Opinion, Tips and Improvements

vcruvinel · Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:02 am

jelpee wrote:
Re. the B727, needs a little more brightness (check right side of histogram) and IMO a touch of sharpening and some noise reduction in the shadow areas. Should be OK then.

Jehan

See if looks better now

vcruvinel · Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:38 pm

Version 2 - Another Editing

airkas1 · Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:26 pm

Still looks like a blurry original to me, which can't be fixed.

vcruvinel · Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:35 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Still looks like a blurry original to me, which can't be fixed.

oh, ok. no problem. happens all the time. LOL.

another shot to prescreen

airkas1 · Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:49 pm

The E550(?) looks nice and passable for me.
The B737 is a bit low in frame, cyan and soft. But all issues seem fixable.

vcruvinel · Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:53 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The E550(?) looks nice and passable for me.
The B737 is a bit low in frame, cyan and soft. But all issues seem fixable.

airkas1, yes it's a Embraer EMB-550 (often know as Legacy 500 (IU-50)). I will upload now to the DB.

About the 737F I will do all corrections and upload again for approval.

many thanks as always

vcruvinel · Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:44 pm

I have a doubt...This kind of shot can be acceptable?

vcruvinel · Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:29 am

correct the cyan, put more sharpen and centralize the plane in the frame

airkas1 · Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:19 am

The engine close-up will likely get rejected for motive, as the crop isn't that great.

The Sideral looks a bit underexposed still, there is room for extra brightness on the right side of the histogram. The moest right value to 240 or so. I also forgot to mention that it has a 'spot' in the sky in front of the tail. Better to remove that to avoid the dirty rejection. Sorry I missed that in the previous edit as well. Otherwise it looks ok to me.

vcruvinel · Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:35 am

airkas1 wrote:
The engine close-up will likely get rejected for motive, as the crop isn't that great.

The Sideral looks a bit underexposed still, there is room for extra brightness on the right side of the histogram. The moest right value to 240 or so. I also forgot to mention that it has a 'spot' in the sky in front of the tail. Better to remove that to avoid the dirty rejection. Sorry I missed that in the previous edit as well. Otherwise it looks ok to me.

I will improve the brightness. I saw the spot, it's a bird. I will remove our little friend from there. Sharpness is ok?

airkas1 · Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:49 am

vcruvinel wrote:
Sharpness is ok?

Yes.

vcruvinel · Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:52 am

airkas1 wrote:
vcruvinel wrote:
Sharpness is ok?

Yes.

Ok, I will work in the other points you said. Many thanks

vcruvinel · Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:13 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The engine close-up will likely get rejected for motive, as the crop isn't that great.

The Sideral looks a bit underexposed still, there is room for extra brightness on the right side of the histogram. The moest right value to 240 or so. I also forgot to mention that it has a 'spot' in the sky in front of the tail. Better to remove that to avoid the dirty rejection. Sorry I missed that in the previous edit as well. Otherwise it looks ok to me.

more brightness, dust spot removed. if need anything more just tell me

vcruvinel · Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:35 pm

More shots to get the tem opinion

HarryLi · Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:01 pm

VC-1 looks bit of OS to me.
Helicopter : You can give it more sharpen. It seems soft toward the whole body and the tail i think.And the tail also looks bit of Blurry to me maybe due to soft.
Tail shot looks better than another 2.

Cheers,
Harry

vcruvinel · Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:17 pm

HarryLi wrote:
VC-1 looks bit of OS to me.
Helicopter : You can give it more sharpen. It seems soft toward the whole body and the tail i think.And the tail also looks bit of Blurry to me maybe due to soft.
Tail shot looks better than another 2.

Cheers,
Harry

Harry, thanks for you feedback

This shot from Fab2101 is better?

About the Heli: I will sharp more
About the Tail Shots: It's ok from your point of view?

Thanks!

vcruvinel · Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:05 pm

airkas1 · Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:23 pm

FAB is blurry and yellow.
TAM needs some +10 contrast, some brightness from the right sid eof the histogram (value 240ish). Looks alright otherwise.

vcruvinel · Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:37 am

airkas1 wrote:
FAB is blurry and yellow.
TAM needs some +10 contrast, some brightness from the right sid eof the histogram (value 240ish). Looks alright otherwise.

I will forget about the FAB, no problem.

