Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
airkas1 wrote:It's quite blurry and very soft. Likely due to heat haze, but can't tell for sure. Any chance for a link to the original full size image?
airkas1 wrote:I saw the GOL, Avianca A319 & A320.
The Aviancas are super hazed and will never make it. From that distance, in such warm conditions, it will 99,9999etc% not be worth it. With the GOL, the haze isn't as bad, but the image is super soft/blurry. So either that was you shaking too much or it's haze induced (which is also possible given the way haze can leave its mark in photos).
airkas1 wrote:The TAP is a bit blurry and will likely not make it.
The Ryanair seems a bit underexposed, but otherwise OK.
airkas1 wrote:Unfortunately both TAP photos are blurry, I wouldn't try them.
The Ryanair is better, but there is still room for more brightness.
The Transavia is marginal, but could be passable.
airkas1 wrote:It could use a bit more contrast, should be alright otherwise.
airkas1 wrote:It's noise and quite underexposed. I wouldn't hold my breath.
HarryLi wrote:QR : It looks overexposed to me and slight oversharpened i think ( some parts ). Besides, i would like to reduce little bit blue from it.
BA : it also looks overexposed for me especially the top part of the aircraft and i think it could have more contrast for me.
LH : The color of the whole picture seems pretty strange to me i think it's too blue to me ( Unnatural ) and the title looks slight oversharpened to me too especially the title part.
Eurowings : It could have more conrast to me i think and it looks soft to me too especially the bottom part of the aircraft ( The letters , wings ... ). And it also makes me feel little bit blurry but it's iffy.
Cheers,
Harry
airkas1 wrote:-JTL: looks nice!
-TPQ: a little overexposed on the fuselage. Try to reduce the highlights and then add a little bit of whites.
airkas1 wrote:-JTL: looks nice!
-TPQ: a little overexposed on the fuselage. Try to reduce the highlights and then add a little bit of whites.
and the title looks slight oversharpened to me too especially the title part.
vcruvinel wrote:Heys guys.
Do you think this kind of shot worth a try to edit and send to A.net? It`s from my personal collection...never tried to edit and upload before one of this kind.
Thanks
BB072 wrote:vcruvinel wrote:Heys guys.
Do you think this kind of shot worth a try to edit and send to A.net? It`s from my personal collection...never tried to edit and upload before one of this kind.
Thanks
You used 1/4000 at ISO 1600. That didn't help, I'm afraid.
vcruvinel wrote:BB072 wrote:
You used 1/4000 at ISO 1600. That didn't help, I'm afraid.
Hi! Many thanks for you feedback. Do you have any tips to improve shots like this one?
Vinicius
BB072 wrote:vcruvinel wrote:BB072 wrote:
You used 1/4000 at ISO 1600. That didn't help, I'm afraid.
Hi! Many thanks for you feedback. Do you have any tips to improve shots like this one?
Vinicius
With that much sunlight coming right at you, a much lower ISO (100) is to be preferred (to avoid high-ISO noise)
You shot it at f8, 1/4000 ISO 1600
If you want the same aperture, you could go down to ISO 100, 1/250 in this light.
spompert wrote:Nice one! I would say it is slightly oversharpened. I can see some jagged lines myself. Besides that I think it looks okay. But sure other will find some things
Psych wrote:Hi. There are a couple of issues with the photo for me. Overall I feel as though the subject is placed too much towards the top left of the frame - caused by the inclusion of the wing/wing fence and the tail being cropped close to the top of the frame. I would be tempted to position it slightly lower, and I might even crop that left wing, to make it a more balanced image. But that's just a subjective view.
In the old days the shot would likely have received a 'motive' rejection, because one of the runway sign that is blocking some of the wheel. But this rule may have been relaxed more recently - you might want a more expert view on that from a screener. I agree that there are small jaggies around the titling, but hopefully this won't be seen as too bad.
Cheers.
Paul
HarryLi wrote:The crop of it indeed looks better than the last one. But the latest one looks bit of Soft to me especially the tail.
vcruvinel wrote:HarryLi wrote:The crop of it indeed looks better than the last one. But the latest one looks bit of Soft to me especially the tail.
Hi Harry! Thanks for you feedback! I will improve the sharpness to see if look better, but I really in doubt about the obstruction point that Paul said.
Taking the opportunity, what about this one? Which points can I improve?
https://image.ibb.co/eCgktR/D2_TEK.jpg
Psych wrote:In the old days the shot would likely have received a 'motive' rejection, because one of the runway sign that is blocking some of the wheel. But this rule may have been relaxed more recently - you might want a more expert view on that from a screener.
airkas1 wrote:Much better!
Considering the cloudy conditions, I would probably give you a pass on that last edit.
airkas1 wrote:It's a bit high in frame, but otherwise very nice!