!

Nik, thanks for the props, I guess that is about the only advantage to being at MSP, besides 93.7% Delta. Can you explain why SCX would not be interested in the 700?

Nathan McGrew

2011-02-28, 10:59 PM

What do you guys think about these?

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/IMG_8461d.jpg

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/IMG_8460.jpg

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/IMG_8462.jpg

RomNYC

2011-02-28, 11:03 PM

I think it's a fantastic shot no matter what!

I would go for the first one, but others prefer less contrast! I don't see why any of those two wouldn't make it, but I am no expert :)

Nathan McGrew

2011-02-28, 11:23 PM

What about this? The 747-8 shots and this Wedgetail are re-edits from shots I just had rejected.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/wedgetail-1.jpg

*edit*
Don't know why it looks terrible on here. Here's a direct link to it on my photobucket.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/wedgetailb.jpg

NIKV69

2011-02-28, 11:25 PM

Nathan those are incredible! You may run into trouble with the mains being chopped but the right crop would def get in! The runway light blocking the tires too could be an issue.

Nathan McGrew

2011-02-28, 11:28 PM

Yeah, I played with that series of shots with the crop to try to balance it. Unfortunately, my favorite shot (the 1st one) was a bit crooked and I had to lose almost half of the main gear to keep it somewhat centered after rotating.

NIKV69

2011-02-28, 11:37 PM

Tough one Nathan. Maybe zoom out a little and include the whole gear? Then you would have to clone out the light :D I also see some heat distortion.

Nathan McGrew

2011-02-28, 11:59 PM

You mean the area over the wings that has a bit of heat haze? How about now with a little cloning tool touch up?
Also killed some more noise around the lights and under the nose. Really couln't save the main gear, so I tried to balance it by cutting both gear in half and keeping the lights close to the same distance from the edge of the photo. Makes the nose off center now though.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/IMG_8461e.jpg
http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/IMG_8461e.jpg

NIKV69

2011-03-01, 12:04 AM

Some on the corners and bottom gear maybe. Not on my good monitor but it looks funky. As for cloning remember you can't upload. Only dust spots.

mattdueck

2011-03-01, 12:13 AM

Hey, always looking for new tips for editing, and I would like to take up the offer from Manny about layer masks for sharpening. Thanks

Matt

gonzalu

2011-03-01, 01:05 AM

@Nathan, that image is just rocking!!!! Keep it going. Let me know if you want me to help you with the cloning... I am always looking for practice :-)

@Matt, send me an E-mail and we'll get you going

gonzalu

2011-03-01, 01:09 AM

I had three rejections on this one until I got it just acceptable to the screeners who helped lead me in the right direction

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/6/4/8/93795_1294147846.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7020307&nseq=52)

I think overall balance outweighs centering but it is subjective by the screener you draw too :-/

NIKV69

2011-03-01, 01:13 AM

@Nathan, that image is just rocking!!!! Keep it going. Let me know if you want me to help you with the cloning... I am always looking for practice :-)

Whoever does it do a good job, if your caught cloning anything other than dust spots bad things can happen. :D

gonzalu

2011-03-01, 08:31 AM

Nick, you must be talking about uploading to a database, not? I was simply speaking of helping the photographer get a better picture for himself/herself. I don;t think I ever mentioned it would be for "circumvention" or "deception" of the screeners at any online DB so, not sure why you think anyone is doing that? :cool:

Seriously, I do not condone that either. But I do admit to cloning out a branch or an antenna, or a Burlington Coat Factory sign and so forth... that's for me to know. And as for clonign in a wing or a wheel truck, well, that's just plain unethical :tongue:

NIKV69

2011-03-01, 11:32 AM

Nathan McGrew

2011-03-01, 12:21 PM

I just assumed he is uploading since he posted in JP/Anet prescreen thread. Either way it makes him aware that if he does there is no cloning except for dust.

That just confirms my suspicion that these people don't exactly understand photography too much. Cloning out noise, heat haze, dust, scratches, obtrusive wires and foilage are all things that should be OK in any editing process. You are not fundamentally changing the structure or the photo or the subject, just cleaning it. Guess I will officially just give up.

This photo here was TERRIBLE with wires and poles everywhere. Now it's kind of nice. If the editing I did to it is not acceptable then I guess I won't share it with people that don't actually appreciate the art of it.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Date%20With%20a%20Russian/sunsetmig29.jpg

NIKV69

2011-03-01, 12:45 PM

gonzalu

2011-03-01, 04:03 PM

That just confirms my suspicion that these people don't exactly understand photography too much. Cloning out noise, heat haze, dust, scratches, obtrusive wires and foilage are all things that should be OK in any editing process. You are not fundamentally changing the structure or the photo or the subject, just cleaning it. Guess I will officially just give up.

This photo here was TERRIBLE with wires and poles everywhere. Now it's kind of nice. If the editing I did to it is not acceptable then I guess I won't share it with people that don't actually appreciate the art of it.

Nathan, don;t worry, your image would be immediately rejected for MOTIVE because of the crop on the rear left landing gear and / or for EXPOSURE since it is not properly balanced. The image lacks dynamic range and therefore POP.

Look, Airliners.net and JetPhotos.net are NOT the end all, do or die sites... come on, for each taste there is a satisfactory Online Community where you can enjoy your style of photography.

A.net and JP.net have their style and you are their guest. It has nothing to do with personal hatred. It has to do with what THEY prefer. You are either challenged by that and try to contribute to the database or you can go to another community and share your style there. Trust me, you WILL be welcome somewhere.. .there is ALWAYS a community willing to accept you no matter what your style :-)

However if you feel like you want to be a part of their community, you must contribute based on their rules.