About the TAM, see the new image with the improvements you suggest: http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-MYB/PR-MYB2.jpg

(I will use links from my hosting to prescreen now, my topic was getting to confusing, sorry!)

Thanks, airkas1!

HarryLi · Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:56 pm

Regarding to the TAM the latest one, the color seems weird. I assume that you took it with a glass in front of you. Adjusting the tone might be better i think.

vcruvinel · Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:48 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Regarding to the TAM the latest one, the color seems weird. I assume that you took it with a glass in front of you. Adjusting the tone might be better i think.

Harry, many thanks for you feedback!

I think the colors seems kind of weird because the painting are fading (need to paint the plane again). There is no glass or other obstruction! When you say to adjust the tone, you say more constrast/saturation?

Thanks for you help and comments!

HarryLi · Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:21 pm

Hi,
I am not talking about the the plane's color is weird i mean the whole picture seems bit of green than normal i think. Especially the white part of the aircraft seems strange.And the saturation is ok i think. I did a quick editing for it here is :

You can compare it to yours.

Cheers,
Harry

vcruvinel · Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:28 am

HarryLi wrote:
Hi,
I am not talking about the the plane's color is weird i mean the whole picture seems bit of green than normal i think. Especially the white part of the aircraft seems strange.And the saturation is ok i think. I did a quick editing for it here is :

You can compare it to yours.

Cheers,
Harry

Hi Harry,

Many thanks for the feedback and help! I saw the points you explain, and also aggree with you. The white seens a bit strange...I will compare my version and yours and improve the photo.

Thanks!!

vcruvinel · Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:07 pm

Hey guys!

This kind of shot is acceptable? I got this before the sunrise...but it was a rainy day here.

http://www.vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-SDM/PR-SDM1.jpg

It`s the original image I did not do any edition yet.

Thanks!

airkas1 · Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:31 pm

That image is very blurry and will not make it.

vcruvinel · Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:38 pm

airkas1 wrote:
That image is very blurry and will not make it.

Hey Kas, sorry. I uploaded the wrong version. Can you please see again this link?

http://www.vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-SDM/PR-SDM1.jpg

Thanks!!

airkas1 · Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:35 pm

That one is also blurry and soft, sorry.

vcruvinel · Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:03 pm

airkas1 wrote:
That one is also blurry and soft, sorry.

Many thanks for the feedback as always! I will work in others shots and put to prescreen soon!

Thanks!

vcruvinel · Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:37 am

Hi!

Can I have some opinion in this shots?

http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-IOB/PR-IOB_011017.jpg
http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-VBM/PR-VBM.jpg
http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-TMN/PR-TMN.jpg
http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PATIO_SBBR/PATIO.jpg

Thanks!!

Degupukas · Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:44 pm

thanks

HarryLi · Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:30 pm

Sideral : seems blurry to me.
GOL+ : The contrast seems could be more i think and the front gear letters and REG in the body seem to be blurry i think.
LATAM A320 : The purple fringe of it is serious and obvious and some parts seem to be OS to me.
The last one : The whole photo seems Blurry especially the plane and the light stick. Besides, the color of it looks weird. I think is too red or magenta.The color issue should be easy to deal with.

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:35 pm

B727: slightly blurry, CCW and double with the closeup?
GOL: low contrast.
A320: cyan cast and oversharpened.
Overview: blurry, motive (left aircraft blocked), will not make it.

vcruvinel · Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:27 pm

airkas1 wrote:
B727: slightly blurry, CCW and double with the closeup?
GOL: low contrast.
A320: cyan cast and oversharpened.
Overview: blurry, motive (left aircraft blocked), will not make it.

Hey Kas, thanks for the feedback. I will improve my photos and post again to prescreen.
And about the B727: This shot was taken in another day and angle. It's consider a double too?

Thanks!

vcruvinel · Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:28 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Sideral : seems blurry to me.
GOL+ : The contrast seems could be more i think and the front gear letters and REG in the body seem to be blurry i think.
LATAM A320 : The purple fringe of it is serious and obvious and some parts seem to be OS to me.
The last one : The whole photo seems Blurry especially the plane and the light stick. Besides, the color of it looks weird. I think is too red or magenta.The color issue should be easy to deal with.

Cheers,
Harry

Harry, many thanks for you reply! I will use you and Kas feedback to improve my shots.

Thanks!

airkas1 · Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:35 pm

No, different day is not double.

vcruvinel · Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:58 am

airkas1 wrote:
No, different day is not double.

