Hello, I am a new user, long time forum lurker who finally has a little extra money to buy a lens capable of shooting aircraft. For this purpose I recently purchased a Nikon AF-S VR 70mm-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED lens to use on my Nikon D5500. I've used this setup for around a month now, and I have been increasingly pleased with the results. I understand that it takes time to develop the skill set required to create A.net quality images(my goal), so in an effort to aide my progression I am seeking constructive criticism of some photos I've taken thus far. All photos were shot in Manual, JPEG-Fine

[img][img]https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4289/35763375756_eff17345a2_k.jpg[/img]_DSC0694 by Wolfie Virostek, on Flickr[/img]

[img][img]https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4265/35672005471_10ea0638c7_k.jpg[/img]_DSC0389 by Wolfie Virostek, on Flickr[/img]

[img][img]https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4205/35634944342_9cbd9fee08_k.jpg[/img]_DSC0197 by Wolfie Virostek, on Flickr[/img]

Thank you in advance for your time and feedback! Negative or postive, anything helps!

Hello,
I can't see your photos here , according to your above message.
Please copy your link inside these two QUOTES of INSERT IMAGE i think you put them outside here. .
Or you can just copy the links here , it would be easier for you i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Oops. I'm not off to a great start hopefully these work.
DL 757-200:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/2K4pap

OZ A380:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/59ekC8

VS 787-9: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/DgW3v3

Hello and no worries. I started off way worse than you.

Sadly, all three examples you provided suffer from Heat Haze which really is not salvageable for acceptance here. Heat haze is a significant issue with photography, especially in the summer months with the higher sun angles and warmer temperatures. In order to see the heat haze best, look at the full size images. When you see a jagged/wavy appearance to your straight lines there really is not much to do. The heat haze also creates a blurriness which can be seen on the nose of the A380.

Settings wise, you look like you are in the right area and have the right idea. Keep that ISO low to avoid the grain and ensure your aperture is fast enough to avoid motion blur.

I'm not native to LA and have really never spotted there. What I would suggest is to try and spot early in the day or late evening or on days when it is cooler with a breeze. Heat haze occurs when you have a big difference between the air temperature and ground temperature. And yes you can have heat haze in the winter time

Yes, these links work.
Well, it seems that you showed us the original photo , i thought you will show us the photos that you have edited. Never mind that's no problem.

Well, according to these three photos i agree with Len's perspectives that all of them are suffering from Serious Heat Haze . And heat haze lead to Blurry issue as you can see obvious blurry toward the aircraft it is not your lens problem it should be Heat Haze problem. So just avoid the time which has a lot of heat Haze also go to some spotting locations which is close to the aircraft as long distance can produce slight heat haze sometime.

In addition, i recommend you to use RAW File instead of using JPEG format because you can do a lot of things in RAW which you can't do with JPEG and i think RAW 's quality is better just my personal opinions. And you also can reduce noise in RAW. So using it is good for you.
Also your photos seems dark / underexposed. Although it can be improved when you edit them it is necessary to do it better before you edit. And according to your EXIF Information , you used very high Shutter speed it is not so necessary to use so high and big Aperture + High Shutter Speed = dark. Anyway it can be improved in editing , easy to solve . But as Len said

ensure your aperture is fast enough to avoid motion blur.

Besides, there is another very important issue need to remind you. As you are using Nikon Camera so there is a very special Function there called " D-lighting ". Well, this function will make your photos have Over-processing issue because if you use it , most of your photos will have Halo Problem and i can see obvious Halo around the aircraft ( Ex : Delta B757 ). I have check your photo in my Photoshop i used Equalize before i edit them in PS you can check it by yourself too. So i recommend you to turn it off.

Finally , here is some tutorials about editing photo in A.net you can have a look if you need and i think you can post some photos which has already edited .
Editing Guide : http://www.airliners.net/faq/editing_guide/
You can also have a look the acceptance guide ~ : http://www.airliners.net/faq/photo_acceptance_guide/

Cheers,
Harry

Thank you both for the in depth and informative replies!! I was aware that it was quite hazy and hot when I was shooting these(it was even visible to the eye)
but I was obviously unaware that it isn't possible to get shots through that haze. The very high shutter speed is a result of me naively thinking that I could find settings that would result in a clear photo. From what you both said, it sounds like there is not much that can be done other than avoiding these hazy conditions?