Now before we go into a long argument on why some images make it and some don;t while similarly capable to start with, I am a regular victim of such and I just learned to deal with it... it is actually NO BIG DEAL! :cool: Move on... there are MILLIONS of photographs to be taken and submitted... heck I still have like 10,000 to submit from the existing queue :tongue:

Nathan, for creative shots like that above, you may enjoy this website

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/

NIKV69

2011-03-01, 04:21 PM

Manny what did the 135 get rejected for?

Nathan McGrew

2011-03-01, 05:34 PM

seahawks7757

2011-03-01, 05:55 PM

I had this MiG shot rejected for level which is bull because it is a tree in the backdrop that is leaning-
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/5433898211_3f6d4eecfb_o.jpg
Full Size-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/5433898211/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Look at the cone that is closer. It is level.

RomNYC

2011-03-01, 06:06 PM

It's probably in reference to the ground... check the road/tarmac underneath the plane.

Nathan McGrew

2011-03-01, 06:08 PM

I noticed that the ramp at Kilo 7 (formerly Kilo 6) is really really really slanted. As can be seen by this other shot I got on the previous day. Also, for anyone else that's ever been to this location, you'll know what's missing from the background of this west facing shot.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Date%20With%20a%20Russian/IMG_8816.jpg

I know this one would get rejected for lots of reasons...Motive for the chopped off nose wheel, plus the picnic table growing out of the wingtip. Probably for level too, even though the subject is level, although the ramp is far from it. Not correctly white balanced, etc...etc...

Plus I erased a lot of power-lines in the sky. Two of them poorly.

gonzalu

2011-03-01, 06:38 PM

Manny what did the 135 get rejected for?

Nick, at first I centered the rear horizontal stabilizers and that got me an off-centered rejection. Next time, I submitted it the way you see it cropped and got rejected for noise, third time I believe it was because of compression artifacts (stupidity on editing on my part LOL, I killed the sky in one session) 4th time I got the elements sorted out and after speaking with the screeners in the forums, I stood a better chance and it made it.

I had this MiG shot rejected for level which is bull because it is a tree in the backdrop that is leaning-
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/5433898211_3f6d4eecfb_o.jpg
Full Size-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/5433898211/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Look at the cone that is closer. It is level.

Brandon, sorry man, it is not level becuase of the background elements and the cone itself does not help your argument :cool: I think maybe a comment to the screeners that the plane is level and explaining why the fence is REALLY slanted and not the plane would help. But unfortunately, it would get an exposure/color rejection I am pretty sure, and maybe even motive

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1202934124_DAM5n-L.jpg

I noticed that the ramp at Kilo 7 (formerly Kilo 6) is really really really slanted. As can be seen by this other shot I got on the previous day. Also, for anyone else that's ever been to this location, you'll know what's missing from the background of this west facing shot.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Date%20With%20a%20Russian/IMG_8816.jpg

I know this one would get rejected for lots of reasons...Motive for the chopped off nose wheel, plus the picnic table growing out of the wingtip. Probably for level too, even though the subject is level, although the ramp is far from it. Not correctly white balanced, etc...etc...

Plus I erased a lot of power-lines in the sky. Two of them poorly.

I really think NOT for level... it may get the other rejection reasons, but not level as the wings are level to my eyes. and that is far more important to the screeners in this case I think. If indeed the plane SHOULD BE slanted because the tarmac [is] slanted in real life, you can and should argue the reality of the shot is that it is slanted in reality. You can then provide proof with wide angle shots etc... that is if you truly care about the photo and about the right thing to do etc. Otherwise you should not bother at all and move on... I heal my wounds now by submitting COOKIE CUTTER shots after rejections LOL. After a few accepted photos, I push the envelope again!

NIKV69

2011-03-01, 06:41 PM

It's probably in reference to the ground... check the road/tarmac underneath the plane.

I never use poles or trees to level, use the horizon. That shot may get in with a little CCW. It's a pretty smashing shot.

gonzalu

2011-03-01, 06:42 PM

Thanks for helping me decide to move on from airliners.net. Guess my style just won't mesh with them.

On another note, the MiG is a picture at sunset. It looked like that when I took it, and if people get crabby about cloning, I get crabby about messing with natural light. I like the mood. I don't like the few slightly blown out areas though.

Nathan, on the contrary... I would never help anyone move away from anything :cool: On the contrary, my style would be to motivate you to the challenge and to meet the bar they lay in front of you and by meeting and beating the bar you will be far more rewarded. To give up and never try, no matter what the excuse is is failure in my book. I am not saying you're quiting, but then that is something only you and your mirror can argue :tongue: In the end, it is your own self that can point fingers at you... no one else can!

gonzalu

2011-03-01, 06:44 PM

I never use poles or trees to level use the horizon. That show may get in with a little CCW. It's a pretty smashing shot.

And maybe a tighter crop on the nose. I have gotten rejected on motive for including tiny bits of a wheel strut and the screeners have confirmed they rather see all the wheel or none of it but not in between. Just a thought...

seahawks7757

2011-03-01, 07:07 PM

I never use poles or trees to level, use the horizon. That shot may get in with a little CCW. It's a pretty smashing shot.

