Do these photos look oversharpened? Thanks
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/3/4...1357683432.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/7/9/8...1357683897.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/7/5...1357684574.jpg
Printable View
Do these photos look oversharpened? Thanks
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/3/4...1357683432.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/7/9/8...1357683897.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/7/5...1357684574.jpg
They do look over sharpened, its very obvious on the reg #s and the acft titles ( esp the middle shot )
Ok thanks
What do you guys think of these?
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...72693458_n.jpg
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...08970525_n.jpg
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...17981784_n.jpg
Compared with these...
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...63913791_n.jpg
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...04682791_n.jpg
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto..._1440907_n.jpg
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...51764643_n.jpg
on the embarer take off shot u have a dust spot to the right near the top. Also u gotta watch with the sky it likes when u decrease the noise the sky looks more like minupitle digital. Best thing to do that i mostly do is using the wand inverting it only to the aircraft and and modify it by one the USM and u can decrease the noise/grain only to the aircraft.
NYCAers, your thoughts on this? Thanks in advance :)
http://www.instantscaptured.com/phot...-wM7wdK5-L.jpg
Nice shot Rom... To be really anal, I would move it left in frame a few pixels until it is PERFECTLY centered... also, A.net may consider it a bit overexposed, perhaps JP.net as well... did you get my e-mail about hardware calibration?
Also, at this size, it looks a bit soft. I say you should post an 1000px wide (minimum) or anythign up to 1600px wide (max) and then let us judge... Judging it at this resolution will not be a good final opinion...
Thanks Manny. I do agree on the overexposure, I realized that as soon as I sent my previous message. The actual photo is 1024px wide, but I didn't want to congest the thread with a bigger file. You may view it full size here: http://www.instantscaptured.com/Port...7wdK5&lb=1&s=OQuote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Let me know if the additional edit looks better?
Re: hardware calibration, remember who you're talking to ;) I know what it means, but I have no idea what to do about it. Is it even worth doing on a 6 year-old 13-inch Mac?
Thanks for your input!
Rom,
Is the ORIGINAL out of camera image OOF? or blurred in any way? The 1023px wide image you uploaded looks soft/oversharpened... which means it was soft to start and then oversharpened to compensate. The jaggies look rough and still looks soft... Can you send me the OUT OF CAMERA RAW or the JPG off line? I can give you a better opinion that way. This particular one is not going to have an easy time during screening :)
Hardware calibration works on ANY computer :) I have yet to find one that won't do it.
Thankfully, all Macs have decent panels to begin with so your road will be fairly straight without much traffic. You have to buy a piece of hardware that sits in front of your screen and measures the colors and brightenss of the screen and then createsa CUSTOM color profile you install on your operating system. Sometimes the changes can be DRAMATIC to not that much. But at least you have the same or as close to similar look as that of a screener or Cary, myself and anyone else here who has a hardware calibrated monitor.
My reds should be about 99.99% exactly the same as that shown on Cary's monitor... that I can guarantee... Software calibration will be VERY poor but BETTER than NOTHING! ... the very least you can do is calibrate your Gamma manually...
http://macs.about.com/od/usingyourma...-assistant.htm
Will do.
It does not appear OOF to *me*, but you may have another opinion. Let me know. My originals DO look soft, no question about that. That was shot at either 1/1250 or maybe even 1/1600, why don't I get something sharper? Sometimes I question the way I follow an aircraft with the camera as I am shooting. Might be something to work on over there.
Rom, it is not related to shutter speed or motion blur I am afraid. Looks to me to be lens quality and conditions. So they look ghosted in sharp contrast areas... a few things contribute to this..
With GOOD system components, this is likely caused by Heat Haze or Turbulence as is the case with my images from that day. I TOO have the dreaded ghosted edges on contrast boundaries like where the titles edges meet the white fuselage. Unfortunately, I was en-route to (unnamed location) when this plane came in so I don;t have an exact comparison, but, my Caribbean Air 737s do look slightly mushy as well.
Another thing that causes this is poor lens quality. Lower end lenses have much less corrective optics (less elements) no Aspehrical elements (those elements that are NOT perfectly spherical on purpose to focus different wavelengths properly on the focus plane. Those are HAND POLISHED/CUT and are expensive) or expensive coatings ...
