Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre-/Post-Screening Moddin  
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4021 times:

Hello, I got the following photo rejected due to level, CCW is needed acc. screener and head screener. Yes, it's maybe a very lil bit unleveled round 0.5mm from left to right. I leveled along the other runway far in the picture.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20728_q1342693196.425403hs-tld.jpg

I compared a similar picture from the same position and found out it's the same "unlevel" (search for HS-TLD at Munich MUC/EDDM). That's why I don't understand the reject.

Same reason also for this picture: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20720_c1341983582.294214b-6076.jpg

I guess they wish the level along the field in the back, but unfortunatly the distance at the left side between fence and trees is half the way on the right side so it's not possible to level there.

[Edited 2012-07-29 12:19:53]

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10797 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

On the first photo, I would level by the smokestack or whatever that tower is in the distance. It's leaning to the right, which is likely why you got the rejection.

On the 2nd, it was rejected needing CCW also? Or CW?

In general, if possible, you want to level by verticals near the center of the photo.



Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?
User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

First needs a bit of CCW as said by vikky (reference should be that tower in the distance)

Second one needs CW and also base yourself on the tower in the distance.



Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Yes, I've already saw it's a bit unlevel but what I don't understand, that another picture from the same position got accepted although it's also unlevel the same like mine.

The other shown (Air China) needs CW rotation.

In the last time I heard from many spotter friends that there are some strange rejects at airliners.net in the moment they don't understand.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10797 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4003 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 3):
Yes, I've already saw it's a bit unlevel but what I don't understand, that another picture from the same position got accepted although it's also unlevel the same like mine.

If you agree it's unlevel, then just fix it and re-upload. Don't worry about other people's shots. I've found that's the best (and easiest) way to look at things.

If you look hard enough, you're bound to find photos that break rules. It's pretty inevitable with over 2 million photos here.



Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Re-upload is already done. Will see what the result is.

Yes that's true. I know, the screeners also are humans and humans sometimes make mistakes   But in this case another screener told me the picture is level so yes  


User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3969 times:

And don't forget that human factor is variable, one spotter might see the level as acceptable, whilst others want it totally perfect.  


Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3865 times:

The Thai picture with a rework is now avail in the data base, thanks for your help.

Now I got two pictures rejected with "high contrast". I'm not often take shots with the planes in front of the blue sky, normally I prefer ground shots. So I don't have so much experience in the correct editing with such pictures. In my opinion they look like it real was at that time.

Visit here and here.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10797 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 7):
Now I got two pictures rejected with "high contrast". I'm not often take shots with the planes in front of the blue sky, normally I prefer ground shots. So I don't have so much experience in the correct editing with such pictures. In my opinion they look like it real was at that time.

They're not bad - contrast may be just a bit strong. Should be a quick and easy fix.



Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Today I would like to hear your opinion concerning following picture in the queue:

D-ABFK

Do you guys guess this one will have a chance to get accepted? Or is it a problem that one not can see the full landing gear due to the lower taxiway compared to the runway?


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 9):
oday I would like to hear your opinion concerning following picture

Yes, gear being cut will be a problem as it looks like it was avoidable if you had waited a bit longer.


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

No, it wasn't avoidable because the A380 in the back was moving and the A320 holding two minutes longer.

User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

Could someone please tell me what's not ok with the quality? Reason is 'heat hazes'. Do they mean the jet blast?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=w1345993615.83914yr-bgi.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

No, as stated many times before, heat haze and jet wash are two different things. Heat haze is usually visible when shooting subjects from a distance, and/or when climatic conditions are right (different temperature gradients in the air). You can notice it on the leading edges of the wings of the aircraft in your image (which should be straight, hard edges but are not), and around the nose. Shooting at a distance on a warm day is a typical cause of this problem.

User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Well, now I have again a question to you all.

I got a picture of Etihad's beautiful Formula 1 A340 twice rejected, first time as soft, second time as yellow colour cast and oversharpened although I used about 5 per cent more sharpness than the first trial. Now I uploaded the pic a third time, again reworked. Do you think it's now ok to get accepted? Editing is like ballancing on a knife I feel here at airliners  http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/q1367239055.412907_a6-ehj.jpg

And I have another question concerning an A330 of South African arriving in the early morning. I'm not sure if the picture is too dark, but with the light it wasn't possible to take it in a different way and all spotters in our local forum really like this picture, also my screener friends.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/h1367047360.387403zs-sxz.jpg

Greetings


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 14):
I got a picture of Etihad's beautiful Formula 1 A340

Sharpening still borderline, but maybe passable

Quoting moddin (Reply 14):
And I have another question concerning an A330 of South African arriving in the early morning.