Thanks Nick! The light on it was pretty sweet at the time she returned!

v1rotate

2011-03-03, 09:52 PM

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/5495375181_627ccf00bd_b.jpg

Any tips on what can be improved? I'm going to be submitting this pretty soon. The livery is not in the database yet so I'm hoping the screeners will go easy on me. :tongue:

Zee71

2011-03-04, 08:53 AM

Matt..........to me the image looks soft, and maybe a tad more contrast, otherwise the overall composition looks good to me

v1rotate

2011-03-04, 01:45 PM

Yeah, I noticed that is the downside of the EF-S 55-250mm at certain zoom ranges. It might have been my panning technique as well, because some of the images I have captured within that zoom range are pretty sharp.

RomNYC

2011-03-04, 09:40 PM

Have a little doubt about this one and how centered it is. Unfortunately I can't do much in regards to raising the plane up a bit... What d'ya think?

http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/697/dsc0492.jpg

gonzalu

2011-03-05, 01:17 AM

adscram14

2011-03-05, 09:30 AM

My dad took the camera out to DEN and got a bunch with this angle... thoughts?
http://adamsheinhaus.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Planespotting-DEN/IMG0694/1206292977_toDfu-L.jpg (http://adamsheinhaus.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Planespotting-DEN/16072735_yApLT#1206292977_toDfu-A-LB)

RomNYC

2011-03-05, 02:12 PM

Rom, it would get a rejection on center I am afraid... I wouldn't bother uploading to either db. Nice angle though... only time I have seen off centered accepted is if there are other elements worth showing in the frame.

Thanks Manny, I kinda figured. Oh well!

This photo was easy to center, unfortunately I don't have enough room to move anything... For other photos, though, I'm having a hard time centering, depending on the AC's angle. Any tips you can give for perfect center? :redface:

wunaladreamin

2011-03-05, 02:57 PM

Adam, I'm afraid it would get rejected. If you upload as a tail shot using the B6 registration, it will get shot down for not being centered. An upload as terminal will get booted for the B6 taking up much of the foreground. Not to mention it is a little underexposed.

steve1840

2011-03-08, 10:39 PM

Im thinking of uploading this to JP.net What do you guys think?

http://i53.tinypic.com/acbnvd.jpg

NIKV69

2011-03-08, 11:33 PM

Steve looks ever so slightly low in the frame and is quite soft.

steve1840

2011-03-09, 12:14 AM

Steve looks ever so slightly low in the frame and is quite soft.

Thats weird Nik, I hadn't noticed that when I posted it. When I look at it outside of the browser and forum post, it looks sharp. But I see what you're saying, on here it is looking a little soft. Is it possible that something is happening to it going through tinypic.com to post it on here?

NIKV69

2011-03-09, 12:42 AM

Thats weird Nik, I hadn't noticed that when I posted it. When I look at it outside of the browser and forum post, it looks sharp. But I see what you're saying, on here it is looking a little soft. Is it possible that something is happening to it going through tinypic.com to post it on here?

You will have to check the host sometimes they do things to the pic when you upload but the pic I am seeing looks soft to me. Also parts of the wing look off to me. Almost like the winglet is out of focus.

gonzalu

2011-03-09, 01:09 AM

I tried to resolve your issue with the centering from your provided image and also the sharpening (there are over sharpened areas because you should not be sharpening a low res sharpened image in the first plane, let alone a small JPG LOL.)

I had to crop a bit of the real horizontal stabilizer to get it centered.

Also, keep in mind this forum will reduce your image to fit with an 800px wide frame regardless of original size. You must RIGHT-CLICK | VIEW IMAGE to see it in full size.

Either way, Nick is right, double check the site you;re uploading to and make sure they DO NOT mess wit hthe original Image.

Pbase, Smugmug, Flickr, as examples that do not mess up the original unless you tell them to.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1210629937_Hzoey-O.jpg

steve1840

2011-03-09, 07:11 AM

Thanks guys. BTW Manny, what amounts of USM did you use? I am still learning to use the USM tool, how do you know what amount to start with?

gonzalu

2011-03-09, 11:14 AM

Steve. you know what I am about to say is typical for me to say :cool:

It Depends

I never use the same settings or amounts of anything all the time for final output to A.net or JP.net. I will use layer masks for everything and mask whatever I feel should get more or less of something.

If your image is excellent to start with, you should not have to use much if any sharpening.

For your image I used four separate layers. One for the windows, one for the nose, one for the wingtips and belly and one for the logo. I used a total of four additive USM layers (that is I used the filter four times adding to the last one) and masked the areas I needed more or less sharpening on.

My settings for your image were USM 100,0.1,0 because of the layering and because of the size of the image and the details. For larger details, say if it is a not so sharp image, I will use 250, 0.3,1 and so on... I will judge the settings based on the contents of the image.

I say I get it right 90% of the time now. I was batting .200 when I first started uploading to the db's :wink:

Your goal should be to visually get to a point where things look oversharpened (strong LARGE jaggies all over) and then scale it back until they're almost gone. Small jags are ok in small areas. Look at the extreme corners of the image first. Look away from your screen and then quickly look back at the image. This will allow a quick look from a relaxed view. Remember, the screeners will look at your image very quickly for the first time. You have been looking at yours probably for 15 minutes and some more than days LOL.

Make sure your windows are sharp, logos, nose, tail, all the extreme tips should be sharp. Then the body, the wheels.

if anythig does not jive, DO NOT SAVE IT... move on...

The best thign you can learn in post processing is to be the best editor you can be.. .DELETE DELETE DELETE or move on... Your greatest images are waiting for you to finish "playing" with a not so great image!

steve1840

2011-03-09, 11:23 AM

Thanks for the insight Manny. I will play around with this later. I really wish I was able to sit down with you and have you show me this stuff in person, since I am a lot better visual and hands on learner than I am reading the thread and thengoing home and trying it.

