Are the motives and crop on these photos acceptable?

ajaaron · Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:03 am

IMG_5686 II by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

IMG_5713 II by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

IMG_5805 II by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

IMG_5810 II by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

ajaaron · Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:14 am

and how about this one? Is the centering ok?

IMG_5827 II by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

ajaaron · Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:27 am

IMG_5924 II by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

DL747 · Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:08 am

Again, please keep pre-screen requests all in the same thread. I'll reply by number 1-6 in order of how they're posted.
1. Seems pretty good, perhaps a bit soft in spots (gear door)
2. Poor light, flat, possibly blurry, looks compressed
3. Compressed, soft, flat, poor light, odd crop imo
4. Dark, poor light, noisy, compressed
5. Blurry, out of focus, bad crop
6. Flat, dark, soft, possibly blurry, needs CW rotation, compressed

ajaaron · Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:12 pm

In picture 1, is the motive acceptable...i.e the pilot waving?

Thanks!

Miguel1982 · Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:04 pm

Agree to what DL747 says, please keep all your requests in one topic.

My take, only about cropping and motives.

1. Point of attention is the waving pilot, this is a Motive rejection. From the Acceptance guide: "Close up cockpit shots with the only reason for the shot being showing pilots waving.". If the pilot wasn't the center of attention, it would then need a tighter crop on the gear doors, avoiding the clipped landing gear.

2.- I would try to either place it lower in the frame trying to avoid clipping the tail, or do a tighter crop on the left engine / right stab tip.

3.- Crop is unbalanced. Either include also the right wing or crop closer to the fuselage on both sides.

4.- Can be placed lower. Leave the same space between the wheel - bottom edge and antenna - upper edge.

5.- How do you see the centering? Is there anything in the frame that justifies it? I just see too much empty space on the left side. If you want to keep the signs on the bottom, crop it on a 4:3 format, but keep the space on both sides (roughly) equal.

6.- Same as the previous one. Can be cropped tighter on the right side. A bit of CW rotation would also help.

Cheers,
Miguel

ajaaron · Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:21 am

Any thoughts on this BA 777?

IMG_0669 by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

DL747 · Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:13 am

Quite compressed and therefore hard to provide feedback.

airkas1 · Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:20 am

Plus needs a tighter crop. Doesn't really work in 16:9 ratio and would be better in a 3:2 ratio.

ajaaron · Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:13 am

Ok gents... a few more questions...

1. How can you tell straight away that the BA 777 above is compressed?

2. Just had some pics rejected. I've now improved them as suggested, but do I need to re-upload as a new photo (and the consequent waiting time), or is there a way to re-submit and not join the back of the upload queue?

3. What are your thoughts on this VS A330?

VS 787 at 1200 by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

ajaaron · Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:45 am

This photo was rejected for the sky being over saturated, and over sharpened....

I've now made the improvements, what do the forum think?

744 less sharpening by Arnold Aaron, on Flickr

DL747 · Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:38 pm

The new version appears almost blurry and compressed; possibly the latter is causing the look of the former. I recommend that you upload your images to the queue and link here, that way it is easiest to see the uploaded version without artifacts applied by flickr, imgur, and the like.

ajaaron · Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:09 am

Ok -here it is as taken from my upload queue....

DL747 · Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:44 am

Those links work only for accepted images. Please go to that photo in the queue, right click on it and select copy image address, then you can paste that URL here so we can have a look.

ajaaron · Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:07 am

Ok, thanks for that... here it is. I've sharpened it as minimally as possible, hopefully I haven't induced jaggies, but that means perhaps it isn't as sharp as it could be??

As for compression that you mentioned earlier, I have edited this photo directly off the original RAW file and retained max quality, so hopefully compression isn't a factor here.

Kaphias · Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:14 pm

There are clearly jaggies all over the plane... most obvious areas are the leading edge of the wing and top of the "hump", can you see them there so you know what to look for in the future?

Would be curious to see the photo with no sharpening and/or to know what method you're using to save.

Edit: and how/when you're sharpening (CameraRAW, Photoshop, or both)

ajaaron · Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:55 pm

Photohoto with no sharpening at all, i.e. sharpening turned down to minimum on all sharpening settings.

I am actually using Canon Photo professional to do my editing (I realise not the best software for editing for this purpose), and I am editing the original RAW file and then converting/saving as a .jpg with size reduced. Quality setting retained at max.

DL747 · Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:48 pm

Latest shot seems quite soft, looks out of focus at the rear, and possibly blurry. Overall quality will make it hard to get accepted. What were the settings of this shot?

ajaaron · Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:53 pm

Photo was shot at 1/1000, f6.3, ISO 100 and at 35mm.

I should have used a higher f number which would have made the plane sharper at the back too.

Well, I guess I'll have to sharpen somewhat to remove the softness, yet not so much so that the jagged edges start to appear. mmm

ChrisLait · Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:32 am

On a day like the one in the photo, typically I would shoot at ISO100, f9 or f10 (mainly f9 though) and 1/400. Had some great feedback from the regulars here in the feedback forum about settings that worked for them and since using them on sunny days, I have had much more success in my acceptance rate.

Also, for editing, I use Adobe Lightroom. Some prefer Photoshop, but for me there are too many options and things to remember in Photoshop so Lightroom works for me. Not sure about the Canon editor, but if you can get a free trial on on of the adobe products, I would recommend them to you.

Hope this helps and gook luck with the shooting! :-)

airkas1 · Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:17 am

The most recent photo looks out of focus and quite oversaturated still. The sky looks unnaturally blue and the reds in the tail are way brighter than the actual livery is.

ajaaron · Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:34 pm

Moving on to another one... I've set this at 1024px, wondering what your thoughts are on this one....

