Pre-screening: WingsFan

WingsFan · Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:14 pm

Here is an image I am thinking of submitting to this site. This was shot in jpeg and processed as such.
I will appreciate any feedback .

DSC_7151_edited-2 by WingsFan, on Flickr

HarryLi · Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:51 pm

Hello,
I think it needs more contrast and ... a bit of Blurry i think.
Cheers,
Harry

WingsFan · Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:00 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hello,
I think it needs more contrast and ... a bit of Blurry i think.
Cheers,
Harry

Where exactly is blurriness ? Would sharpening it slightly more help?

WingsFan · Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:26 pm

Image 2 : Another one for consideration.
Thanks

DSC_7140-Edit-1 by WingsFan, on Flickr

HarryLi · Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:32 pm

WingsFan wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
Hello,
I think it needs more contrast and ... a bit of Blurry i think.
Cheers,
Harry

Where exactly is blurriness ? Would sharpening it slightly more help?

Not quite sure about it . The title and the windows line seem to be Blurry ... If they are indeed blurry it would be hard to fixi guess.

len90 · Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:15 pm

Need the full size of the LH before any editing to really see if there is any blur.

BA: (not on a good display) but looks slightly OS on the titles to me.

airkas1 · Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:00 pm

B747: overexposed, blurry (titles, windows, aft fuselage), low contrast
B777: A bit bright, but otherwise not that bad

WingsFan · Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:14 pm

airkas1 wrote:
B747: overexposed, blurry (titles, windows, aft fuselage), low contrast
B777: A bit bright, but otherwise not that bad

Thanks kas!

I touched the 777 per your comments and submitted for upload. My first one, hopefully.
Do you now how long it typically takes these days for a review?

len90 · Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:44 am

WingsFan wrote:
airkas1 wrote:
B747: overexposed, blurry (titles, windows, aft fuselage), low contrast
B777: A bit bright, but otherwise not that bad

Thanks kas!

I touched the 777 per your comments and submitted for upload. My first one, hopefully.
Do you now how long it typically takes these days for a review?

https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-corner

This will tell you about the current screening situation. It's a bit on the long side right now at around 12-13 days.

WingsFan · Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:48 am

One more from the same session. Comments will be appreciated.
Is it too yellow? or are the clouds making me feel that way?

DSC_7143-ForReview1 by WingsFan, on Flickr

WingsFan · Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:04 am

Another one... Same day different location.

DSC_7134-ForReview1 by WingsFan, on Flickr

YQZ380 · Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:27 am

Air France's colour seems okay, though it is overexposed at the nose and slightly oversharpened at the titles. Air Canada seems fine to me.

Cheers,
Yang

HarryLi · Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:18 am

The color of Air France seems ok and the exposure i think should be ok but ... you'd better reduce a little bit in case of OE as i have the same situation before. Regarding to the Canada , it seems ok for me , nice one.

Cheers,
Harry

WingsFan · Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:10 pm

What do you think about this one? I only added minor sharpening. I am afraid to add sharpening for the fear of jaggies.

len90 · Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:32 am

Weather looks okay to me. I'm on my phone though so not the best display to look at it on.

310815 · Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:30 am

Weather looks more than okay to me as we, but I am sure you meant something else, Len ;-)

Sharpening looks okay to me and I 'd say this shot is passable.

Julien

HarryLi · Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:13 pm

Nice one . The sharpness is ok for me but it is a bit high in frame i think. But just my personal opinion~

airkas1 · Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:50 pm

Air France: Clouds OK, but looks blurry to me
Air Canada: Clouds OK, rest looks ok to me too
Westjet: Seems a little marginal quality, but sharpening-wise it's probably the best it can be without overdoing it. Can you explain your workflow when it comes to sharpening? Perhaps we can give some more pointers.

WingsFan · Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:10 am

Only for the westjet, I used Nik Sharpner Pro instead of USM. Everything else is like this. Frame> Level>Dust Check> Select everything else except aircraft> reverse selection + grow 1 px> Shapen > Resize> jpeg

WingsFan · Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:46 am

Here is another one for your comments.
No Nik Sharpening here. Just USM

HarryLi · Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:35 am

I haven't used Nik Sharpen before . And when i edit photos of aircraft i only sharpen them by using the USM Sharpen or Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. I think they are enough ~ and i think these 2 functions is good enough ( I am not familiar to other sharpen tool ) .