NIKV69

2011-03-09, 12:36 PM

Some hosts will default to optimizing the image some won't again like Manny said when uploading check to see. Manny has it centered nicely now. I would throw a little selective sharpening on the titles and tail but I don't upload to JP so I don't know how they like their sharpness. Manny also chopped the stabilizer. Some screeners won't mind it, some will so give it a go!

steve1840

2011-03-09, 12:44 PM

I never get rid of the original. So now I can go back to that and start over with re-cropping and throw some selective sharpening at it.

gonzalu

2011-03-09, 01:13 PM

Manny also chopped the stabilizer. Some screeners won't mind it, some will so give it a go!

Nick, this is so true, but I think I found a happy medium... if the overall motive is good, it is allowed. For example, if you center on the BODY and the wings get clipped, it is OK, but if in the resulting crop the engines are chopped, it will get rejected. In the end it is about balance. I get that now :-) Used to fight it before. So, rules to live by

-Do not chop the engines, include them fully or not. One egine is OK as long as the other does not show partially.
-Do not chop wing tips unless you chop equally on the other side.
-If you have to clip the wings for any reason, have a good motive for it.
-Look for balance in the resulting crop.

In the case of the Finn from Steve, the crop was done so I could center it LOL. Had I had more room on the original I would have kept it but it is my preference. I now regularly chop off stabilizers than I used to but in general I like to see the WHOLE plane

NIKV69

2011-03-09, 01:32 PM

Nick, this is so true, but I think I found a happy medium... if the overall motive is good, it is allowed. For example, if you center on the BODY and the wings get clipped, it is OK, but if in the resulting crop the engines are chopped, it will get rejected. In the end it is about balance. I get that now :-) Used to fight it before. So, rules to live by

-Do not chop the engines, include them fully or not. One egine is OK as long as the other does not show partially.
-Do not chop wing tips unless you chop equally on the other side.
-If you have to clip the wings for any reason, have a good motive for it.
-Look for balance in the resulting crop.

In the case of the Finn from Steve, the crop was done so I could center it LOL. Had I had more room on the original I would have kept it but it is my preference. I now regularly chop off stabilizers than I used to but in general I like to see the WHOLE plane

On that angle more times than not you will get away with it. It's wierd. I have found the closer the crop the better the chance and the stabalizer on the far side doesn't really matter then again it's all relative.

steve1840

2011-03-09, 01:40 PM

In the case of the Finn from Steve, the crop was done so I could center it LOL. Had I had more room on the original I would have kept it but it is my preference. I now regularly chop off stabilizers than I used to but in general I like to see the WHOLE plane

I'm going to go back to the original tonight and center it a little better as well as try some selective sharpening. I will post the new version later on tonight.

adscram14

2011-03-09, 05:02 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/5/6/7/70371_1299351765.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/6/0/8/86322_1299351806.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/3/2/4/82692_1299362423.jpg
Thoughts?

gonzalu

2011-03-09, 08:09 PM

Adam those are terrific, except for the green cast (through plate glass?)

Here is the first one corrected to taste (eyeballed, not much perfection but it shows the difference)

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1211360996_fCych-O.jpg

and your original for comparison

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/5/6/7/70371_1299351765.jpg

Perriwen

2011-04-13, 03:51 PM

I've got two versions here and not sure which is better to send, or if either will make it...input is appreciated!

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5181/5617318350_bff1731368_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5141/5616732995_f43fa89e5a_b.jpg

gonzalu

2011-04-13, 04:27 PM

Definitely the first one... more balanced and does not chop the parts indiscriminately ... :-)

I would tighten the histogram a bit as it seems a little flat. Here is a quick touch up... curves and color balance to taste.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1251011397_Pb62a-O.jpg

you should also leave a BIT of breathing room around the edges, not cropping TOO tightly... crop tight, but not to touch the edges if you don't need to... For me, if I am showing the whole plane, I leave about 5 to 10 pixels from any edge to the nearest part...

If I am cropping, I may crop super tight on an engine nacelle or a window etc, but it is dynamic.

In REAL photography, breathing room is very important. On Airliners, they prefer a tighter crop than not, but that's not to say you can;t have a pleasing border around the aircraft and the closest part to the edges :-)

Cheers!

seahawks7757

2011-04-16, 03:47 PM

NIKV69

2011-04-16, 04:02 PM

I have a really good feeling I will be seeing a motive rejection on this one because of the beltloader and jetway but figure it was worth the shot anyways-
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/a1302982989.5839americanheadonreflection.jpg

Most certainly. You were damned if you did or you didn't. If you wait for ground equip and jetway to pull back you have the tug there.

gonzalu

2011-04-16, 04:35 PM

That is a sweet shot Bran... but definitely motive rejection because the of the blocked number 1 engine, left wing and bottom of number 2 engine. :-(

seahawks7757

2011-04-17, 10:30 PM

Which honestly is retarded as it is a dam good shot for being through glass and at night.

NIKV69

2011-04-18, 03:27 PM

Which honestly is retarded as it is a dam good shot for being through glass and at night.

Quality wise it sure is but the jetway just kills it unfortunately. Can't fault anet here just about anyone would agree the clutter takes away from a great angle of the aircraft at night. Like I said that shot is very tough to pull off since if he is pushing and the jetway is gone you have the tug in the way. Your best chance is when he is arriving at the gate when only the marshal is in the foreground but it's a very tough motive to nail. Worth chasing though for if you do it will be money.