HarryLi wrote:

Yes, these links work.
Well, it seems that you showed us the original photo , i thought you will show us the photos that you have edited.

My apologies, I should've made it clear in the opening that these were unedited files. I do have versions that I've edited following the tips and advice from the two threads you posted. My goal is to take photos that require only a quick fine tune to be acceptable, as opposed to trying to salvage a poorly shot photo in lightroom/PS. As such I figured getting critique of unedited photos would be the best way to learn. Perhaps this is the incorrect approach? I'm happy to post only edited photos in the future if that's what is preferred.

HarryLi wrote:

Besides, there is another very important issue need to remind you. As you are using Nikon Camera so there is a very special Function there called " D-lighting ". Well, this function will make your photos have Over-processing issue because if you use it , most of your photos will have Halo Problem and i can see obvious Halo around the aircraft ( Ex : Delta B757 ). I have check your photo in my Photoshop i used Equalize before i edit them in PS you can check it by yourself too. So i recommend you to turn it off.

I honestly had no idea what D-lighting did, so thank you very much for explaining it so well!! I've noticed the halos but I had no clue what was causing it. As far as format goes I do shoot in RAW about half the time. I've favored JPEG because it's less time consuming and I'm a bit short on free time at the moment. Thanks again for all the great feedback!!

Ah ~ Well, if your photo has serious Heat haze issue.... i have to say maybe you should let it go or just for a personal collection because it is not fixable. However, if just slight i mean very slight heat haze you can use smaller size to hide but not recommend to do it as if you sharpen it, it might becomes obvious . So the best way is to avoid it i think.

Perhaps this is the incorrect approach?

No , it is ok i think. And we can know an important problem from your original photo is that maybe you use D-lighting in your camera. So if you show the photo which you edited we can't tell it i think and this should be an important issue i think.

Cheers,
Harry

SNA74787 wrote:

From what you both said, it sounds like there is not much that can be done other than avoiding these hazy conditions?

That's correct.

As for unedited vs edited files, I would prefer to see the edited versions. With the unedited files, we would have to list the entire workflow that you still need to do. If we see the edited files, we can just say what's right/wrong with it and you can then adjust your workflow accordingly.

SNA74787 wrote:

I do shoot in RAW about half the time. I've favored JPEG because it's less time consuming and I'm a bit short on free time at the moment.

I would definitely advise to shoot RAW 100% of the time. It just opens so much more doors when it comes to editing. even though you don't have the time to edit those now (it doesn't take long to process RAW files once you're used to it), it's good to have a stash left for a rainy day

Would posting both originals and edited versions be acceptable, at least until I iron out some of my camera work issues?

Yeah sure! There are no rules on what version to post anyway

Here are a few more

UA 737-8:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/N53a95

UP 757F (original):
https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/5R672Z

UP 757F (edit):
https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/441205

WOW. I think you should crop ths B757 tighter. And also please resize the photo ~ it is such a big one and it is impossible to upload such a big size photo. Also regarding to the 757 it seems to be blurry i think you should change another one of it to edit.
And the B738 of UA is suffered from serious Heat Haze i recommend u to give up it.

Cheers,
Harry

They're all blurry I'm afraid. Hate to be so brutal but none of the images you've posted so far are anywhere near the quality required here.

Karl

JakTrax wrote:

They're all blurry I'm afraid. Hate to be so brutal but none of the images you've posted so far are anywhere near the quality required here.

Karl

Thank you very much for not sugar coating it. This is the type of input that I am looking for. This certainly was not intended to be a pre-screening thread, I am new to this and I know I have a lot of things I need to work to improve. In your opinion, what is the underlying cause of the blurriness?

Here is another one, it was taken earlier in the day and to my eye is free of heat haze. Feel free to correct that assertion if its incorrect. This was taken with an 18-55mm kit lens.

Original: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152417952 ... res/5s71T1

Edited: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152417952 ... res/481xtm

HarryLi wrote:

WOW. I think you should crop ths B757 tighter. And also please resize the photo ~ it is such a big one and it is impossible to upload such a big size photo. Also regarding to the 757 it seems to be blurry i think you should change another one of it to edit.
And the B738 of UA is suffered from serious Heat Haze i recommend u to give up it.

Cheers,
Harry

Thanks again for the great feedback! Made the corrections you suggested, its probably still not usable for anything due to the blurriness around the nose.

