I've got two versions here and not sure which is better to send, or if either will make it...input is appreciated!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5181/...f1731368_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5141/...3fa89e5a_b.jpg
Printable View
I've got two versions here and not sure which is better to send, or if either will make it...input is appreciated!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5181/...f1731368_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5141/...3fa89e5a_b.jpg
Definitely the first one... more balanced and does not chop the parts indiscriminately ... :-)
I would tighten the histogram a bit as it seems a little flat. Here is a quick touch up... curves and color balance to taste.
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1251011397_Pb62a-O.jpg
you should also leave a BIT of breathing room around the edges, not cropping TOO tightly... crop tight, but not to touch the edges if you don't need to... For me, if I am showing the whole plane, I leave about 5 to 10 pixels from any edge to the nearest part...
If I am cropping, I may crop super tight on an engine nacelle or a window etc, but it is dynamic.
In REAL photography, breathing room is very important. On Airliners, they prefer a tighter crop than not, but that's not to say you can;t have a pleasing border around the aircraft and the closest part to the edges :-)
Cheers!
I have a really good feeling I will be seeing a motive rejection on this one because of the beltloader and jetway but figure it was worth the shot anyways-
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...reflection.jpg
Most certainly. You were damned if you did or you didn't. If you wait for ground equip and jetway to pull back you have the tug there.Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks7757
That is a sweet shot Bran... but definitely motive rejection because the of the blocked number 1 engine, left wing and bottom of number 2 engine. :-(
Which honestly is retarded as it is a dam good shot for being through glass and at night.
Quality wise it sure is but the jetway just kills it unfortunately. Can't fault anet here just about anyone would agree the clutter takes away from a great angle of the aircraft at night. Like I said that shot is very tough to pull off since if he is pushing and the jetway is gone you have the tug in the way. Your best chance is when he is arriving at the gate when only the marshal is in the foreground but it's a very tough motive to nail. Worth chasing though for if you do it will be money.Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks7757
A little help on this one from you guys, this is my 1st time submitting a DC3, do I have to check off "Warbird/Vintage" Just don't want to get a rejection for "missing categories "
Thanks :)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3491361
Definitely vintage so check it off... maybe a tiny bit underexposed? I can;t say for sure since I am at work and not calibrated :P
Thanks for your help as always sir !Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Having a go with an evening/night shot. Not sure if it is over-processed? 1000 pxl is the most I think I can get out of this one.
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...8cnight-XL.jpg
Jeremy, nice image... you have the original? I'd love to give it a shot if you like... you know my E-mail :-)
coming your way! It might not resemble the image post:tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
no worries.. they never do! :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
One of the first images from my last trip.
C/C please
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...pn210fr-XL.jpg
ISO2500, 1/20th, f4.5 Through the glass, handheld
Unfortunately, this would get an automatic rejection just for the blocked gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/7/1/2...1318168217.jpg
Trying to save that one, do you guys think it has a shot?
Adam, a bit contrasty and underexposed on my screen here... Could the original stand a +1/3 to 2/3 stops of exposure compensation? IF JPG, it may be tougher to get away with it.
Very nice Mike!Quote:
Originally Posted by threeholerglory
Can someone give me a hand on finding the cn and block number for this bad boy?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/6/4...1318076461.jpg
Try this website - you will find it here:Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
http://f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-...and-inventory/
I looked there for 84-0382 when I should have been using 84-1382. Got it now!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_NY
just got this into the queue...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...831aerolam.jpg
I would accept solely on star value :-) That being said, Maybe a bit underexposed? Here is a quick boost in contrast, exposure and saturation. Light bands are my edit...
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-JZj9dzH.jpg
Good luck sir, hope it gets accepted. I am still cursing for this picture!
Good Morning NYCA!
Browsing through the HD and found a few shots from the 2010 Great MN Airshow that I might try and get into jp.net. Horrible light most of the time, but I think this one has a chance
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...T7750ba2-L.jpg
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...9_c5MdQN4-O-LB
Any editing suggestions? Also what would I use for the plane upload information? Thanks in advance.