Roush6NY

2011-06-29, 10:39 AM

A little help on this one from you guys, this is my 1st time submitting a DC3, do I have to check off "Warbird/Vintage" Just don't want to get a rejection for "missing categories "

Thanks :)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3491361

gonzalu

2011-06-29, 12:36 PM

Definitely vintage so check it off... maybe a tiny bit underexposed? I can;t say for sure since I am at work and not calibrated :P

Roush6NY

2011-06-29, 12:39 PM

Definitely vintage so check it off... maybe a tiny bit underexposed? I can;t say for sure since I am at work and not calibrated :P

Thanks for your help as always sir !

JDANDO

2011-07-20, 09:57 PM

Having a go with an evening/night shot. Not sure if it is over-processed? 1000 pxl is the most I think I can get out of this one.

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-P5fSv9P/0/XL/1S7T9928cnight-XL.jpg

gonzalu

2011-07-20, 09:58 PM

Jeremy, nice image... you have the original? I'd love to give it a shot if you like... you know my E-mail :-)

JDANDO

2011-07-20, 10:00 PM

Jeremy, nice image... you have the original? I'd love to give it a shot if you like... you know my E-mail :-)

coming your way! It might not resemble the image post:tongue:

gonzalu

2011-07-20, 11:25 PM

coming your way! It might not resemble the image post:tongue:

no worries.. they never do! :tongue:

JDANDO

2011-08-30, 10:34 PM

One of the first images from my last trip.

C/C please

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-xCJTFHz/0/XL/1S7T4830dppn210fr-XL.jpg

ISO2500, 1/20th, f4.5 Through the glass, handheld

Cary

2011-08-30, 11:34 PM

One of the first images from my last trip.

C/C please

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-xCJTFHz/0/XL/1S7T4830dppn210fr-XL.jpg

ISO2500, 1/20th, f4.5 Through the glass, handheld

Unfortunately, this would get an automatic rejection just for the blocked gear.

adscram14

2011-10-09, 05:24 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/7/1/2/17397_1318168217.jpg

Trying to save that one, do you guys think it has a shot?

gonzalu

2011-10-09, 06:05 PM

Adam, a bit contrasty and underexposed on my screen here... Could the original stand a +1/3 to 2/3 stops of exposure compensation? IF JPG, it may be tougher to get away with it.

threeholerglory

2011-10-16, 05:21 PM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/b1318372924.8632cielosdc10headon.jpg

JDANDO

2011-10-16, 05:30 PM

dc10headon.jpg

Very nice Mike!

Can someone give me a hand on finding the cn and block number for this bad boy?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/6/4/88572_1318076461.jpg

Greg_NY

2011-10-16, 05:52 PM

Very nice Mike!

Can someone give me a hand on finding the cn and block number for this bad boy?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/6/4/88572_1318076461.jpg

Try this website - you will find it here:
http://f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/

JDANDO

2011-10-16, 06:35 PM

Try this website - you will find it here:
http://f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/

I looked there for 84-0382 when I should have been using 84-1382. Got it now!

threeholerglory

2011-11-06, 08:18 PM

just got this into the queue...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/p1320601326.8831aerolam.jpg

gonzalu

2011-11-07, 12:48 AM

I would accept solely on star value :-) That being said, Maybe a bit underexposed? Here is a quick boost in contrast, exposure and saturation. Light bands are my edit...

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-JZj9dzH/0/O/i-JZj9dzH.jpg

Good luck sir, hope it gets accepted. I am still cursing for this picture!

JDANDO

2011-12-11, 09:05 AM

Good Morning NYCA!

Browsing through the HD and found a few shots from the 2010 Great MN Airshow that I might try and get into jp.net. Horrible light most of the time, but I think this one has a chance

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-c5MdQN4/0/L/1S7T7750ba2-L.jpg

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#1626489669_c5MdQN4-O-LB

Any editing suggestions? Also what would I use for the plane upload information? Thanks in advance.

JDANDO

2011-12-30, 01:06 PM

Hey guys, what are the chances of getting this on jp.net? Unfortunately I do not have the N-number.

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-S7p5bK6/0/L/1S7T2393n123swevening-L.jpg

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#1652043050_S7p5bK6-O-LB

This previously got rejected for dark. It was shot at 2300, so it was dark outside. Bounced the flash of the roof of the flight deck which blew out the LCD screens a bit.

Re-editted and played with the shadow/highlight a bit.

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-sNXBHJ4/0/L/1S7T2378n8631e3-L.jpg

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#1652043825_sNXBHJ4-O-LB

Any comments appreciated!

Roush6NY

2011-12-30, 01:56 PM

Jeremy

This is too dark in my opinion

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-S7p5bK6/0/L/1S7T2393n123swevening-L.jpg

I think this should do, make SURE to check off "NIGHT SHOT" as well

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6601487551_b952b87e06_b.jpg

Kris V

2012-01-18, 08:29 PM

I am new to the JP/A-Net, and I would like someone prescreen my pics...i think I bugged enough people to double check me, so I'll give this a shot!
Was rejected because of undersharpening, is this good now?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/4/2/69780_1326580248.jpg
UPS 744 hope I centered it right.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/9/7/64459_1326580793.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/4/3/28008_1326581341.jpg
Is this one blurry?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/6/1/17006_1326583166.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/8/0/82663_1326663082.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/7/7/5/96914_1326865577.jpg

Sorry if I over did this.

heeshung

2012-01-18, 08:33 PM

#1 seems blurry and a bit off-color; I don't think any amount of sharpening could fix that.

