kulverstukas wrote:

What "Left in frame" mean?

kulverstukas wrote:

"Soft" which doesn't feels soft for me

airkas1 wrote:

It means exactly what it says.. Subject is too left in the frame (not centered).

kulverstukas wrote:

Hm... I know that left is right and right is wrong but does it apply to aviation pictures? Seriously, Kas, you seems dismissed both rejection reasons, right? In case I still want to frame it the way it is (which technically comply with Anet rules)?

airkas1 wrote:

kulverstukas wrote:

Hm... I know that left is right and right is wrong but does it apply to aviation pictures? Seriously, Kas, you seems dismissed both rejection reasons, right? In case I still want to frame it the way it is (which technically comply with Anet rules)?

Of course it applies to aviation images. You have to take horizontal centering in account too, not just vertical centering. And I didn't dismiss either rejection. I explained what "left of frame" means and I said the sharpening is passable. If you include the rotor, it would be borderline OK for me, although it does look unbalanced from that angle (which is why Steve's crop looks better).

kulverstukas wrote:

if I upload another shoot with same copter at the same place same day but hoods closed and engine started (first ground test of new modification) will it be rejected as double?

kulverstukas wrote:

Blurry and OS?

kulverstukas wrote:

Appealed it, let's wait outcome.

angad84 wrote:

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 78): I think this one don't worth trying even at 1024?
If you don't try to get this up - at ANY size - I will be very sad.

Cheers
A

kulverstukas wrote:

Soft? I just exchanged all my editing gears and has three different screens attached - 17" 1920x1080, 24' 2560x1440 and old one 20" 1600x900 (which I put instead of sole 24" 1920x1200 I used to check how it looks like on non-retinas). All three makes me impression that its closer to OS.

kulverstukas wrote:

Managed to get it through a couple of rejections and to PC after a bit hot worded appeal

kulverstukas wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 78): I think this one don't worth trying even at 1024?
If you don't try to get this up - at ANY size - I will be very sad.

Cheers
A

Managed to get it through a couple of rejections and to PC after a bit hot worded appeal

angad84 wrote:

kulverstukas wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 78): I think this one don't worth trying even at 1024?
If you don't try to get this up - at ANY size - I will be very sad.

Cheers
A

Managed to get it through a couple of rejections and to PC after a bit hot worded appeal

I saw that -- good man!

Cheers
A

airkas1 wrote:

That's quite an angle of attack. Looks passable to me.

angad84 wrote:

The An-2 is a bit backlit, but the cool factor might make up for it

airkas1 wrote:

Usually blurryness can't be fixed. But sometimes going to a smaller size will help 'hide' blurryness (as in it being less apparent).

airkas1 wrote:

I'm not on my screening computer at the moment, so I'll check back later this week to offer an opinion.

kulverstukas wrote:

Thanks. BTW, what is your screening installation?

airkas1 wrote:

kulverstukas wrote:

Thanks. BTW, what is your screening installation?

My screening monitor is an iiyama Pro Lite XB2483SHU.