Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Break! (Note! 2nd Up-load to get into Critique Gallery)

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Add Comment

2nd up-load purely so that I can see modified version.

Recording media:JPEG (digital)
Title:Break! (Note! 2nd Up-load to get into Critique Gallery)
Username:Actuarius Actuarius
Uploaded:7 Mar 2011 - 1:13 PM
Tags:Spitfire, Transport
VS Mode Rating 99 (0% won)
These stats show the percentage of wins and the rating score that your photo has achieved. You can go to the VS Mode by clicking on this icon.

Signup to e2

Signup to e2 to see which photo this has won or lost against in the vs mode
Votes:Voting Disabled
Critque wantedCritique Wanted
Has Modifications Modifications Welcome (Upload a Modification)
Awards have been disabled on this photo

Comments

This photo is here for critique. Please only comment constructively and with suggestions on how to improve it.
banehawi
banehawi Critique Team 10868 forum postsbanehawi vcard Canada2867 Constructive Critique Points
7 Mar 2011 - 2:18 PMConstructive Critique!This comment was flagged as constructive critique! 

Ive loaded a mod which Ive run through Noise Ninja; adjusted contrast as its a little flat; cropped to place the plane less centrally.


I see you havent provides camera information, and when I look at you last upload you mentions a Canon MP210 series, - which is a printer/scanner, not a camera, - so can you shed some light on the camera used? It would be most helpful to know if this is a scanned image.



regards



Willie

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

Actuarius
Actuarius  7 United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
7 Mar 2011 - 5:50 PM

That looks amazing, thank you! The decision to get the aircraft central was deliberate but I think it gives a little more lateral movement with having "space to go into" (if this isn't all getting too pseudish). I still prefer the central position as I think it infers the aircraft rolling rather than swooping - all being the merest of inferences of course. You've nicely got rid of that majenta blush as well. This was a picture taken with my - up until that point - trusty Zenit 11 with zoom. The picture was then printed as a standard film onto 4 x 6 by Bonusprint and has sat in an album ever since. With the 75th anniversary of the first flight I dug it out with one or two others, scanned at 600dpi and cropped it to make a better composition. Due to a computer problem I have lost all my tweeking software so this is how it "fell out of the scanner." Thanks for the modification, really splendid.

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

Jestertheclown
7 Mar 2011 - 8:19 PMConstructive Critique!This comment was flagged as constructive critique! 

Hi Steve,

I've followed a similar(ish) path to Willie except that I used Noiseware Community Edition followed by the shadows/highlights tool in CS5. I've tried to retain as much detail as I could but with limited success I'm afraid.
I've also sharpened it.
For what it's worth, I hope this helps.

Bren.

Last Modified By Jestertheclown at 7 Mar 2011 - 8:20 PM

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

Actuarius
Actuarius  7 United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
7 Mar 2011 - 8:38 PM

I think that once more its remarkable what you've done with it thanks. I'm toying with trying to make some money with my pictures and you've shown me a way I can approach improving the pictures I have. Of course with something like this the starting point would probably be getting the original neg scanned. Although being a scanned print doesn't help matters I've never been hugely bothered if something isn't absolutely pin sharp. Of course it has to be close but I think for instance in this one there is a slight inferred dynamic or even sense of "noise" from the ever so slight feathering. This may be entirely down to my being a fan of Futurist art mind you! Unfortunately I can't find the best example for this - Crali's "Attack of the Motors" - on the internet to show more explicitly what I mean. There is also the fact that this was a fast approaching aircraft with a manually focused lens so it was probably the best I could expect! Once again thanks for taking the time to do this, its greatly appreciated.

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

Jestertheclown
7 Mar 2011 - 10:23 PM

Glad to be able to help Steve.

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

Actuarius
Actuarius  7 United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
8 Mar 2011 - 9:13 PM

Thanks, again duly noted. There are cases where I feel a pin point focus are a necessity for the image to work well and certainly this was very important on some of the images in this gallery - particularly details of machines and metallic "still lives" . Your comments are, like the others, greatly appreciated.

Last Modified By Actuarius at 8 Mar 2011 - 9:14 PM

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

- Original Poster Comments
- Your Posts

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.