Dedicated forum to share your own recent photos with the rest of the community.
Please note large files may exist here before you start browsing!
Forum rules
This is the forum to share your recent aviation photos with the rest of the community, being photos not older than six months at the moment of topic opening. Theme-based topics, not about recent events, should go into the sub-forum.
Although we will not screen beforehand, we reserve the right to delete any images, especially if clearly unsharp or otherwise low in quality. For more information on how to upload you images, check this post. In topic titles, please use airfield names in stead of just codes, and be clear about what kind of photos your viewers can expect (e.g. CIV/MIL, location etc.).
Finally, bring any photo criticism understandable and to the point, not cynical or offensive! Simultaneously, do not feel offended by criticism per se, but simply explain your motives, taste et cetera, or ignore if you wish so.
No morning wave and no demo training due to fog. Afternoon wave did take-off but the demo training was cancelled again, this time due to low cloudbase. Here is an impression of what did fly during the day:
And my histogram. I marked the outer arrows. Do you see the difference. This adjustment is the second thing you do with a picture: adjust the histogram so exposure is right. The first thing you do is to make sure you do the exposure right when you take the picture. (I think that is a lot more difficult than adjustment after you have taken the picture) Have a look on the internet, there is a lot to read about the subject.
And just to be sure: I do like your pictures. But I also think you can make them a lot better with very little effort.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I understand the principle of adjusting levels but I am sorry to say I disagree. You adjust the photo so it is pleasing to your eyes. That opinion is not necessarily shared by others, just like my version is not liked by all who look at it. Post-processing is to a certain extend a matter of personal taste. What I try and do is to get the final image as close as possible to the (percieved) actual conditions. In this case foggy and dull lighting conditions. Your version is more like a bright day in comparison. By adjusting the levels like you do you create blacks that in reality are not really black. Same for the whites. Some people like it like that, some don't. If the subject had pure black and white in them your histogram is a correct representation, reality is that it isn't the case. In my version I feel I might have overdone the post-processing already, your version for me is a step too far.
Nebbor wrote:I understand the principle of adjusting levels but I am sorry to say I disagree. You adjust the photo so it is pleasing to your eyes. That opinion is not necessarily shared by others, just like my version is not liked by all who look at it. Post-processing is to a certain extend a matter of personal taste. What I try and do is to get the final image as close as possible to the (percieved) actual conditions. In this case foggy and dull lighting conditions. Your version is more like a bright day in comparison. By adjusting the levels like you do you create blacks that in reality are not really black. Same for the whites. Some people like it like that, some don't. If the subject had pure black and white in them your histogram is a correct representation, reality is that it isn't the case. In my version I feel I might have overdone the post-processing already, your version for me is a step too far.
Too bad, i've learned a lot from the tips from "Leeuwarden". And believe me, he knows how it works. Your pics and compositions are great, but indeed with a few clicks you can make a better result. You do take the time to put a logo in your pics, so why don't take a minute per photo more? The result will give you much more satisfaction. And i know... Been there done that!
CoHaBa,
I also know how it works. I am not saying that I could not learn from tips from other forum members. I process photo's in MY style not that of someone else. What you think is a better result might be a decrease in quality for someone else. Opinions are different and style is individual. The proposed way to 'improve' the pictures is in my opinion wrong.
A quote from a famous painter: I paint pictures as I think them, not as I see them.
I guess I process photo's as I see them.
In the end there is no right or wrong. If you like my shots: fine. If you don't like them: that's fine too.
Too bad but it's your choice, I think the example Jan showed looks a lot better and still shows the fog and mist situation.
It's one of the basic steps everyone should have in their workflow, at least, that is my opinion.
In the end I think your pictures would attract more viewers for sure but as you say, it's your choice...
Nebbor wrote:I also know how it works. I am not saying that I could not learn from tips from other forum members. I process photo's in MY style not that of someone else. What you think is a better result might be a decrease in quality for someone else. Opinions are different and style is individual. The proposed way to 'improve' the pictures is in my opinion wrong.
A quote from a famous painter: I paint pictures as I think them, not as I see them.
I guess I process photo's as I see them.
In the end there is no right or wrong. If you like my shots: fine. If you don't like them: that's fine too.
Refreshing point of view! I like it when people don't give in to what it perceived as 'best practice'.
I would have opted for the 'Leeuwarden'-version, but applaud you for sticking to yours!
My remark about your pictures was not intended tot start a "which pic is better" topic. You explained why you pp-ed your pics the way they are and thats fine with me.
/jasdf.gif)
