MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3556 times:
It is a bit curious, the antennas are pin sharp, but the leading edge of the winglet is problematic. I've got another frame but with less aircraft visible it wouldn't fit on this site. So I made another try and added also a bit brightness. Would be a pity if it doesn't make it because I like the motive very much (but that doesn't matter I think ).
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3516 times:
At the risk of being annoying I'd like to ask if it's going in the right direction. I now concentrated on the edges of the wing and especially the winglet:
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3424 times:
Hi,
yesterday I uploaded this one:
It would be cool to get some feedback because I took the photo in a difficult light situation and I am not sure if the quality is enough to leave it in the queue.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2826 times:
Thank you for the fast reply!
Again to the first one, do you mean there is a problem with sharpness or can you specify missing quality? It's a pity that such uncommon shots are so difficult to get accepted...
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 17, posted (11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting MLP86 (Reply 16): Again to the first one, do you mean there is a problem with sharpness or can you specify missing quality?
Looks a little blurry, and oversharpened to compensate to me.
Quoting MLP86 (Reply 16): It's a pity that such uncommon shots are so difficult to get accepted...
Sorry, there are thousands of widow view shots already accepted, and yours is really too dark to see anything interesting. Don't see why it should get special consideration.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2798 times:
Thank you for the explanation, it's really helpful for me to collect experience. And yes you're absolutely right. In this case I already used ISO1250 and additional pushed it in post-processing about 1EV - so when I think right, yes, there are really better shots online - no problem.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Hello,
can someone with a reliable monitor look if the color of this photo is ok now? My monitor is not professionally calibrated, so I have to rely on the AWB of my cam...
In the rejection there was no remark, only the tag color. It could have been a bit yellow, I have tried to correct that:
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 20, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2224 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
A bit yellow, but the bigger problem is the contrast. In fact, checking the logs, this had been rejected twice for contrast, and it looks like you've made minimal to no change to the contrast between the two images. I suggest you do something to address that if you decide to attempt the image again.
MLP86 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
Hehe,
so that brings light into darkness. Am I right that the contrast is to high? I thought in the other direction and increased it after the first rejection, did I misunderstood?
HB-JHJ (now with less contrast and corrected white balance):
So I have to ask about a second shot from this sequence. Maybe I over-corrected the contrast issue after this one was rejected first because of low contrast, in the second rejection contrast was complained without notice so I increased it again. You can have a look:
26 MLP86: Ok, than I assume contrast of the other shot (HB-JHD) is also to high?
27 dlowwa: Sorry, missed that they were two different regs. -JHD in reply #23 looks passable, but -JHJ the contrast looks a little low.
28 MLP86: Ahh ok, it was not clever from me to ask about two similar shots in the same post. But it's no problem, so I will let JHD in the queue how it is and a
29 MLP86: Hey, can someone confirm if colour is ok now? Thanks!
31 MLP86: Hi Dana, this is the rejected one: I got no advice in which way the colour should be corrected. For the rejected one I used automatic white balance. I
32 dlowwa: Can't say I see a big difference between the two, but they both seem a bit yellow. I would try to avoid automatic anything really, nothing better tha
33 MLP86: I am going to adjust the colour of the first photo again, it is no problem because I use RAW format. Generally I just have more confidence in the AWB
34 MLP86: I am not surprised that the appeal was declined because of the grainy issue, but beside that the reason is again bad centered. Sure that I should crop
35 dlowwa: I see there were not any comments about the crop on the appeal so it could be that whoever handled it forgot to remove 'centering' as a reason, but I
36 MLP86: What do you think about heat haze in this shot, would it be acceptable? Thanks for your contribution!
37 dlowwa: Heat haze shouldn't be a problem, though whatever you've done to the sky has made it quite blotchy.
38 MLP86: Thanks for the fast reply! I think the sky got blotchy because I brightened up the shades of blue a little bit, that should be fixed now:
40 MLP86: How is your opinion about this one? I reedited it after it got rejected because of "quality grainy soft dark": Te rejected one is here. Thanks!
41 dlowwa: I don't see noise being a problem, but the light isn't very good.
42 MLP86: Hey, I got another rejection: reason: low contrast motive contrast personal Can someone explain the motive issue? Should I crop tighter on the instrum
44 dlowwa: I think the motive should have been passable on the first, but the contrast is a bit low. The second is overexposed and quite noisy; and I think the
45 MLP86: Thanks Dana, I will follow your suggestion and make a new edit tomorrow. Best Regards, Max
46 MLP86: I recently changed my monitor and have calibrated it. Now I can comprehend why some shots before got rejected. However I have to get used to it. Uncon
47 dlowwa: Maybe a touch blue, but I don't see color being an major issue.
48 MLP86: Since I got my new and calibrated monitor, I understand why the picture in post 40 (Swiss A319) was rejected. Now I was trying to get a reedited versi
49 mjgbtv: The new one appears a bit oversharpened in spots, for example the reg letters and the rear of the tail. The contrast looks pretty good to me now, but
50 MLP86: Thanks for your response! I reduced the sharpness in some spots and clarity for the tail because it looked strangely dark after increasing contrast to
51 MLP86: OK, I have to ask again: This one was rejected for low contrast: Version 1 I increased the contrast slightly (already for the second time) and now it
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2011, 47 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, 
).
From Belgium, joined May 2011, 453 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
