Airliners.net

Hello, could you please give me your opinions about this engine pick ;

I'd say 50/50. Not bad, but not great either. Motive-wise it's OK for me.

A few photos from today :

They all look oversharpened to me, some at marginal quality.

I agree with Kas comment... all of them seem to be oversharpened.

Im looking for feedback for this photo : An-2

The crop on the steering columns isn't great. I would try to include both yokes.

Unfortunetly I dont have a photo with both yokes visible because there was not much space there, any other suggestion for crop ?

Another 2 photos :





Recent rejection :

Dark & Soft

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5035088219

Both of the 2 photos that you showed above look backlit to me. Thus, it looks dark and underexposed. Other things i am not sure as i don't open the big pic.
Regarding to the rejected one, it looks soft to me too especially the window of the cockpit but it doesn't look dark.

Cheers,
Harry

LotmaniaK wrote:

Unfortunetly I dont have a photo with both yokes visible because there was not much space there, any other suggestion for crop ?

I would make the crop symmetrical. Outside is also overexposed, not sure if that's fixable?

The 2 fighter jets are underexposed due to poor light (toplit it seems, doubt they're fixable, sorry).

Thanks for your feedback, one more photo :

Oversharpened and marginal quality, sorry.

Hello again, I want some opinions about this wing view :

I'm back with a new photo of Mi-8.

Two more photos. I'm waiting for feedback

Cockpit photo: oversharpened and not a really appealing crop.
A330: oversharpened, marginal quality. Bit underexposed. Almost looks like a B&W photo with some color, but it's probably the light that tricks the eyes? Either way wa bit more saturation won't hurt.
Max: oversharpened, bit underexposed, marginal at the nose.

Thanks for criticism. Almost all of my photos seems oversharpened

I agree with Kas's opinions that all of them are OS to me. Eepscially the MAX, the title part of it ( POLISH AIRLINES & LOT ) is very obvious and the tail has obvious jaggy, exposure looks not bad to me but could be bit of brighter.A330 some parts have obvious jaggys. Exposure is iffy ...

Chees,
Harry

Another one, 767 ...

Max,

The TUI 767 looks good to me. Only recommendation is to frame it a little wider to accommodate the wheels of the APU which would make the picture "Whole".

Jehan

Super Thanks Jehan

What about this 787 cabin view ?

I would add some brightness, a touch of sharpening, and some noise reduction to the areas in the shadows and it should be fine.

Cheers,

Jehan

Is this version better ?

Max, the second version looks fine for me.

Jehan

Next one, 787 ...

Hi Max,

The image can use some added brightness. I checked the historgram and there is room on the right side for some added brightness.
I see some minor jaggies on the leading edge of the starboard wing and flap area; if I were you, I'd clean it up before submission.
The nose looks a bit soft, but not a show stopper for me.
Of course, please remove your copyright symbol or else it will be rejected for it.

Nice light on it.

Jehan

Is this amount of brightness good ? What tool should I use to clean out jaggies ? Do you think it is sligthly low in frame or not ?

Centering is fine, but unable to comment on the rest due to looking on my phone.

Max,

Brightness looks good for me. Centering is also OK.
Re. the jaggies on the wing, I apply sharpening on a layer in small increments (e.g. 50% at radius 0.2) and check for jaggies. If any appear, I use the eraser tool on those areas where the sharpening caused jaggies. Repeat if needed. This leaves the sharpening on the areas that need it and removes it from areas where jaggies appear.

Hope this helps!

Jehan

I think I misunderstood something with how to dealing with jaggies. Where is my mistake ? Duplicate layer >>> apply sharpening on background copy >>> use eraser tool on background copy (standard mode, not background or magic)(nothing happens) >>> delete background copy, finish.

LotmaniaK wrote:

I think I misunderstood something with how to dealing with jaggies. Where is my mistake ? Duplicate layer >>> apply sharpening on background copy >>> use eraser tool on background copy (standard mode, not background or magic)(nothing happens) >>> delete background copy, finish.

Hi Max,

Sorry, I left out one important step in use of the layers. I use the same steps as you do except at the end, I flatten the image. This ensures that the effects of the changes on the background copy stays with the original image. If you delete the background layer, then all of your edits including the sharpening and selective erasing get deleted.

To confirm here are my steps:
1. Create background copy layer
2. Select aircraft only using "magic wand" or "quick selector." If it is an aircraft with a plain sky background, I use the magic wand on the sky and then invert the selection followed by expansion by 1 pixel (all available in the "Select" tab of Photoshop Elements. It is faster than selecting the aircraft. There may be similar functions in your photo editor. No point in sharpening the sky since it only introduces graininess.
3. Apply sharpening on background copy layer. Check for jaggies.
4. If jaggies are visible, use eraser tool on the jaggies on the background copy layer
5. Flatten image. If additional sharpening is needed, open a second background layer
5. Expand selection by 1 pixel and repeat sharpening and selective erasing. If you do not expand the selection, you might end up with sharpening halos.
6. If OK, Flatten Image.

You can PM me if you want some additional details.

Jehan

What about this picture ?

767 Tui rejected for motive & soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0e21d73ee7

LOT : The color looks pretty strange to me and and i think it could be brighter. Besides, the title and REG look slight OS.
767 TUI : Nose part looks slight soft to me. Not quiet sure about the Motive issue as there is an obstruction which covers the gear.

Cheers,
Harry

The LOT is oversharpened and quite yellow. Looks a bit marginal. The TUI doesn't look super soft, but the motive rejection is understandable.

Another one, 787 ...

Color looks better than last one but it still looks Oversharpened i think.

Looks oversharpened to compensate blur.

Thanks for feedback Harry and Kas. I'm still trying ....

Color is fine, but still oversharpened.

I think it must be something wrong with my camera settings, because I don't apply any additional sharpness in photoshop.

Hello, please give me your thoughts about this photo:

I got this photo rejected for blurry and quality, any thoughts ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 33ed71ab8a

The front part looks not bad to me but the rest look slight blurry especially the tail looks slight blurry.

Can I have some feedback about this two photos ?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 26acc93a08
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 43d47c4655

The JAL looks blurry and the Cebu might be passable.

Thanks for replying, maybe this one looks better:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 584cf1e083

and A333

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bc0b642833

Two recent rejections :

Vignetting
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 26acc93a08

Vignetting & Noise
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bc0b642833