Airplane Pictures home

Home » Forums » Photo feedback » Rejected. Opinions please...

Rejected. Opinions please...

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:18 CET

No Brian it is not totally blown out, some parts of it are totally blown out, the rest looks like it has been totally blown out

Sorry to seem to be splitting hairs but it was necessary to make a point. I did not screen it,

Attached is a threshold layer of your picture, which starts at 242 or the last 5% of the histogram and it looks like you are losing the tonality, which gives the appearance of being clipped. The areas that I have circled contain the actually clipped tones.

If you look at the fuselage under the windows you can see tones there, those are around 220, where above the windows and you are up to 250, with the loss of tonality.

You can always apply a selective sharpen routine, sometimes a one pass USM does not do all the sharpening that needs to be done, selective sharpening gives you the option of increasing or decreasing sharpening to suit the image.

Attached photos:

Darryl Morrell 

Full member
Joined in August 2008
Posts: 143
Posted 27 November 2012 - 20:08 CET

I think its ok, checks out on the histogram ok Brian, if it dont get on here just put it on a a creative photo, then it will get on :-))

RMcF1959
Member
Joined in July 2012
Posts: 2
Posted 28 November 2012 - 15:57 CET

Brian,

There is a guy on Jetphotos who shares your name, and I thought maybe it was you, but having read your posts on here the way you in open forums criticize screeners, and where you have posted other photographers into forums and had a go at them It obviously is not you. I'll quote a few of the things the other Brian says on another forum.

This was the other Brians reply to a chap who had openly criticized a fellow photographer in an open forum....

"You're not getting the point Kevin.

You say it's a screener consistency problem ? Fine.....then bring it up with the screeners.

It is considered very inappropriate to pick on someone else's work and criticise it in public. It's just not acceptable.

I can guess that the image was accepted because of the intake fog and the other issues were missed.

What makes me really smile here is that photographers are happy to knock other people's work ......."

Yet you thought it was ok to do it here...http://www.airplane-pictures.net/forum/410/quot-creative-photography-quot-or-is-it/

RMcF1959
Member
Joined in July 2012
Posts: 2
Posted 28 November 2012 - 18:31 CET

I'll keep this brief, on the other thread you said I owed you an apology, well I don't think I do. For as long as I have noticed your name on here, all you seem to do is moan and groan, assisted by your fellow screener from two other sites. You prescribe to double standards, how you conduct yourself on here and how you expect others to conduct themselves on JP are poles apart, If you insist on preaching to the screeners on here on how to do their job, at least have the courtesy to comply with the standards you expect of other elsewhere.

My last word on the subject.

Darryl Morrell 

Full member
Joined in August 2008
Posts: 143
Posted 28 November 2012 - 19:28 CET

With the greatest of respect, you are moaning and groaning about Brian on more threads that just this one and saying how he conducts himself on here, I dont think complaining about him on here publically makes you look any better, surely any problem should be dealt with by a personal email?

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 28 November 2012 - 21:34 CET

Brian and RGourlay, you will both have your posts moderated if this "issue" between you two does not stop now.

I do not care what went between you two elsewhere but what it was does not belong on AP.

Jump to the top

This topic is locked.

Terms and Conditions | About | FAQ | Photo Use | Privacy Policy | Online 1651 (6 members)
© 2006-2024 Airplane-Pictures.net | E-mail us: Team@Airplane-Pictures.net
All photos are copyright © to their respective photographers and may not be used without permission.