Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
HarryLi wrote:CS-TOO looks overexposed to me. I would tend to reduce little bit exposure. Besides, the windows look bit of soft to me ( not bad ). And... why not crop tighter ? ( Right side )
Cheers,
Harry
airkas1 wrote:A bit overexposed from the titles to the nose and the tail. Otherwise nice.
len90 wrote:On the TAP: I would crop it to the other A330s wingtip. Looks like you already have that one's stabilizer cropped as is so you can bring it in a bit to look a bit more balanced. Exposure is a bit high on this. It's always a bit tough when you have a sun glare/reflection line coming back at the camera like in this instance. Pretty close to an acceptable image!
airkas1 wrote:Needs a bit of CCW and contrat, but otherwise nice.
airkas1 wrote:Sorry, very late reply.
-GTAE: blurry,quality
-TOX: looks alright
-AISP: bit flat
-Tarbes: dirty left side, otherwise alright (despite lots of blockage)
-TTW: blurry nose, HIF
-BTY: looks nice
-GGJ: HIF, flat
airkas1 wrote:Ah sorry. Flat means low contrast, it's 'slang' we use for screening (and sometimes also outside of it hehe).
HarryLi wrote:F-GJOD looks ok to me although i think the sharpness could be increased a little bit .
Psych wrote:Hello Vinicius.
That photo of Oscar Delta looks good to me overall. I think sharpening is very difficult for such a photo, because a livery like this, with thin dark lines on a white fuselage is going to give jaggies very quickly, so there is a very fine line between softness and it suddenly looking oversharpened with jaggies. I would be content with this edit if it were mine. It could probably take a little more contrast if you wished - the port engine in view almost merges with the white fuselage.
Good luck with it.
Paul
airkas1 wrote:The tail feels a little blurryish, but I'd accept it as-is.
JKPhotos wrote:Hi,
the Sideral Looks a bit unlevelled, sure it is rolling down a bridge, but the light post on the left, as well as others on the right assume it needs clockwise rotation. Otherwise I personally find the fence in the foreground a bit distracting and think that a view where the aircraft is on the bridge would be more interesting and less than 50% of the gear should be covered. But this probably won't be a rejection reason.
The TAM is nice, but the fuselage is rather soft, doesn't look to be the sharpest. It would definitely need more sharpening.
Regards,
Julien
Psych wrote:Hello again Vinicius.
Regarding the two images you have recently posted, I agree with Julien that 'SDM' does need further leveling. Too much in the photo suggests that the photo is leaning down slightly from right to left. I would use the far edge of the taxiway, behind the wheels, as my leveling reference. I took your photo into PS to have a closer look and, doing that, resulted in about 0.7 degree clockwise rotation. That doesn't sound much, but it helped, and didn't really affect the verticals of the foreground fence. The aircraft itself is very bright, and I wonder whether you are too worried about how the foreground looks. For me those areas should look darker, so would benefit from more contrast. Have you lifted the lighting in those areas? I would be very happy to do an edit for you to show you what I mean if you would find this helpful. Just let me know if you would like that.
As for 'MHF', I do like these kinds of shots, but this one is definitely soft as it stands. The nose/flightdeck area is the real giveaway for that, but it's apparent throughout, such as the cabin windows and the right engine cowling/wing leading edge.
Again - if you need any help with an edit I would be very happy to help.
Take care.
Paul
airkas1 wrote:MHF is not only very soft, but also blurry. Won't be salvagabe, sorry.
SDM needs a bit of CW, but should otherwise be alright.
airkas1 wrote:Yes, the link you posted in your post above mine. It's quite blurry.
vcruvinel wrote:I really want your help and some editing tips (new ideias and parameters are aways welcome!). Can I send a PM with the original RAW file?
Psych wrote:vcruvinel wrote:I really want your help and some editing tips (new ideias and parameters are aways welcome!). Can I send a PM with the original RAW file?
Hello. I have sent you a PM on the site. Very happy to help in any way I can.
Cheers.