UP757: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/4h1980

SNA74787 wrote:

HarryLi wrote:

WOW. I think you should crop ths B757 tighter. And also please resize the photo ~ it is such a big one and it is impossible to upload such a big size photo. Also regarding to the 757 it seems to be blurry i think you should change another one of it to edit.
And the B738 of UA is suffered from serious Heat Haze i recommend u to give up it.

Cheers,
Harry

Thanks again for the great feedback! Made the corrections you suggested, its probably still not usable for anything due to the blurriness around the nose.

UP757: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/4h1980

The composition is much better than before but ... it seems it has compressed a lot. Did you crop it in the original Photo or crop it in the photo that you have already cropped before ?

HarryLi wrote:

The composition is much better than before but ... it seems it has compressed a lot. Did you crop it in the original Photo or crop it in the photo that you have already cropped before ?

I cropped the edited version. I've gone back and started from scratch with the original and this is the result: https://flic.kr/p/Wn9L8C

SNA74787 wrote:

HarryLi wrote:

The composition is much better than before but ... it seems it has compressed a lot. Did you crop it in the original Photo or crop it in the photo that you have already cropped before ?

I cropped the edited version. I've gone back and started from scratch with the original and this is the result: https://flic.kr/p/Wn9L8C

A little bit high in Frame and still can see blurry also need to CW i think. I suggest you to give up this one and pick another one to edit . And ... i think you can choose one with a normal angle to practice as it would be easier for you to edit at the beginning stage .

Cheers,
Harry

I'm not on my screening PC right now, but the new edit needs CW rotaion and still looks very blurry. The EXIF (seen on Flickr) looks alright, so I assume it's a combination of the photo being taken from very far away, is a relatively heavy crop and perhaps you just did not have a steady hand at that moment.

To achieve A.net quality images, I would suggest to start on the most basic level. That means heading out on a sunny day and taking photo with the sun in your back. Not standing too far, so you don't have to crop too much. Once you get that down and have some photos accepted, you can slowly increae your 'handicap'. Try some 'sky shots' to avoid heathaze from the ground. A good example of what I mean is your Delta B717, but with the original photo requiring a less big crop.

airkas1 wrote:

I'm not on my screening PC right now, but the new edit needs CW rotaion and still looks very blurry. The EXIF (seen on Flickr) looks alright, so I assume it's a combination of the photo being taken from very far away, is a relatively heavy crop and perhaps you just did not have a steady hand at that moment.

To achieve A.net quality images, I would suggest to start on the most basic level. That means heading out on a sunny day and taking photo with the sun in your back. Not standing too far, so you don't have to crop too much. Once you get that down and have some photos accepted, you can slowly increae your 'handicap'. Try some 'sky shots' to avoid heathaze from the ground. A good example of what I mean is your Delta B717, but with the original photo requiring a less big crop.

So the shot of the B717 is a step in the right direction then? To my eye this shot is better than the others I've posted: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/8r1113
Or is that just me looking through rose colored glasses? Thank you for all the feedback and advice, this thread has already been quite helpful to me! Pardon my ignorance, but what is CW rotation that you both mentioned?

SNA74787 wrote:

So the shot of the B717 is a step in the right direction then?

Yes.

SNA74787 wrote:

what is CW rotation that you both mentioned?

CW = Clockwise rotation
CCW = Counter-Clockwise rotation

SNA74787 wrote:

To my eye this shot is better than the others I've posted: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/8r1113

The image is blurry/out of focus and a bit hazed at the aft section. But other than that, yeah, that's nice progress compared to the UPS B757 departure photos you posted earlier.

Yeah, i think the Delta 717 is much better than others.
And this 757 also is better the lift up 757 which you posted before. But it still has some issues. The Nose seems blurry and the tail suffers from Heat haze. But the crop and others look better.

Cheers,
Harry

You're taking steps in the right direction, which is the main thing. Your biggest problem (which others have touched on) is having the wrong lens for the photos you want to take. Depending on your budget (if of course you're even prepared to splash out on more gear) I'd look at either the 55-250 IS STM or the 70-200 f/4 L - nothing in between is really worth considering, except perhaps the 18-135.

It'a ll about having the right tool for the job - there's little point in learning the basics if your equipment can't physically produce what you're looking for.