Finally, a filter mounted in front of your lens could also help (by help I mean HELP NEGATIVELY by introducing TWO more air to glass surfaces that can reflect light and reduce contrast) depending on the light angles, shading of the front element, etc.
In the case of your image it is my feeling that the lens construction combined with the absolute horrible conditions on the 26th (Super Cold and Full Bright Sun near Water) contributed to the less than stellar results, myself included.
Tried to do the best I could in post... however, your resulting CROPPED image is less than 2900px wide so reducing that to even 1000px will not help hide the flaws completely ... that said, it can still be passable, you be the judge... (images are 1024px wide but display here compressed by the vBulletin Theme... please right-click view image in Firefox to view original FULL SIZE and full quality... )
ORIGINAL
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...j27vpZs-XL.jpg
EDIT
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...xnTqmPv-XL.jpg
...
Also be careful with those nasty dust spots... they are quite visible...
Not a lot in my favor on this one! Thanks Manny, this failure at least gave me a nice photography lesson from you :tongue: Hopefully I'll find a couple of decent shots from that session, in spite of the conditions.
Rom, I think the shot properly edited (feel free to use my edit) has a good chance with JetPhotos but maybe not so much with A.net... you should try, your mileage may vary. Depends on the screener sometimes if the first screener decides he/she likes it, the rest of the team may not see it and get accepted straight through. If the team gets to vote on it as it is done often lately, your chances of pleasing them all is much tougher :/
How would these fair for Airliners?
(Please be harsh)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8496/8...6960cd96_o.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8213/8...bba76460_o.jpg
Beautiful shots Kris...
The Everts Cargo is a bit low in frame and may get a motive rejection. Not sure but, I see no other DC-6 shots cropped like this in the db. Maybe if you cropped by the wing root? I don;t really know.
The 77F looks a bit dark; could use some more exposure. Not so much to kill the mood, but someone may feel it should be brighter MOTIVE-wise... if the intent is to show the sunset, keep it bright and more yellow. Your call.
I recently got a similar shot as the Everts rejected about three times, three different crops, all motive related due to the crop. That is a tough one and now I just stay away from that sort of crop... YMMV
Thanks Manny, I'll see what I can do about the Everts...Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Kris, in my opinion, the Everts may look better in 3x2 instead of 4x3 ratio... to my eyes a long fuselage looks best in a long thin frame rather than a square one, but of course, that is all subjective :wink:
I must say I have to agree with you on that also. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Thoughts on this one? Main point of concern is the composition, since I purposefully moved the plane to the right to show the moon.
Full size: http://www.instantscaptured.com/Port...KVQ5r&lb=1&s=O
http://www.instantscaptured.com/phot...-CbKVQ5r-L.jpg
I like the composition, not sure jp will like it, but give it a go.
Thanks Jeremy. Won't cost anything to give it a try, although I feel it's a little low in frame as I look at it now.
Looks good to me, though I think might be the small size but a tad oversharp?
While it's a few pixels high in frame, I say it isn;t that bad for centered (although stabbing the right frame too much for my taste :smile:)
It is certainly a bit oversharpened...
Guys what do you think of this pic of the helicopter? My other one keeps getting rejected for either soft or too small in frame. I still believe it is a great shot, but whatever it is their loss not mine :). So here is my last try at getting a pic of this chopper on jetphotos. Luckily it isn't the end of the world if it doesn't because I see this nearly every time I go out to GRR!
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8368/8...cac693bb_b.jpg
Also how about this pic? 5th time trying to nail this horizon level...
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...22677585_n.jpg
The Beechjet will be rejected for the horizon - use the horizontal of the terminal roof to align that - it will work a lot better. I think the helicopter is a little soft - it also seems a little high in the frame - but - it sure is salvageable!! Shout if you need help with the edit!
The Beechjet also has jaggies at the nose end of the striping. Don't let Anet/JP be your judge of good photos. I like 'em and I also like the one of the 76 with the snow that you tried getting on there.
Chalk it up to their loss, but put 'em on your own page (Flickr, Smugmug, etc...) they will garner a good number of hits.