#2 looks okay, maybe a TOUCH of USM.

#3 looks far, lacking in contrast and soft, maybe salvageable.

#4 looks pretty well exposed and pretty sharp to me, just a big of color noise, especially noticeable in the red areas, but that's okay.

#5 and #6 look good.

Kris V

2012-01-18, 09:18 PM

Than you very much for the help on that, the FD MD-11 is very faded though, but your prob right.
Fixing the other ones that need fixing. :smile:

JDANDO

2012-01-18, 10:23 PM

Also on #1 parts of the plane are chopped off. Not sure if they would accept that crop. Keep posting up images! I love the cargo planes!

alevik

2012-01-18, 10:39 PM

Kris -

1 Fedex is soft around the nose and a bit dark. The motive/parts cut off is fine as the crop is motivated.

2 UPS 744 looks good, I would instant add (make sure CARGO checked)

3 UPS might be a touch low, but crop is technically ok as you are leaving left wing in

4 NAC I would instant add, again check CARGO

5 Alaska I would instant add

6 UPS touch low in the frame but otherwise would instant add (and again CARGO category)

Kris V

2012-01-18, 11:44 PM

Well I come from the city of the cargo...Well my next photo is a Combi 737.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3729791

JDANDO

2012-01-19, 12:21 AM

Well I come from the city of the cargo...Well my next photo is a Combi 737.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3729791

Sweet! Cargo Love!

Hoping for some cargo love on Friday.

Kris V

2012-01-20, 03:15 PM

Fedex 777 is the cropping good?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/3/0/24482_1326814032.jpg
Alaska Combi sharpened good?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/1/6/53940_1326944610.jpg
Or the same for her?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/5/1/91252_1326813156.jpg

Kris V

2012-01-20, 04:35 PM

A couple more I could use some prescreening.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/8/9/70985_1327089982.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/3/8/37728_1327090831.jpg

Roush6NY

2012-01-20, 05:01 PM

Kris, The Alaska looks fine, The SW looks a little soft, if you like send me the original and I will be more than happy to give you my take on it [email protected]

Zee71

2012-01-20, 05:07 PM

Kris......my two cents........both look soft to me, I would sharpen both. The composition of the Alaska looks sweet, although I might crop the image to the back of the tail. The Southwest composition doesn't agree with me, maybe it's the perspective or something.

gonzalu

2012-01-20, 06:03 PM

I find both to be soft... especially the Alaska (what a gorgeous c/s that is!! missed it at LAX :-( )

Anyhow, the Southwest I felt the shadows could use some curve tweaks so I also did that and some selective sharpening. It will never look great editing an already resized JPG but here they go...

DON'T FORGET that the forum code indiscriminately re-sizes any image above 800 pixels wide so right-click and view image at its original size for the correct view.

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-qr6LmB4/0/O/i-qr6LmB4.jpg

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-8d6qwW3/0/O/i-8d6qwW3.jpg

JDANDO

2012-01-21, 09:47 AM

Thought I would try a night shot from the KMSP observation deck. Luckily I shot RAW and I has been tweaked to get it this far. Comments, suggestions appreciated.

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-gRhjL5N/0/M/1S7T8459aramp-M.jpg

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#!i=1680144774&k=gRhjL5N&lb=1&s=O (http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#%21i=1680144774&k=gRhjL5N&lb=1&s=O)

and the jpeg conversion uneditted

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#!i=1680144882&k=vkztpjc&lb=1&s=O (http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#%21i=1680144882&k=vkztpjc&lb=1&s=O)

Thanks in advance!

alevik

2012-01-21, 08:15 PM

Jeremy - the top half of your night shot seems pretty empty, and the nosewheel on the front aircraft is obstructed. Would probably get a motive rejection on those two counts.

Kris V

2012-01-22, 12:33 AM

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/9/5/0/20873_1327205059.jpg
United 777

heeshung

2012-01-22, 12:39 AM

You can see purple in the reflections, signs of chromatic aberration. It is also dark and backlit. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the overall quality of this shot makes it one for the personal collection.

Kris V

2012-01-22, 02:07 AM

You can see purple in the reflections, signs of chromatic aberration. It is also dark and backlit. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the overall quality of this shot makes it one for the personal collection.
Thanks for the input!:smile:
How is this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/9/1/2/94875_1327207219.jpg

gonzalu

2012-01-22, 03:16 AM

Kris, last one seems a bit soft, oof and maybe too distant? Also grainy and a bit underexposed. Maybe also a bit low in frame but it may be subjective

Kris V

2012-01-22, 08:09 PM

Thanks Manny! :cool:
How are these?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/0/0/47718_1327215005.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/3/4/35937_1327214436.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/8/7/11435_1327216782.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/4/4/79388_1327253441.jpg

gonzalu

2012-01-23, 01:07 PM

Kris, all are a little to very soft. If you like, you can send me an original RAW or JPG and I can let you know if they are good enough and maybe just your edits above. If too much OOF or distant on the originals, it may be no way to salvage. I am at work and my monitor here is pretty poor but the contrast on some seems a bit harsh as well. Mid-Day shooting is difficult to edit :-) Unless it is an absolute must have, I usually go and have lunch from 11:00am to 1:30pm or whenever sun is at highest point. This is of course as far as the A.net and JP.net databases are concerned. For personal collection, anything goes :P

Kris V

2012-01-23, 03:14 PM

Thank you Manny, my Macbook screen makes them look sharp, guess I should double sharpen then.
Will send you the original JPG of the 2 I must have. (The Air Canada and the United)

Kris
Here are they more sharpened.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1047/img0370gt.jpg
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5765/img0659r.jpg

gonzalu

2012-01-23, 03:59 PM

Much better :-) The Air Canada is still a bit soft mainly tail/nose but not by much... use small USM numbers ... the United is still a bit off on the tip of the nose but it may be my poor monitor at work ...