Cheers,
Harry

WingsFan · Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:03 am

HarryLi wrote:
I haven't used Nik Sharpen before . And when i edit photos of aircraft i only sharpen them by using the USM Sharpen or Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. I think they are enough ~ and i think these 2 functions is good enough ( I am not familiar to other sharpen tool ) .

Cheers,
Harry

Right. Even I used the nik sharpener for the first time. I guess I will stick to USM . What do you think about the P51 Mustang?

HarryLi · Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:08 am

WingsFan wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
I haven't used Nik Sharpen before . And when i edit photos of aircraft i only sharpen them by using the USM Sharpen or Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. I think they are enough ~ and i think these 2 functions is good enough ( I am not familiar to other sharpen tool ) .

Cheers,
Harry

Right. Even I used the nik sharpener for the first time. I guess I will stick to USM . What do you think about the P51 Mustang?

I am not quite sure. But it seems a bit of soft for me. :roll:

And i can see a dirty spot in the sky, you can use Equalize in Photoshop to check. Besides, it seems that this one has slight halo especially around the aircrew.
Cheers,
Harry

len90 · Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:14 am

Don't really think it is soft. That dirty spot though is definitely there though.

One more thing I notice is you have a 1pixel border around the image. Might be something that you did in your workflow?

WingsFan · Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:24 am

Getting back to the westjet above, I re-did using normal sharpening using USM . What do you think? Is it worth pursuing ?

WingsFan · Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:00 am

A few more for your comment with questions. I appreciate your feedback
Ryan :

C-46: Should this be 'nose' category? Do the flags partially covering the window make this ineligible?

P-40: Quicksilver : Is this a type of image appropriate for this site?

airkas1 · Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:34 pm

Westjet: Looks passable
Ryan: Looks passable
C46: Needs a closer crop and a bit more sharpening.
QuickSilver: My favorite Mustang :cloudnine:

He's a P-51 though, not a P-40. I'd say the angle is a bit too shallow for my liking. We have similar photos and the motive works if they are taken a bit more from the side.

airkas1 · Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:50 am

But the color profile looks off again when viewing the large version.

WingsFan · Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:42 am

Fixed Ryan. Also checked profile for the new ones.

What do you think of these ? Trying higher resolution for this one

trying a different aspect ratio

airkas1 · Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:22 am

Both look good to me.

WingsFan · Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:28 pm

I guess square images are not allowed, so I will need to re-crop the Apache. If I process one more of the same chopper but from a more conventional angle of showing the rest of the body, would that be considered double?

airkas1 · Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:34 pm

The apache could work in a 3:4 ratio crop. A head-on and side-on is acceptable and would not get rejected for double.

WingsFan · Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:20 am

I have processed another one from the same session. What do you all think? My concern is about centering and sharpness.

WingsFan · Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:05 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The apache could work in a 3:4 ratio crop. A head-on and side-on is acceptable and would not get rejected for double.

The Apache was rejected for soft rotors and radar. While I completely agree that the rotors are soft due to depth of field, I see no way how I could have prevented that. I assumed that as long as the rotor shaft and its peripherals are sharp, it should be acceptable. Soft radar? I don't know where and how much. I guess it's time to move on to the next image then.
Feedback is still appreciated, both for Apache and the image after that.

airkas1 · Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:00 pm

The wardbird is a bit sharp and could use a bit more contrast and a little decrease in exposure. Vertical centering is fine, but horizontally I would move it a bit more to the right, so that the right wheel and tail have equal distance to the edge of the frame. Added benefit of this is that you can include the entire landing light, in stead of cutting it in half.

The apache does look blurry at the entire rotor, but also the pods on the right side in the frame.I noticed you uploaded it larger than you linked here and the flaws are more apparent in that one. The smaller version looks a bit better and might be salvagable with some extra sharpening in the soft areas. No guarantees of course.

WingsFan · Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:30 pm

No problem.
I will try to revise the warbird per your comments. In the mean time, what do you think of this?

WingsFan · Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:09 am

and one more snowy one

airkas1 · Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:25 pm

The Airbus is marginal and the Caravan is blurry.

HarryLi · Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:39 pm

The Fedex has obvious Blurry. "The world on time" is blurry.

WingsFan · Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:16 pm

HarryLi wrote:
The Fedex has obvious Blurry. "The world on time" is blurry.

Thanks! I guess slow shutter speed or panning is still not my thing just yet .

airkas1 · Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:09 pm

Practise makes perfect

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net