Photography.

[nomadpete]

We sometimes look down on a rainbow

[Marty_d]

29 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

We sometimes look down on a rainbow

Somewhere over the rainbow... you know what your new nickname is now, right? 😂

[red750]

Editing.

 

I mentioned in the computer wizz thread about using PhotoScape to edit photos, with an example of cloning. Here is another example of an edited photo.

 

 

First, I rotated the image to straighten it. Compare the buildings in the backgrond showing the slope on the original. Then I reduced the size to the standard I use on these sites - 750 pixels wide. Then I cropped it to cut out excessive foreground, sky, etc. This has the effect of moving the aircraft closer to the camera.

 

Next, I adjusted the exposure a bit to lighten it.  Finally, I cloned out the rubbish under the wing tip, and the tip of the yellow cone which was not cropped out.

 

The end result was a reduction in the file size from 3.02 MB to 250 KB, much easier to store and upload in the web.

 

 

[red750]

[spacesailor]

The ' phone ' is nowhere near as good as a good camera. 

I use my phone less & less as my pics are Not up to what I like .

It's only good for portrait pictures. Even with that ' huge ' megapixle image

My last ' digital camera ' 5 mp this phone 50 mp . 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

The "Phone" is there, ready, to capture the Moment.  Nev

[spacesailor]

But not if it's a little way off . No telephoto lens . To get you close , yet still at a safe difference. 

I took a photograph of the moon with a 600 mm telephoto , attached to a " spotmatic ' film ' camera and it Was good.

My digital  5 megapix .460 mm lens camera (same moon ) was reasonable. 

Same moon , 5o megapixles phone camera,  was poor . But it was ' bigger ' blood-moon .

spacesailor

 

[red750]

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

The ' phone ' is nowhere near as good as a good camera. 

These photos were taken with an "old" iPhone 6. They are up to 14 or 15 now.

 

[red750]

Here are some fantastic photos by a photograher who sees things a bit differently.

 

Enjoy.

[red750]

Many years ago, I uploaded a number of photos to airliners.net. I had 25 photos accepted, and they are available to be viewed by anyone. 

 

It's over ten years since my last upload, so I decided to give it another crack. I uploaded 8 photos, which went into "screening". It has taken almost three weeks to get a result, and the first 3 have been rejected.

 

This one was rejected because it was too low in the frame.

 

 

This one for ccw rotation, colour, soft.

 

 

This one for underexposed, soft.

 

 

Click on each to see the full size photo. I'll bet the other five will be rejected also.

 

 

[facthunter]

Do you agree with their decision?  Could they have a point?  Some planes are so special anything is better than nothing.    Nev

[red750]

I would not have uploaded them if I thought they were substandard. That site is just so pedantic. Do you think they are suitable for display?

[red750]

Here is a screenprint of the Piper Arrow in the alignment window of my editing software. Note the verticals in the building behind against the alignment grid. Perfectly vertical, no rotation required. The ground may not be perfectly horizontal, but that is normal, there's often a small slope.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have subjected yourself to a selective process and THEY make the rules and can pick and choose.  A fact of life. Would Airliners.net have anything to do with it?  Nev

Edited December 14, 2023 by facthunter

[red750]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Would Airliners.net have anything to do with it? 

That's who I'm talking about.

[facthunter]

I KNOW but your Images are not of Airliners.  Are they their mainstay?  Nev

[red750]

Anything that flies. This is a link to the 25 aircraft I already have on the database.

[onetrack]

They're setting high standards, and there are a million photos a day to pick from. Only a few are deemed exceptional by them, it appears.

Your photos contain background "clutter", and that's a big no-no in photography.

[red750]

As suspected, the rest of my photos have been rejected as well

 

Compression, low in frame, soft, underexposed.

 

 

Compression

 

 

Noise, quality, underexposed.

 

[facthunter]

What's noise?   Nev

[red750]

Here is an example of noise in photography. In the photo of the Boxkite, you'd have to blow the photo up 3 to 4 times full size to see it.

 

Enlarge this image to see the difference. This is a somewhat extreme example.

 

[spacesailor]

The left pic looks ' slightly ' out of focus. 

Perhaps, need a bigger bird, to see that " sound " .

spacesailor

 

[red750]

I tried uploading to jetphotos.com on 15 Dec to see if I had any better luck. I haven't heard anything so checked the screening forum on the site. Apparently I have 43,000 odd images ahead of me in the queue to be screened. Not holding my breath.

[facthunter]

Your chances of getting even are slim it would appear. Nev

[red750]

WOO HOO!   airliners.net actually accepted one of my photos. It was previously rejected for being too low in the frame. I re-edited it, cropping it from 4:3 to 16:9 format, cutting out a lot of sky.

 

Here is a link to the photo.