Kris V

2012-01-23, 04:07 PM

Still working on them... :smile:
Here is another this time a US Air, rare for me to see them.
I am unsure if this counts as backlight, hence because the shot was taken at 12:00 Noon where the sun is at its highest point in the sky.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/8/8/36855_1327348882.jpg

gonzalu

2012-01-23, 04:25 PM

It will be challenged I am sure. It is borderline... I wouldn;t bother as it is not a pretty picture light-wise. If I were you, keep it on personal gallery or Flickr :-) Now, if you really want a technical assesment of the lighting, the sun is NOT directly overhead. If you can see the light on the WestJet, it is coming directly from the left of the image. Indeed you see the top of the 757 is lit but the nose is dark. If indeed the sun was directly overhead, the WestJet would look exactly like the 757 which is the top is lit and the fuselage is not. i will draw a quick picture to show you what I mean...

gonzalu

2012-01-23, 05:47 PM

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-vmZCPVR/0/L/i-vmZCPVR-L.jpg

Zee71

2012-01-23, 06:20 PM

As Manny stated.........keep it as a personal favorite. Unfortunately the lighting was not in your favor.

Kris V

2012-01-24, 09:39 PM

Thanks Manny for the diagram, very helpful!
How are these?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/9/0/24560_1327455093.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/9/7/64541_1327453796.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/8/8/3/92409_1327453388.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/0/1/35322_1327453102.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/8/5/2/11253_1327347258.jpg
Hope these are worth it, I got major sun burn! :redface:

heeshung

2012-01-24, 10:07 PM

1 is blurry, probably not salvageable.

2 is very dark.

3, 4 and 5 are acceptable.

Kris V

2012-01-25, 01:17 AM

Couple more added to the Q.

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/4/6/5/96781_1327467564.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/0/3/2/91257_1327468230.jpg

threeholerglory

2012-01-27, 12:36 AM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/u1327624456.2624sharko.jpg

gonzalu

2012-01-27, 06:49 AM

Mike that is irresponsible... REMOVE that photo immediately. First of all, there is a human being just about to get crushed by the beastly monster and second of all, I still don;t have a picture of this plane.

threeholerglory

2012-01-27, 12:22 PM

Funny story...after I shot it that day, I saw it two more times at the gate while I was down in MIA...then again at IAD just a few weeks ago. Sorry Manny, you got the 748, I got Sharko.

Kris V

2012-01-28, 01:37 AM

I like the angle, is this any good?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/6/2/40368_1327726268.jpg
same plane again.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/3/6/91545_1327725638.jpg

Cary

2012-01-28, 02:29 AM

Funny story...after I shot it that day, I saw it two more times at the gate while I was down in MIA...then again at IAD just a few weeks ago. Sorry Manny, you got the 748, I got Sharko.

The one chance I had at Sharko at MIA, she came 3 hours late....2 hours past sunset. Then on my departing flight, we sat for a few minutes, waiting to taxi....with Sharko parked right next to us, looking sweet with the cabin lights on. On my EWR-MIA flight, we stopped right next to the US Airways Nevada plane....another I've been trying to get a good shot of, for the longest time. The spotting gods hate me.

Kris V

2012-01-28, 02:56 AM

Is this worth uploading?
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1008/img4691m.jpg

heeshung

2012-01-28, 03:01 AM

Kris, for the AA's, 1 is a bad crop, plane is cut off, and the horizon is unlevel. For #2, the horizon is also unlevel.

The Continental looks good.

Kris V

2012-01-28, 05:04 AM

So did I fix #1 now?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/0/4/65583_1327741406.jpg

steve1840

2012-01-28, 08:35 AM

I like the angle, is this any good?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/6/2/40368_1327726268.jpg
same plane again.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/3/6/91545_1327725638.jpg

I'm not sure about the first one if they would reject it or not. Part of me thinks it would get in as it is nice and sharp and none of the fuselage is cut off and it is centered in the frame. But part of me thinks that if you get a screener that is having a bad day he will reject it for "part of plane cut off/missing".

The second photo I think will get rejected for being soft. It may just be my crappy monitor here at the office, but to me the second photo looks soft.

heeshung

2012-01-28, 03:07 PM

The first is likely unsalvageable, unless the original includes the nose gear. Both are still unlevel.

Kris V

2012-01-31, 02:34 AM

Here is one that could use presreening.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/3/1/15529_1327988130.jpg
Also check the link to see if sharp, undersharp please.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3744111

heeshung

2012-01-31, 03:18 AM

It's slightly softer towards the front, but I think it's okay.

gonzalu

2012-01-31, 09:54 AM

Kris that last one looks to be soft/oversharpened which is my way of saying it was OOF or too soft to start with and was overcompensated for in post. Look at the size of the aliasing and you see what I mean. The left winglet and nose look soft still.

