Jeremy - the top half of your night shot seems pretty empty, and the nosewheel on the front aircraft is obstructed. Would probably get a motive rejection on those two counts.
Printable View
Jeremy - the top half of your night shot seems pretty empty, and the nosewheel on the front aircraft is obstructed. Would probably get a motive rejection on those two counts.
You can see purple in the reflections, signs of chromatic aberration. It is also dark and backlit. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the overall quality of this shot makes it one for the personal collection.
Thanks for the input!:smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
How is this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/9/1/2...1327207219.jpg
Kris, last one seems a bit soft, oof and maybe too distant? Also grainy and a bit underexposed. Maybe also a bit low in frame but it may be subjective
Kris, all are a little to very soft. If you like, you can send me an original RAW or JPG and I can let you know if they are good enough and maybe just your edits above. If too much OOF or distant on the originals, it may be no way to salvage. I am at work and my monitor here is pretty poor but the contrast on some seems a bit harsh as well. Mid-Day shooting is difficult to edit :-) Unless it is an absolute must have, I usually go and have lunch from 11:00am to 1:30pm or whenever sun is at highest point. This is of course as far as the A.net and JP.net databases are concerned. For personal collection, anything goes :P
Thank you Manny, my Macbook screen makes them look sharp, guess I should double sharpen then.
Will send you the original JPG of the 2 I must have. (The Air Canada and the United)
Kris
Here are they more sharpened.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1047/img0370gt.jpg
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5765/img0659r.jpg
Much better :-) The Air Canada is still a bit soft mainly tail/nose but not by much... use small USM numbers ... the United is still a bit off on the tip of the nose but it may be my poor monitor at work ...
Still working on them... :smile:
Here is another this time a US Air, rare for me to see them.
I am unsure if this counts as backlight, hence because the shot was taken at 12:00 Noon where the sun is at its highest point in the sky.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/8/8...1327348882.jpg
It will be challenged I am sure. It is borderline... I wouldn;t bother as it is not a pretty picture light-wise. If I were you, keep it on personal gallery or Flickr :-) Now, if you really want a technical assesment of the lighting, the sun is NOT directly overhead. If you can see the light on the WestJet, it is coming directly from the left of the image. Indeed you see the top of the 757 is lit but the nose is dark. If indeed the sun was directly overhead, the WestJet would look exactly like the 757 which is the top is lit and the fuselage is not. i will draw a quick picture to show you what I mean...
As Manny stated.........keep it as a personal favorite. Unfortunately the lighting was not in your favor.
Thanks Manny for the diagram, very helpful!
How are these?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/9/0...1327455093.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/9/7...1327453796.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/8/8/3...1327453388.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/0/1...1327453102.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/8/5/2...1327347258.jpg
Hope these are worth it, I got major sun burn! :redface:
1 is blurry, probably not salvageable.
2 is very dark.
3, 4 and 5 are acceptable.
Couple more added to the Q.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/4/6/5...1327467564.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/0/3/2...1327468230.jpg
Mike that is irresponsible... REMOVE that photo immediately. First of all, there is a human being just about to get crushed by the beastly monster and second of all, I still don;t have a picture of this plane.
Funny story...after I shot it that day, I saw it two more times at the gate while I was down in MIA...then again at IAD just a few weeks ago. Sorry Manny, you got the 748, I got Sharko.
I like the angle, is this any good?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/6/2...1327726268.jpg
same plane again.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/3/6...1327725638.jpg
The one chance I had at Sharko at MIA, she came 3 hours late....2 hours past sunset. Then on my departing flight, we sat for a few minutes, waiting to taxi....with Sharko parked right next to us, looking sweet with the cabin lights on. On my EWR-MIA flight, we stopped right next to the US Airways Nevada plane....another I've been trying to get a good shot of, for the longest time. The spotting gods hate me.Quote:
Originally Posted by threeholerglory
Is this worth uploading?
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1008/img4691m.jpg
Kris, for the AA's, 1 is a bad crop, plane is cut off, and the horizon is unlevel. For #2, the horizon is also unlevel.