Paul
airkas1 wrote:I've submitted the correction for you this time, but please keep in mind that an aircraft without any titles needs to be listed as "Untitled" in the airline field. Not "Private".
vcruvinel wrote:Kas, even if I know the owner of the aircraft I need to put "Untitled" because the a/c has no titles?
vcruvinel wrote:In this one I put "Private (Eagle Express Aviation)".
vcruvinel wrote:About the SDM, Paul start help me and give some tips to improve my workflow. What about this version?
airkas1 wrote:vcruvinel wrote:Kas, even if I know the owner of the aircraft I need to put "Untitled" because the a/c has no titles?
Correct.vcruvinel wrote:In this one I put "Private (Eagle Express Aviation)".
Only the 'Private' part is wrong. Any untitled aircraft should have "Untitled" as airline 1 and the operator/owner in airline 2 or 3. So in this case, it should've been "Untitled (Eagle Express Aviation)".vcruvinel wrote:About the SDM, Paul start help me and give some tips to improve my workflow. What about this version?
Looks alright.
vcruvinel wrote:
airkas1 wrote:I'd go for 1600px and that shopuld look fine.
airkas1 wrote:Yeah, this looks better. The tail is somewhat soft, hence the smaller is better comment.
The TAP isn't that bad, but could benefit from an increase in brightness (mostly the bottom half of the photo). I would advise you to play with the sliders a bit until you get the right result. Maybe some extra noise reduction to go with it, but other than that it looks passable. In any case it doesn't look for to me.
HarryLi wrote:The window view looks very pretty ! But the window looks very dirty ? And the dirty seems to affect the whole picture as i can see the black trace among the picture. I am not sure if that would be accepted.
airkas1 wrote:The name on the nose is oversharpened and I would try to reuce the highlights. The sun glare is quite dominant.you could try to add whites if the fuselage becomes too underexposed.
airkas1 wrote:It's a bit high in frame but otherwise passable I guess. May I ask why you choose a 4:3 crop? It makes for a lot of empty space for no real reason in my opinion.
Do you still need an opinion on those 4 you posted a week ago?
vcruvinel wrote:airkas1 wrote:It's a bit high in frame but otherwise passable I guess. May I ask why you choose a 4:3 crop? It makes for a lot of empty space for no real reason in my opinion.
Do you still need an opinion on those 4 you posted a week ago?
Nice, Kas. I will upload this shot. Answering your question: I tried to crop as 16:9 ratio but when I tried to do this the, tail got very close to the top of the frame and look a bit strange..so I decided to do a 4:3 ratio crop. But you're a right, if I crop in 4:3 I also got a lot of empty space. But in your opinion, it's better to crop in 16:9 even if the tail got close to the top of the frame? I can do a new version in this dimension.
Kaphias wrote:vcruvinel wrote:airkas1 wrote:It's a bit high in frame but otherwise passable I guess. May I ask why you choose a 4:3 crop? It makes for a lot of empty space for no real reason in my opinion.
Do you still need an opinion on those 4 you posted a week ago?
Nice, Kas. I will upload this shot. Answering your question: I tried to crop as 16:9 ratio but when I tried to do this the, tail got very close to the top of the frame and look a bit strange..so I decided to do a 4:3 ratio crop. But you're a right, if I crop in 4:3 I also got a lot of empty space. But in your opinion, it's better to crop in 16:9 even if the tail got close to the top of the frame? I can do a new version in this dimension.
I use 3:2 on almost all of my photos, I find it's a nice balance between 4:3 and 16:9. The challenge with your photo will be where the top of the frame aligns with the buildings... can be awkward if only a little sky is showing.
airkas1 wrote:Ultimately the crop is up to the photographer and we wouldn't reject for it, but in such cases I'm sorry to say that I find 4:3 ugly (personal taste though)
3:2 would already work much better for that photo.
1: Passable for me
2: Soft tail, nose. Would like work in 1600px
3: Passable for me
4: Looks fine to me as well
airkas1 wrote:Yeah, you can appeal, let me know when you've done so.