Hey Kas, Thanks for the feedback about the double rule.

Harry, thanks for the feedback too, I`m correcting the others shots to improve and practice more the concepts, principal about the B&W and RGB Histogram. Many Thanks.

I correct the constrast from the PR-VBM (GOL). It`s ok now?

http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-VBM/PR-VBM2.jpg

HarryLi · Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:35 am

http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-VBM/PR-VBM2.jpg

The contrast of this one seems better than before ( I think there is little bit space could be increased).But i think the sharpness is marginal :roll:

You can wait more replys !

Cheers,
Harry

vcruvinel · Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:48 pm

HarryLi wrote:
http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-VBM/PR-VBM2.jpg

The contrast of this one seems better than before ( I think there is little bit space could be increased).But i think the sharpness is marginal You can wait more replys !

Cheers,
Harry

Hey Harry, thanks for the feedback!

About the sharpeness, you say the whole aircraft or only some points?

Thanks!

airkas1 · Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:01 pm

Contrast is better. Sharpening is not an issue for me, but now that I look again it's a little bright.

vcruvinel · Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:00 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Contrast is better. Sharpening is not an issue for me, but now that I look again it's a little bright.

Kas, I will take from the scratch again as I renew some aspects froms my workflow. I will ask more opinions soon with new editions.

Thank you!

vcruvinel · Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:46 am

Hey!

Can anyone could please give me some feedback in this shots?

http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/D-ABZK/D-ABZK.jpg
http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-GUQ/PR-GUQ.jpg
http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-ONR/PR-ONR.jpg

Thanks!

airkas1 · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:08 pm

The Eurowings could use a bit more contrast, but looks passable otherwise
GOL is a bit bright, but otherwise nice. The Avianca seems to suffer a bit from heathaze, as the whole aircraft has a sort of blurrish feeling to it.

vcruvinel · Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:46 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The Eurowings could use a bit more contrast, but looks passable otherwise
GOL is a bit bright, but otherwise nice. The Avianca seems to suffer a bit from heathaze, as the whole aircraft has a sort of blurrish feeling to it.

Thanks for the feedback

See the new versions:

Eurowings with more contrast: http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/D-ABZK/D-ABZK.jpg
GOL less brighter: http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-GUQ/PR-GUQ2.jpg
Avianca with better resolution (it's appears to has some heat haze, but I think it's the heat from engines, tell me your opinion!): http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-ONR/PR-ONR2.jpg

Thanks!!

vcruvinel · Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:05 pm

And one more to go: http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PP-PTO/PP-PTO.jpg

Thanks!

HarryLi · Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:45 pm

Hello,
I have compared the Eurowings to the another one that you posted before. I didn't see any significant changes and i think it still needs some contrast.
GOL looks better than the last one.
Avianca still looks bit of Heat Haze i think especially the tail.
Not quiet sure , it looks a little bit Heat Haze to me.

Cheers,
Harry

vcruvinel · Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:42 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hello,
I have compared the Eurowings to the another one that you posted before. I didn't see any significant changes and i think it still needs some contrast.
GOL looks better than the last one.
Avianca still looks bit of Heat Haze i think especially the tail.
Not quiet sure , it looks a little bit Heat Haze to me.

Cheers,
Harry

Hey Harry, thanks for the reply.

I will put more contrast in the Eurowings.
I will see again the Avianca and verify if this one has salvation LOL.

Thanks!

airkas1 · Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:59 pm

I also don't see any visual difference with the Eurowings.
The GOL is better
The Avianca still looks soft/hazed at the back & tail.
The Passaredo looks soft and hazed. Sharpening it will likely lead to oversharpened parts.

vcruvinel · Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:07 pm

airkas1, thanks for the reply. I will improve the points you and harry said but i will forget the ones that have HH.

can I have some feedback in this one?

http://vcruvinel.com/fotos/PR-AZA/PR-AZA.jpg

HarryLi · Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:49 pm

Hi,
Regarding to the Azul.
It seems heat haze for me. The top of the aircraft and the title also the wing show heat haze i think.Besides, this one has Halo problem i think especially the tail part. You can check it by using Equalize in PS on your own i think but without using it you can see it clearly too. OMP, i don't suggest to upload this one. You can wait more answers of course !

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:48 pm

It's hazed for me too and will most likely not make it, sorry.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net