Thank you everyone for the help, all this feedback is much appreciated! I've gone spotting a few times over the last week trying to apply some of this new knowledge as best I can. I also rented a few different lenses to see how they affect the results. Here are a couple of shots that I believe are a bit better than what I've shared to this point.
AS E175: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/G04bt9
DL 757: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/9eF2PX

Those are steps in the right direction indeed! The AS suffers from blurry nose and tail, even though the Alaska titles look just nice and sharp. The DL on the other hand is quite sharp overall, and while it may show some heat haze at that size, I can perfectly see it in here if you aim for a finished size of 1200px wide.

I agree with Miguel.

I also agree with Miguel's perspective. And i have to say you have already made a big progress to it ! Keep going !

Miguel1982 wrote:

Those are steps in the right direction indeed! The AS suffers from blurry nose and tail, even though the Alaska titles look just nice and sharp. The DL on the other hand is quite sharp overall, and while it may show some heat haze at that size, I can perfectly see it in here if you aim for a finished size of 1200px wide.

Awesome, thanks! Here is my attempt at resizing as you suggested: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/BZfFFt

Thanks again to everyone for being so patient with me, you taking the time to review these photos for such a beginner means a lot! Here's another one that is fairly sharp but I do see a little haze on the engine. Would a resize like I did with the DL757 work or is this too hazy to save?
FE A300: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/F9qD76

The DL 757 as linked above looks oversharpened (but that's fixable).
The FX A300 is impressibely sharp at that size and despite a little fuzzy edge on the main titles, I think the photo would actually work at 1600px wide. HOWEVER, the tip of the hor.stab. is cut off. I hope that's due to you own crop and not because that's the original (because cutting off a small part like that will get you a motive rejection and it's not fixable in this case).

airkas1 wrote:

The DL 757 as linked above looks oversharpened (but that's fixable).
The FX A300 is impressibely sharp at that size and despite a little fuzzy edge on the main titles, I think the photo would actually work at 1600px wide. HOWEVER, the tip of the hor.stab. is cut off. I hope that's due to you own crop and not because that's the original (because cutting off a small part like that will get you a motive rejection and it's not fixable in this case).

DL757 softened a bit: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/8h641S
FX A300 with the crop fixed, resized to 1600: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/011MiD

SNA74787 wrote:

airkas1 wrote:

The DL 757 as linked above looks oversharpened (but that's fixable).
The FX A300 is impressibely sharp at that size and despite a little fuzzy edge on the main titles, I think the photo would actually work at 1600px wide. HOWEVER, the tip of the hor.stab. is cut off. I hope that's due to you own crop and not because that's the original (because cutting off a small part like that will get you a motive rejection and it's not fixable in this case).

DL757 softened a bit: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/8h641S
FX A300 with the crop fixed, resized to 1600: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/011MiD

Hi,
Both of them looks better than before, but i found a question when i downloaded your full size photo, the file of the DL757 only has 97kb ?! and the File of FX A300 only has 130kb ?!
I think there are some problems when you save your photos.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( Screen Shot of PS )
If you save photos with PS, you will see this window ( As screen shot above ) and please make sure the Quality is 12 Maximum. And i have see your photos by using Equalize i think they have " Compression " issue.

Cheers,
Harry

Harry, it might also be that Flickr does not provide you with the original file, but only with a lower quality copy. In fact, I bet that they do not store your original image, but compress it a bit to save space.

Anyway, a ballpark figure would be something like 300-600 kB for a 1200px wide image, and something like 800-1200 kB for a 1600px, depending on the type of photo (plain blue sky is lighter than, say, a shot with airport as background)

Cheers,

Regarding the Delta, your last version, even "softened" still shows some jaggies on the titles. Could you try something a bit bigger? Say 1300 or 1400?

By the way, all this resizing should always be done from the original image, as every time you save a JPEG file it gets compressed and quality is lost.

Miguel1982 wrote:

Harry, it might also be that Flickr does not provide you with the original file, but only with a lower quality copy. In fact, I bet that they do not store your original image, but compress it a bit to save space.

Anyway, a ballpark figure would be something like 300-600 kB for a 1200px wide image, and something like 800-1200 kB for a 1600px, depending on the type of photo (plain blue sky is lighter than, say, a shot with airport as background)

Cheers,

Regarding the Delta, your last version, even "softened" still shows some jaggies on the titles. Could you try something a bit bigger? Say 1300 or 1400?

By the way, all this resizing should always be done from the original image, as every time you save a JPEG file it gets compressed and quality is lost.