Hey guys, what are the chances of getting this on jp.net? Unfortunately I do not have the N-number.
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...wevening-L.jpg
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...0_S7p5bK6-O-LB
This previously got rejected for dark. It was shot at 2300, so it was dark outside. Bounced the flash of the roof of the flight deck which blew out the LCD screens a bit.
Re-editted and played with the shadow/highlight a bit.
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...8n8631e3-L.jpg
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...5_sNXBHJ4-O-LB
Any comments appreciated!
Jeremy
This is too dark in my opinion
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...wevening-L.jpg
I think this should do, make SURE to check off "NIGHT SHOT" as well
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6...52b87e06_b.jpg
I am new to the JP/A-Net, and I would like someone prescreen my pics...i think I bugged enough people to double check me, so I'll give this a shot!
Was rejected because of undersharpening, is this good now?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/4/2...1326580248.jpg
UPS 744 hope I centered it right.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/9/7...1326580793.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/4/3...1326581341.jpg
Is this one blurry?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/6/1...1326583166.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/8/0...1326663082.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/7/7/5...1326865577.jpg
Sorry if I over did this.
#1 seems blurry and a bit off-color; I don't think any amount of sharpening could fix that.
#2 looks okay, maybe a TOUCH of USM.
#3 looks far, lacking in contrast and soft, maybe salvageable.
#4 looks pretty well exposed and pretty sharp to me, just a big of color noise, especially noticeable in the red areas, but that's okay.
#5 and #6 look good.
Than you very much for the help on that, the FD MD-11 is very faded though, but your prob right.
Fixing the other ones that need fixing. :smile:
Also on #1 parts of the plane are chopped off. Not sure if they would accept that crop. Keep posting up images! I love the cargo planes!
Kris -
1 Fedex is soft around the nose and a bit dark. The motive/parts cut off is fine as the crop is motivated.
2 UPS 744 looks good, I would instant add (make sure CARGO checked)
3 UPS might be a touch low, but crop is technically ok as you are leaving left wing in
4 NAC I would instant add, again check CARGO
5 Alaska I would instant add
6 UPS touch low in the frame but otherwise would instant add (and again CARGO category)
Well I come from the city of the cargo...Well my next photo is a Combi 737.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3729791
Sweet! Cargo Love!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris V
Hoping for some cargo love on Friday.
Fedex 777 is the cropping good?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/3/0...1326814032.jpg
Alaska Combi sharpened good?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/1/6...1326944610.jpg
Or the same for her?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/5/1...1326813156.jpg
A couple more I could use some prescreening.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/8/9...1327089982.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/3/8...1327090831.jpg
Kris, The Alaska looks fine, The SW looks a little soft, if you like send me the original and I will be more than happy to give you my take on it [email protected]
Kris......my two cents........both look soft to me, I would sharpen both. The composition of the Alaska looks sweet, although I might crop the image to the back of the tail. The Southwest composition doesn't agree with me, maybe it's the perspective or something.
I find both to be soft... especially the Alaska (what a gorgeous c/s that is!! missed it at LAX :-( )
Anyhow, the Southwest I felt the shadows could use some curve tweaks so I also did that and some selective sharpening. It will never look great editing an already resized JPG but here they go...
DON'T FORGET that the forum code indiscriminately re-sizes any image above 800 pixels wide so right-click and view image at its original size for the correct view.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-qr6LmB4.jpg
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-8d6qwW3.jpg
Thought I would try a night shot from the KMSP observation deck. Luckily I shot RAW and I has been tweaked to get it this far. Comments, suggestions appreciated.
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...459aramp-M.jpg
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#!i=1680144774&k=gRhjL5N&lb=1&s=O
and the jpeg conversion uneditted
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_ZFL7vj#!i=1680144882&k=vkztpjc&lb=1&s=O
Thanks in advance!