Do you need any Pre-Screening? - Limited to CREW reply ONLY. - Page 2 - JetPhotos.Net Forums

robw · 03-14-2006, 07:44 PM

I was very lucky to fly over Mount Fuji on a brilliantly clear day and would like to get a shot of the wing view over it accepted. However there was a lot of dirt on the window and my original effort was rejected for sensor dust spots (which was the window dirt). I've done my best to clone out the dirt but would it be rejected for digitally manipulated? I've reduced the size of the image so it could be uploaded here so this image isn't the final version. I just would like some opinions regarding the dirt/dust. If it's no good would anyone with superior editing skills be able to have a go at my original or is it a hopeless cause.
Much appreciated.
PS Great thread idea!

LX-A343 · 03-14-2006, 08:30 PM

Rob, there still some traces left of your cloning job. But apart from the quality, I think, the motive is a bit off. The visible part of the wing is too small and too far away, it's almost disturbing an otherwise perfect shot.

Gerardo

robw · 03-14-2006, 08:52 PM

Thanks Gerardo. It was unfortunate that this was the best I could do to get the wing and the mountain in the shot. Looks like it'll have to be one for the personal collection. At least it might get seen by a few in this thread!!

BA747-436 · 03-15-2006, 11:47 AM

Awesome view of Fuji! Overall though yeah the photo is quite 'dirty' in the sky area, and as Gerardo said not really enough of the wing showing.

MaxPower · 03-16-2006, 12:28 AM

So the angle is not quite amazing, maybe I should move next time a little more to the left so im completely below the aircraft !

-----------------------

Okey, these ones are in the queue, but I decided to show them here first to our screeners, so I can pull them out in time from the queue, if its not good enough to database standards..

Part missing or good enough ?
Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) » Airbus A340-313X OY-KBC
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=869247

Sharp or not ?
Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) » Airbus A340-313X OY-KBI
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=869238

Too Dark,maybe need more light ?
Varig » McDonnell Douglas MD-11 PP-VTJ
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868469

Too Dark,maybe need more light ?
Blue1 » British Aerospace Avro RJ100 OH-SAN
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868467

Slight backlit, front aft ??
Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) » McDonnell Douglas MD-87
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=868466

Thanks for help !

AJ · 03-16-2006, 01:13 AM

Hi John.
1. Yeah, it does look cut off, a crop closer to the nose and tail cone may be better. Also it appears oversharpened.
2. Also has major jaggies indicating oversharpening. The nose and slats have also been overexposed.
3. Looks okay, perhaps overcontrast but not excessive.
4. Looks okay.
5. Looks fine.

Cheers!

MaxPower · 03-16-2006, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ

Hi John.
1. Yeah, it does look cut off, a crop closer to the nose and tail cone may be better. Also it appears oversharpened.
2. Also has major jaggies indicating oversharpening. The nose and slats have also been overexposed.
3. Looks okay, perhaps overcontrast but not excessive.
4. Looks okay.
5. Looks fine.

Cheers!

1. So it doesnt matter if I crop a little bit cloer to the tail cone and nose, so wouldnt it be a reject if the horisontal Stabilisers are missing in the frame ?

2. So this is a no-can-do ? Last opinion, I guess I have to pull this out from the queue.

3. Okey, when I look at it again, it does look like it is overcontrasted, but its good to hear that its not excessive, so I dont haev to start over again to the original !

4. and 5. Great. Thanks for your help AJ !

sluger020889 · 03-16-2006, 02:25 AM

I was sitting on the beach in between arrivals (thats my crap there at the bottum) and thought this would be an intersting shot. Will it hold up motive wise?

egll · 03-16-2006, 05:41 AM

No it won't unfortunately, there is just nothing going on in the bottom third of the shot to draw a viewers attention, and the gap between the plane and the water is just too big.

Next time try and wait until something is happening in that bottom third and try a portrait shot (1024x683) with something big like a 747 on approach instead of a silly little 320.

I have no idea what traffic you get at this spot, but even if you don't get heavy stuff I hope you get what I am trying to say in the above paragraph.

Matt

sluger020889 · 03-16-2006, 10:32 AM

ok thanks. 747s come around TPA as often as the A380 flys into LGA, lol, so if one should ever show up, I'm gonna be going for something a bit more conventional. But thanks for your imput, and I understand what you're were getting at, rule of thirds.

Star Alliance · 03-20-2006, 12:10 AM

How about any of these? If they have a shot, could you tell me what needs done?
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c...30/P1000372.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c...30/P1000376.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c...30/P1000359.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c...30/P1000382.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c...30/P1000371.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c...30/P1000380.jpg

tsentsan · 03-20-2006, 02:26 AM

1. Seems abit dark and soft, probably caused by being in the shade.
2. Unlevel and backlit.
3. Unlevel but can be rotated. Brighten it a tad also.
4. Hmmm, tough one. Guess it could be accepted.
5. Dark & cut off. Why show half the plane? Is there a reason? Maybe show the fuelsage infront of the wing instead?
6. Dark and unlevel.

ThomasW1974 · 03-21-2006, 07:14 AM

Hi!
Very good idea to create this thread. A bit of prescreening help from those
who know the business is always appreciated. Here are some Wingview photos from my flight VIE-ZRH on a A321/FlyNiki. My first attempt on such pictures.
Do they stand any chance?

Thanks for any advice, Thomas

CPH Aviation · 03-21-2006, 07:20 AM

The first one has some windowglare right in the middle of the wing, but the other two looks good i my eyes. The third one could use just a bit more light

Soren

ThomasW1974 · 03-21-2006, 07:26 AM

Thanks for your comment Soren!

I'll give 2&3 a try. You're right about the windowglare on Nr. 1. For the third one, you would be impressed about the result, if you had seen the original which was...well let's say just black

Thomas

cja · 03-21-2006, 09:37 AM

Another questionable gloomy day shot.

looks ok on my laptop but a bit dark on my work desktop What do you guys think, (I am thinking personal collection).

ORIGINAL EXIF
Camera Model
Canon EOS 20D
Shooting Date/Time
20/03/2006 09:55:25
Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/200
Av( Aperture Value )
10.0
Metering Mode
Center-Weighted Average Metering
Exposure Compensation
+1/3
ISO Speed
200
Lens
28.0 - 300.0 mm
Focal Length
65.0 mm
Image Size
3504x2336
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
Off
White Balance Mode
Auto
AF Mode
AI Servo AF
Parameters Settings
Contrast Standard
Sharpness Standard
Color saturation Standard
Color tone 0
Color Space
Adobe RGB
Noise Reduction
Off

Thanks

CPH Aviation · 03-21-2006, 11:36 AM

Very cool shot. Its a bit dark, so playing a little with the curves to add some more light would help. You should also remove the dust spots, I count 4

Soren

cja · 03-21-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPH Aviation

Very cool shot. Its a bit dark, so playing a little with the curves to add some more light would help. You should also remove the dust spots, I count 4

Soren

Thanks Hawkeye,
I spent ages on the Dust spots and you find some more!

Will play with the levels a bit more and try my luck in the queue.

Cheers

Chris

CPH Aviation · 03-21-2006, 12:23 PM

hey Chris

One just under the left engine and one under the left wingtip and the last one is in the bottom left corner, looks like a hair and not a spot

Soren

montyjames · 03-21-2006, 12:37 PM

At the moment, I cant get to airfield to shoot my normal GA stuff

so I took this flying over my mates place.