Actually that was my problem. I did that and it was rejected for horizon unlevel. Manny helped me realize that since the roof of the terminal is slanted back from where I was shooting, it should slant to the right while the tower is perfectly straight and level.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
I don't think jetphotos is too over picky, plus those come out a lot more in these forums, it is not as bad at the full 1200 pixels. That's not why it has been rejected 4 times (horizon, horizon, horizon, HORIZON!!!)Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
I agree that it is their loss. Oh well! I guess that's what I get for going for something other than a side shot :).
Alex,
The helo is certainly soft... butthat's not because of sharpening, it is because of Distance... meaning it was really far and you probably only got about 1500 pixels on the frame with the helo in them and then cropped a lot... that's what it looks like. The landing shot, you got it, the terminal is NOT level and should not be... Mark, see my post on the rejections thread... I show the Google Maps sat image with comments... it best explains the problem. With no horizon in sight, your best bet is the verticals... the one above is still slightly CCW even without measuring I can tell.. .One trick used by screeners to quickly tell is to use the frame of the BROWSER to check the level.. so do that too... move the mouse to the edge of your browser and shrink the edge until it touches the lines in the picture you're checking for level... works! :-)
That building is about 45 degrees right yaw to the photographer position... I would expect it to sink even lower :tongue:
Lucas,
For your personal collection these are really nice shots. I'm sorry to say that jp/ANet probably will reject them.
1) Weird crop, but most important, the prop is soft/blurry
2) Horribly un-level, and no depth of field, only the wingtip in focus. (Personally, fix the level, and this is a great shot to me)
3, 4 & 5) Too much dead space around the aircraft. (Again for me, I love how you framed #4, but that is not what jp/anet wants)
6) Not level & wingtip cut off
7) Probably your best chance, but a little dark
8) Motive. Just an odd angle, that the screeners do not typically find appealing.
Thanks and yeah I liked #2 and #1 but I didn't know how to Corp it right that well hehe, and thanks :), What about corping #4 a bit? I really did not know much to corp without messing the photo completely up,and thanks will fix the photos :)I have more But didn't want to Spam up the page with photos but i can upload the rest later i have a few Hdr's I dont know if they accept that but If you looked at My World war II photos topic i made those are the photos I took that day and thanks for the tips and glad you liked some of them :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
Lucas,
For #4, again, I love it. The way it's framed, it gives the aircraft room "to move" in your imagination. For jp/anet, though, they want them cropped as close to the edges of the aircraft as possible. Without seeing the original, I do not think you could crop it for them and keep the 3x2 or 4x3 ratio.
Anet will outright reject HDR's. JP is a little more forgiving, but they have to be really well done (ie: no halos, nothing grungy or blown out). It can be done, but even the best of us have had our HDR turned away.
Dont get discouraged. You have a good eye, you just need some polishing work. Look at the Spotting review threads, and look at the Anet/JP accepted threads. This will give you a good idea as to what is accepted and what is not.
And to echo William's comment: for props that are moving...get your shutter speed to around 1/250 at the fastest...if you can go slower without overall blur even better. But 1/250 unless they are taxi-ing will give you a nice blur to the props so it gives your subject life.
Thanks :) so would you suggest me not corpping #4 and try uploading to Airliners or should i corp it a little?and i did not want one of them to be too bright but i will fix that aswell and thankyou for your help :) i will Fix them later. I also have more but didn't want to upload which i will later.Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
Kay fixed two of them Of course without the copy right but how do they look?x:
http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/...ps0e09396e.jpg
http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8037a69a.jpg
I think that first one is going to be booted as backlit.
The second needs to be either 3:2 or a 4:3.
Just eyeballing it, the plane looks low in the frame as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
As stated above, and both will be SOFT as well ...
Slight vignetting on #1 ?
I would say slim to no chance on being accepted. It seems that you are taking some of your old shots and trying to fit them in the anet/jp format. I think you would be better served to go out spotting with the specific intent of getting something accepted on anet/jp. Use all the techniques you have been told in this and other threads. You should come away with a handful of shots when edited properly have a good chance of being accepted.
Just beceause anet/jp accepts a shot does not make it good.