The Continental looks good.
So did I fix #1 now?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/0/4...1327741406.jpg
I'm not sure about the first one if they would reject it or not. Part of me thinks it would get in as it is nice and sharp and none of the fuselage is cut off and it is centered in the frame. But part of me thinks that if you get a screener that is having a bad day he will reject it for "part of plane cut off/missing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris V
The second photo I think will get rejected for being soft. It may just be my crappy monitor here at the office, but to me the second photo looks soft.
The first is likely unsalvageable, unless the original includes the nose gear. Both are still unlevel.
Here is one that could use presreening.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/3/1...1327988130.jpg
Also check the link to see if sharp, undersharp please.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3744111
It's slightly softer towards the front, but I think it's okay.
Kris that last one looks to be soft/oversharpened which is my way of saying it was OOF or too soft to start with and was overcompensated for in post. Look at the size of the aliasing and you see what I mean. The left winglet and nose look soft still.
Hey Kris, my pleasure... these are not so great in my opinion. Subject matter and composition are fine but, overall, you have a lot of purple fringing, heat haze/distance and other issues. First off I'd like to encourage you to pre-set some settings on your camera. I notice that all the pictures have either Auto Exposure or worse, Auto Program modes used. This can cause you to have inconsistent results. Here is what I suggest you do:
--Set your camera to Aperture Priority Mode. Canon calls it Av I believe.
--Set the ISO to 200 MANUALLY. Turn OFF any Auto ISO functions. Go as low as you can on ISO given your available light.
--Turn off any features which enhance exposure after the picture is taken. Anything like Highlight Protection or Shadow Protection or the like. This can create halos.
--Set your Exposure Meter to Evaluative.
--Set your Aperture to f/8 for sunny days. Dial in - 1/3rd or 1/7th exposure compensation depending on your resulting histogram.
--Cloudy days, I would set it to f/7.1 or f/6.3 and dial in +1/3rd exposure compensation to start and check your histogram.
--Set your White Balance to Daylight or Auto (if shooting RAW) or Cloudy if overcast.
You should get consistently better photos. When shooting, keep your forehead planted hard against your eye-cup on the back of your camera and brace your elbows to your ribcage. This may be old news to you but it is always worth repeating. I also try to speak to the greater audience that reads these forums, not just you.
Now to the above:
1: Soft, Purple Fringing, High in frame, blocked wheels
2: Too contrasty, could be brighter, grainy
3: Looks ok, maybe a bit of compensation on the rear wheels ... they look pure black.
4: Poor quality, purple fringing, oversharpened, overexposed, too contrasty, heat haze.
Please do ask any questions you like about exposure, metering, etc.
Manny I must ask....how do you see through your forehead? I'm damn impressed by your results! :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
He is really, really near-sighted and plants his forehead hard against the eyecup to get really close to the LCD to see the live-view function. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by threeholerglory
Alright, some Airliners.net pre-screening sought here. I am fighting a losing battle against quality in terms of softness with this camera, however I thought I'd keep on fighting to get some JFK stuff accepted (somehow got a Cargolux 744F in today :cool:.
These are the first 3 that I am focusing on, and any input would rock!
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...74img_7306.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...16img_7446.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...15img_6758.jpg
Nick
I said Eye[cup] not Eye[piece] :tongue: big difference. But you;re right, my head is pretty thick in that region :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by threeholerglory
Nick,Quote:
Originally Posted by NickPeterman
Singapore is a bit soft around the titles
Air India looks ok but may be a little soft around the tail
Asiana looks a little soft. Maybe fixable by stronger sharpening.
How are these?
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg194...jpg&res=medium
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg542...jpg&res=medium
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg406...jpg&res=medium
Are they A-net/JP quality? Or just JP, or personnel collection?
Trying something a little more artistic for jp.net
Thoughts, comments? Any change to the crop?
http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/pot...72n387am-L.jpg
I would crop a little tighter so the tails fill more of the frame Jeremy.
What do you think? its already in Queue..
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...img_8240_b.jpg