Kris V

2012-01-31, 08:17 PM

Thanks Manny and "Heeshung"
How are these?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/9/3/8/90583_1327995839.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/3/4/95192_1327996436.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/9/4/3/80855_1328023349.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/7/2/8/32787_1328023827.jpg

gonzalu

2012-02-01, 12:54 PM

Hey Kris, my pleasure... these are not so great in my opinion. Subject matter and composition are fine but, overall, you have a lot of purple fringing, heat haze/distance and other issues. First off I'd like to encourage you to pre-set some settings on your camera. I notice that all the pictures have either Auto Exposure or worse, Auto Program modes used. This can cause you to have inconsistent results. Here is what I suggest you do:

--Set your camera to Aperture Priority Mode. Canon calls it Av I believe.
--Set the ISO to 200 MANUALLY. Turn OFF any Auto ISO functions. Go as low as you can on ISO given your available light.
--Turn off any features which enhance exposure after the picture is taken. Anything like Highlight Protection or Shadow Protection or the like. This can create halos.
--Set your Exposure Meter to Evaluative.
--Set your Aperture to f/8 for sunny days. Dial in - 1/3rd or 1/7th exposure compensation depending on your resulting histogram.
--Cloudy days, I would set it to f/7.1 or f/6.3 and dial in +1/3rd exposure compensation to start and check your histogram.
--Set your White Balance to Daylight or Auto (if shooting RAW) or Cloudy if overcast.

You should get consistently better photos. When shooting, keep your forehead planted hard against your eye-cup on the back of your camera and brace your elbows to your ribcage. This may be old news to you but it is always worth repeating. I also try to speak to the greater audience that reads these forums, not just you.

Now to the above:

1: Soft, Purple Fringing, High in frame, blocked wheels
2: Too contrasty, could be brighter, grainy
3: Looks ok, maybe a bit of compensation on the rear wheels ... they look pure black.
4: Poor quality, purple fringing, oversharpened, overexposed, too contrasty, heat haze.

Please do ask any questions you like about exposure, metering, etc.

threeholerglory

2012-02-01, 01:31 PM

...When shooting, keep your forehead planted hard against your eye-cup on the back of your camera...

Manny I must ask....how do you see through your forehead? I'm damn impressed by your results! :tongue:

steve1840

2012-02-01, 01:34 PM

Manny I must ask....how do you see through your forehead? I'm damn impressed by your results! :tongue:

He is really, really near-sighted and plants his forehead hard against the eyecup to get really close to the LCD to see the live-view function. :tongue:

NickPeterman

2012-02-01, 06:51 PM

Alright, some Airliners.net pre-screening sought here. I am fighting a losing battle against quality in terms of softness with this camera, however I thought I'd keep on fighting to get some JFK stuff accepted (somehow got a Cargolux 744F in today :cool:.

These are the first 3 that I am focusing on, and any input would rock!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/k1327983540.3174img_7306.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/h1328043627.2216img_7446.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/n1327946673.3415img_6758.jpg

Nick

gonzalu

2012-02-01, 10:39 PM

Manny I must ask....how do you see through your forehead? I'm damn impressed by your results! :tongue:

I said Eye[cup] not Eye[piece] :tongue: big difference. But you;re right, my head is pretty thick in that region :cool:

gonzalu

2012-02-01, 10:41 PM

Alright, some Airliners.net pre-screening sought here. I am fighting a losing battle against quality in terms of softness with this camera, however I thought I'd keep on fighting to get some JFK stuff accepted (somehow got a Cargolux 744F in today :cool:.

These are the first 3 that I am focusing on, and any input would rock!

Nick

Nick,

Singapore is a bit soft around the titles
Air India looks ok but may be a little soft around the tail
Asiana looks a little soft. Maybe fixable by stronger sharpening.

Kris V

2012-02-02, 02:40 AM

How are these?
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg194/scaled.php?server=194&filename=img2356e.jpg&res=medium
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg542/scaled.php?server=542&filename=img4474l.jpg&res=medium
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg406/scaled.php?server=406&filename=img2598q.jpg&res=medium
Are they A-net/JP quality? Or just JP, or personnel collection?

JDANDO

2012-02-12, 10:57 PM

Trying something a little more artistic for jp.net

Thoughts, comments? Any change to the crop?

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/i-D5BjrPN/0/L/1S7T8372n387am-L.jpg

NIKV69

2012-02-12, 11:16 PM

I would crop a little tighter so the tails fill more of the frame Jeremy.

DWaviation

2012-02-15, 01:48 PM

What do you think? its already in Queue..

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/p1329270542.7166img_8240_b.jpg

JDANDO

2012-02-15, 09:03 PM

What do you think? its already in Queue..

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/p1329270542.7166img_8240_b.jpg

Looks good on my laptop. What airport was that at?

DWaviation

2012-02-17, 03:37 PM

JFK.. i took it while i was at the sky train ;)

gonzalu

2012-02-17, 03:50 PM

Dennis, nice image... but it looks a bit soft to me and perhaps a bit underexposed/dark. Good luck.

threeholerglory

2012-02-18, 02:34 PM

let's try this one....

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/r1329589187.1678mwcibeachturn.jpg

gonzalu

2012-02-18, 03:47 PM

Looks good to me... Is that an Airbus BizJet? :tongue:

threeholerglory

2012-02-18, 06:49 PM

yeah man, that's the only way i roll =P

DWaviation

2012-02-23, 04:52 PM

They Rejected it!... hmm i try it now with this two..

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/c1330028714.6606img_0287_b-3.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/y1330030159.8058img_9731_b.jpg

Kris V

2012-02-25, 05:04 AM

Dennis was the reason for rejection of the ANA because of cropping, it looks a lil low in the frame so that might be it. :wink:
Here is a few I could use prescreening.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769663
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769657
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769653
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769650
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769636
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769602
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769469
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3769466
I have been a lil busy.