Many thanks again...

DL747 · Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am

Looks dirty, overexposed slightly, yellow cast, flat, possibly soft, and appears to need CW rotation. If this is the same aircraft and date as the shot you already have accepted, I believe it would qualify as a double rejection.

ajaaron · Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:12 pm

What are your thoughts on this please, gentlemen...

dutchspotter1 · Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:19 pm

I don't like the cut wing and stabilizer.

airkas1 · Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:33 pm

dutchspotter1 wrote:
I don't like the cut wing and stabilizer.

Me neither. Also a bit oversharpened at the reg/titles and halos around the aircraft.

ajaaron · Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:54 pm

Thought on this please...as always....much appreciated

dutchspotter1 · Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:49 pm

Not sure about the motive, but anyway it needs more contrast.

Runway28L · Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:31 pm

I'd entirely crop out the window that is furthest to the right.

ajaaron · Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:00 pm

Bumped up the contrast, and cut off the last window....

Not sure I've got it quite right though????

Waelalqutub · Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:14 pm

Hello ajaaron,
I'm not a screener, however, unfortunately, this picture won't pass screening.
Here's why.
Firstly there are dust spots I have circled them out for you in red here >> https://ibb.co/frRj4z
Also the plane is slightly not in frame please check the grid here >> https://ibb.co/mjqixK i would count the squared grids nose up and tail down you will notice its not centered in frame
and lastly, there is noise all over and especially around the lower section of the fuselage & Engine Cowling
Hope this helps

Waelalqutub · Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:19 pm

Also this Picture is Backlit as you can see from an Equalized version >> https://ibb.co/nrOTxK

Kaphias · Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:18 am

Waelalqutub wrote:
Also the plane is slightly not in frame please check the grid here >> https://ibb.co/mjqixK i would count the squared grids nose up and tail down you will notice its not centered in frame

That's not how you center a photo. Consider the landing gear, darker green at bottom of frame vs lighter blue at top of frame, etc.

I think I need to write a post on how to center at some point.

DL747 · Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:23 am

As far as centering, it is a bit high in frame for me. Centering is fairly subjective, so I wouldn't necessarily say that it has to be geometrically centered or centered by weight. Probably a blend of the two. I also wouldn't say it's backlit, more noselit. Nonetheless, I would advise starting with more straightforward shots in good light near sunrise or sunset if possible.

ajaaron · Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:04 am

Thanks for your input....what about the colour? - Is that ok? or is it looking a little yellow?

PS - The 'dustspots' you mentioned Wael, are actually birds, I believe. PPS - Love your shots at Heathrow Wael, especially landings on 27L with the BA concrete maintenance building in background - still trying to figure where you were positioned for those shots!

Waelalqutub · Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:12 pm

ajaaron wrote:
Thanks for your input....what about the colour? - Is that ok? or is it looking a little yellow?

PS - The 'dustspots' you mentioned Wael, are actually birds, I believe. PPS - Love your shots at Heathrow Wael, especially landings on 27L with the BA concrete maintenance building in background - still trying to figure where you were positioned for those shots!

Hello ajaaron,
as for the birds since they are very small and very destant
It counts as a dust spot, i would clear them out using a dust spot removal tool if your using photoshop,
As for my 27L shots showing the BA hangers i will definitely send you a Private message once i get home since this is a photography feedback fourm

Have a good day

ajaaron · Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:55 am

What are your thoughts on this Kenyan 787?

Waelalqutub · Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:15 pm

Hello Arnold,
The plane looks a bit high in the frame & slightly underexposed and soft under the tail but we will have to wait and see what the screeners have to say about this
anyway, have a look why the plane is high in the frame I've marked this out for you https://ibb.co/j2CSMe

Waelalqutub · Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:15 pm

just to add that the crop is tight on the right compared to the left where the nose is

airkas1 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Framing is fine, maybe slightly underexposed but fixable. Soft at the tail is due to the exhaust and should be fixbale with some selective sharpening in that area.

ajaaron · Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:07 am

Just had this photo rejected for

- Compression
- Soft
- Blurry

Compression - not sure how this is compressed - I've edited it off the original RAW file and uploaded it - I haven't copied it and then edited off a .jpg. What leads the screener to the conclusion that it suffers from compression?

As for blurry/soft, please advise where it is blurry? Is it not in focus, and sufficiently sharp?

Cheers,

Arnold.

dutchspotter1 · Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:41 am

Cockpit looks rather soft/blurry; there might be compression in the sky but this could also be caused by white-out.

ajaaron · Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:39 am

Is it worth appealing this?

ChrisLait · Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:12 am

I wouldn't. I agree the cockpit looks blurry. Sorry :-(

ajaaron · Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:25 pm

Could I change the size, either larger or smaller with that improve it?

airkas1 · Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:19 pm

Although the cockpitwindows seem soft, that could be the light. In general, the photo is quite oversharpened/jaggy.

JakTrax · Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:58 pm

It certainly looks softer at the nose than the rest of the aircraft, but I'd probably not go as far as to say blurry. I've said many times that it's really not possible to succinctly conclude that an image is blurry from the small sizes we see here. The main problem with this image is that it features a very common subject in poor light, so it will invariably be scrutinised far more closely.

Karl

ajaaron · Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:41 am

How about this photo? I've cropped it, and tried to get the contrast right...many thanks, A.

JakTrax · Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:05 pm

Contrast still looks weak to me.

Karl

airkas1 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:35 am

Slightly blurry/very soft at best and low contrast.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net