Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre-Screening Thread No. 5  
User currently offlineModerators From United States, joined Apr 2004, 140 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5639 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The previous thread had hit over 300 replies; based on the fact that it was slow to load, it has now been locked.

Please feel free to continue the discussion in this thread - if there are any problems, please contact the moderators at moderators@airliners.net

Thanks,
The Moderating Team


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
282 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have this picture rejected with centered reason. I know I have a little tail high, but the nose is centered and some screeners prefer this way to center the frame. The problem is that if I surely low the tail to another screener will say me this looks low.

Big version: Width: 1355 Height: 915 File size: 269kb


I would like some help to correct and re-uploaded the picture or if is worth appeal.

Regards

Bustin

User currently offlineAA173HVY From United States, joined Oct 2008, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5631 times:


http://pages.suddenlink.net/dragonheart0179/photos/N504US_2.jpg


http://pages.suddenlink.net/dragonheart0179/photos/N805AW_1.jpg


http://pages.suddenlink.net/dragonheart0179/photos/N504USrollout.jpg


http://pages.suddenlink.net/dragonheart0179/photos/N353NB.jpg

User currently offlineMichlis From United States, joined Jul 2007, 441 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5627 times:

Input on this p-51C would be appreciated.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/NL251MX_1_mjl.jpg


"The untrodden path is choked by the weeds of tradition; be not afraid to cut through." Attributed to Hyman Rickover
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5613 times:



Quoting Bustin (Reply 1):

I'd prefer it a little lower as well, not too much. I think it's better to aim for the top of the fuselage and not the nose.

Quoting AA173HVY (Reply 2):

1: Not too bad, but a bit soft. Would possibly like a closer crop since now it looks like you just lost the wing tips

2: Distance, way too much empty space around the aircraft, and also soft/blurry and dark

3: I quite like this one, but excess space in front of the nose, and downsize to 1024 pixels wide, that will cover other issues

4: Distance, over exposed, chromatic aberration, quality


If you sit 10 hours spotting in rain you are plane crazy
User currently offlineAA173HVY From United States, joined Oct 2008, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5608 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 3):
Input on this p-51C would be appreciated.

I think since it's one of only 4 known to be in existence, It should go up!!
It does need a bit of CW rotation though.

Nice shot!

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

AA173HVY,

Post-capture processing will normally help, however I'm afraid all these have serious quality issues which I doubt can be corrected.

Once again guys, feedback on these edits I did for a friend (were at the bottom of last pre-screen thread and will therefore now not be scrutinised) - different to my normnal workflow so I was worried about any softness.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/OH-LVE_MAN_181008_GB.JPG

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/OY-KBT_MAN_181008_GB.JPG

Cheers,

Karl

User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5604 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 3):

Really nice and shiny aircraft, but borderline oversharpened. There are some jaggies in the windows and the star logo. And possibly a bit higher in the frame. I really like your shot, love the p-51  Smile


If you sit 10 hours spotting in rain you are plane crazy
User currently offlineAA173HVY From United States, joined Oct 2008, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5602 times:



Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 4):
Would possibly like a closer crop since now it looks like you just lost the wing tips

Thanks John.

By this do you mean crop tighter? The plane's left WT was not in the pic, so I cropped the other one out to center it a bit more.

User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

Karl, I gave feedback on the Finnair in the other thread. The SAS is possibly ever so slightly soft on the front section of the fuselage, but those SAS titles are pain to photograph.


If you sit 10 hours spotting in rain you are plane crazy
User currently offlineZakHH From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 1533 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Please let me have your comments on this one:
http://www.gebenus.com/wordpress/wp-...rberlin_a319_d-abgk_ham_080818.jpg

Please ignore the frame and the fact that the 'core' pic is only 960px wide - both would be corrected if I would upload it here.

Thanks
Zak

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Thanks John.

I re-posted because my concerns about softness were not addressed in the last pre-screen thread.

Cheers,

Karl

User currently offlineMke717spotter From United States, joined Dec 2005, 1124 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5507 times:

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/718/img1687editeden1.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/7269/img1677editedfq4.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2392/img1530editedzh9.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/10/img1391edited2tl2.jpg


Sweet home Milwaukee, Wisconsin! :)
User currently offlineMichlis From United States, joined Jul 2007, 441 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5475 times:



Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 7):
Really nice and shiny aircraft, but borderline oversharpened. There are some jaggies in the windows and the star logo. And possibly a bit higher in the frame. I really like your shot, love the p-51

Thanks for the input everyone! The shot was accepted!


"The untrodden path is choked by the weeds of tradition; be not afraid to cut through." Attributed to Hyman Rickover
User currently offlineDaleaholic From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5456 times:

I have just uploaded this but I think it is too big... can anybody give me some advice on 'big' picture sizes. This one is 1600x1200... what size should I be aiming for?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/G_GMPB_MAN_5_10_2008.jpg


Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5454 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 13):
The shot was accepted!

The way it was? If so, disregard all my input  drunk 


If you sit 10 hours spotting in rain you are plane crazy
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5449 times:

Dale,

1600's OK but best to use 1024x683 as this will hide any tiny quality issues.

Nice shot, although I'd tone down the brightness (highlights look a bit washy) and give it a kick of contrast.

Karl

User currently offlineMke717spotter From United States, joined Dec 2005, 1124 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5444 times:

Can someone please give me some feedback on the shots I've posted above? Thanks.


Sweet home Milwaukee, Wisconsin! :)
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1477 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5440 times:



Quoting Mke717spotter (Reply 17):
Can someone please give me some feedback on the shots I've posted above? Thanks

US Airways

No chance - there is a ground vehicle obstructing the nose-gear and it seems to be the wrong size.

Northwest

Nice shot but bad crop (not centered properly), wrong upload size and appears to need slight CCW rotation.

Wing shot

Just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Boring; not much to look at and there's a curious streak top-right, about 3cm from the edge of the frame. Also wrong size.

Midwest

Possible but I'd crop closer in on the nose right-hand side. Also looks slightly soft on my monitor.

Karl

User currently offlineOthic From Sweden, joined Jun 2007, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5433 times:

how about the photos below?

#1
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/SE-LJT.jpg

#2
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/SE-DSU.jpg


/othic


A boy learn's much more at the airport then he do at school
User currently offlineMichlis From United States, joined Jul 2007, 441 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5431 times:



Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 15):
The way it was? If so, disregard all my input

It was actually good input. I'll probably try and clean it up and re-upload.


"The untrodden path is choked by the weeds of tradition; be not afraid to cut through." Attributed to Hyman Rickover
User currently offlineANITIX87 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5412 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Othic (Reply 19):
how about the photos below?

Sorry, Othic. These both have quality issues that I don't think can be helped. These are for the personal collection, I'm afraid.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 10):
Please let me have your comments on this one:

Zak, we need to see the full-size version. It is possible that when you make it bigger, some quality issues and other flaws will emerge. Post a larger version and you'll get better feedback.

TIS


Olympus Evolt E-500, Zuiko 14-45mm f/3.5-5.3, Zuiko 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5, Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6