Oh i see, i am not so familiar to Flicker ~ i started use it recently ! Thank you .
Cheers,
Harry

Miguel1982 wrote:

Harry, it might also be that Flickr does not provide you with the original file, but only with a lower quality copy. In fact, I bet that they do not store your original image, but compress it a bit to save space.

Anyway, a ballpark figure would be something like 300-600 kB for a 1200px wide image, and something like 800-1200 kB for a 1600px, depending on the type of photo (plain blue sky is lighter than, say, a shot with airport as background)

Cheers,

Regarding the Delta, your last version, even "softened" still shows some jaggies on the titles. Could you try something a bit bigger? Say 1300 or 1400?

By the way, all this resizing should always be done from the original image, as every time you save a JPEG file it gets compressed and quality is lost.

Ok, based on your feedback I've taken some time to improve my export process from lightroom as that seems to be where these issues are stemming from. Here''s the Delta at 1600px and 2000px
1600: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/r19747
2000: https://www.flickr.com/gp/152417952@N02/8531c9

The nose seems a little blurry, but still hard to judge the links. Perhaps best if you just upload it and link it to us. You can always delete the photo again from the queue.

Hello again, after trying (unsuccessfully) to get the photos accepted that I've shared here previously, I'm back looking for feedback on a few newer images that I believe are better. I'm currently 0-7 with almost all of them being rejected for "soft". Here is the first one that's currently in the queue: Thank you for your time, any feedback is much appreciated. (edit):I'm wondering if I emebeded this photo incorrectly? It appears in the post but when I click on it to bring up a larger size I get an error saying this image is unavailable. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong?

Ah ~ would you please copy the link of this photo to here ? As Kas said in another post that this kind of link that you posted is only available to the photos that have already accepted.

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi wrote:

Ah ~ would you please copy the link of this photo to here ? As Kas said in another post that this kind of link that you posted is only available to the photos that have already accepted.

Cheers,
Harry

I got the feeling that using Flickr like I did previously was not the way to go. What's the best way to share photos here? What method do you use in your thread Harry?

SNA74787 wrote:

HarryLi wrote:

Ah ~ would you please copy the link of this photo to here ? As Kas said in another post that this kind of link that you posted is only available to the photos that have already accepted.

Cheers,
Harry

I got the feeling that using Flickr like I did previously was not the way to go. What's the best way to share photos here? What method do you use in your thread Harry?

If you have already uploaded the photos and they are waiting in the queue:
Go to the Photo Corner ---> Choose " Screening " ---> Find the photo(s) that you want to post ---> Click into it ---> Right click on the image ---> Choose Copy Image Adress ---> come to here and then you can stick paste the link(s) here Hope that will help you.
For Flicker ,i have to say it's bit of hard for me or Chinese loca spotters to open as we have to use VPN first. But most of people can see ! Your own choice.But i am not sure that if the Flicker will compress the image more or less. But if you want to ask some feedback before you upload you can do so.

Cheers,
Harry

AS 737: http://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4619971
OK linking like that seems to work well enough, is there a way to embed the photo into this post using the same url?

SNA74787 wrote:

AS 737: http://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4619971
OK linking like that seems to work well enough, is there a way to embed the photo into this post using the same url?

Oh no , this is a link that link to our Photo-corner instead of your photo. Pay attention that after clicking photo(s) in Screening Queue you need to right click the photo again and then choose Copy Image Address. We can't see your photo through this one.

SNA74787 wrote:

AS 737: http://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4619971
OK linking like that seems to work well enough, is there a way to embed the photo into this post using the same url?

And yes , there is a function here that can embed your photo to the post with the same URL. When you post a reply here you will see a " Picture " sign at the replying window and click it then paste the link inside there and then post to us the photo will show automatically then. But you have to make sure that your link is correct or it will not show.

HarryLi wrote:

SNA74787 wrote:

AS 737: http://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4619971
OK linking like that seems to work well enough, is there a way to embed the photo into this post using the same url?

And yes , there is a function here that can embed your photo to the post with the same URL. When you post a reply here you will see a " Picture " sign at the replying window and click it then paste the link inside there and then post to us the photo will show automatically then. But you have to make sure that your link is correct or it will not show.

Awesome, great explantion.Thank you!

It's a bit soft, but be careful not to overcorrect (it needs a bit more, but not much).

Oh yeah, finally it works. I agree with Kas that it just needs little bit more sharpness.

I'd also suggest a slightly looser crop, particularly at the nose.