Printable View
Not really, I can see a difference in the two crops the one already in the DB is much better. In fact I bet if you cropped in a little tighter you would get this in. Just getting rid of some of the dead space makes it look a bit more clean and pleasing to the eye.Quote:
I guess it depends on the screener...
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-...1257475206.jpg
The VS, you can see the oversharpening in the titles, especially in the "No way BA/AA" decal.
The EK, again in the titles, reg, and tail decal.
The OZ, again in the titles, forward decal, and the back of the tail.
The AA, in the titles, tail decal, and cheat lines.
Sharpen in layers like I showed you. Then before you merge the layers run your eraser tool at varying opacities over the oversharp areas to make everything ok. Then merge.
Sergio they are a little. I mean the first two seem ok but the second two are a little too sharp. I would just stick with USM and ease off a little.
Can anyone see where or how this is soft?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2808559
Just about everywhere Serge.
1. Is soft, especially on the tail. Some selective sharpening will fix it.
2. Is soft everywhere, and I'm guessing you didn't check "biz jet"
3. Look at your histogram, and the cheat lines are pretty jagged.
4. Just muck that one and reprocess the original file. Pay close attention to your histogram bro.
Looks like a lack of light and the lower F stop was a factor here. Next time I'd leave the F stop at F8 or F9 and bump up the ISO which it appears you did. You probably could save it by doing another pass of USM in Photoshop as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
Was hoping this might have been bright enough to make it..
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2847199
Mark that one is an easy fix. You certainly have enough room to bring up the levels. Email the original to me if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Thanks Tom - my external is at work - I'll do that over the next day or so! Appreciated!Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Don't really get this one - the info is correct...and there's nothing incorrect about the comment:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2873966
Update: Apparently adding .com to NYCAviation was the problem :? . Back to the bottom of the pile it goes... :|