Backlighting is somewhat effective, but the white balance looks quite warm.

Quoting moddin (Reply 14):
all spotters in our local forum really like this picture, also my screener friends.

I'm sure you realize that will have no effect on its chances of acceptance.


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Ok thank you Dana.

Will have a look for the result  


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

Hi!

On Friday we had a really great highlight at my home airport Munich unfortunately in bad weather conditions but I tried to make the best out of it. Know I have the feeling it's a bit dark, but if I lighten up it, it seems to be overexposed. Would like to hear your opinion to the picture, thank you.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/k1367614475.9358049k-gba.jpg


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10797 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2802 times:

A bit blue and could use a smidge of contrast. Exposure looks OK. Looks slightly oversharpened, too, but might be OK.


Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Well, again all uploaded pictures except of two got rejected the last days (one of the two accepted I already got rejected two months ago, doesn't changed anything and now got accepted!?). Most of the others are already rejected ones I improved, but every time the same reason plus one new additional. And all got grainy rejections.

Now some questions: what's wrong with the contrast? Halos and oversharpening I can see. But grain I cannot see. Maybe someone could explain where. Or does it appear while sizing it down?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=w1369415286.119603zs-sxz.jpg

Also grainy and now low contrast (before only grainy, no changes with the contrast)

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...name=p1369414890.672614d-abuia.jpg

I don't know what to do that you accept the pictures although there are so many bad ones in the data base  


User currently onlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 1207 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 19):
one of the two accepted I already got rejected two months ago, doesn't changed anything and now got accepted

While this is indeed unusual, you can get a warning/ban if you re-upload shots without changing anything. Still, something for the screeners to look into, standards-wise.

Can't help with the images, unfortunately. To my untrained eye the second looks ok and I can't spot grain in the first.


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

Hello. Again me.
Just got this approach shot rejected with corners little too dark and land little too soft.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=c1375644258.737105anflug.jpg

Can someone tell me how I could get the corners brighter? And why should I sharpen the landscape more? In natura it never is sharp. It can't be sharp.

Rgds


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10797 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1769 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 19):
Well, again all uploaded pictures except of two got rejected the last days (one of the two accepted I already got rejected two months ago, doesn't changed anything and now got accepted!?)

There have been some modifications to screening criteria recently - you can read about them in the Photography forum.

With that said, if you think some of your previously-rejected shots would be acceptable per the modified criteria, it's wise to put a note to that effect in the "message to screeners" box. Otherwise, it can lead to a warning/ban, as Angad stated.

Quoting moddin (Reply 21):
Can someone tell me how I could get the corners brighter? And why should I sharpen the landscape more? In natura it never is sharp. It can't be sharp.

The wing is soft too, and overall quality doesn't look great - would be better at a smaller size. Given that the wing only occupies a small portion of the image, the landscape is part of the subject.

For the corners (vignetting), I think Photoshop has an anti-vignetting feature....can't remember for sure though.



Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

Well, I searched for another wing shots in flight, and nearly all have those dark corners, mostly darker than in my case.

The reason why the wing only occupies a small portion of the image is that we made a right turn so if the wing would be in the middle you mostly see water and clouds and no Teide (highest mountain in Spain, highest volcano in Europe) and only a part of the capital. If I made the picture smaller, the details will miss.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10797 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 23):
The reason why the wing only occupies a small portion of the image is that we made a right turn so if the wing would be in the middle you mostly see water and clouds and no Teide (highest mountain in Spain, highest volcano in Europe) and only a part of the capital. If I made the picture smaller, the details will miss.

I know that, and that's fine, but then the landscape has to be sharp, being the focus of the image.



Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Ok thank you. I reworked it and will later upload if I have again free space in the queue.
Rgds


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

Hi, again questions for two rejects.

First one in this CRJ in front of the Queen: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0824_t1376314381.213320_d-ackh.jpg

Isn't it too sharp? Got it rejected with soft. Due the angle the letters look so sharp, also in the original image on the cam. Is this also the fact for the other reason compression? Is it possible to get this image in an acceptable way for the data base?

And here the second reject I'm a bit confused: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...30824_v1376314161.189919d-aidg.jpg

Well, one reject reason, the spot, I can confirm. Don't know how it could happen that I didn't see this big spot. It's a bit unbelievable although I know that there is a spot in my cam. But what you mean with the editing reject (comment from screener: "do not oversaturate colours in post"). For taking this picture (also another round 15 planes) I used manual settings in my cam so that it was already a very orange sky and black silhouette of the plane on my cam. I only added a little bit of more contrast, nothing more changed. So don't know what's wrong with the editing as this was the real light conditions at this time.

PS: those comments from the screeners are very helpful, thanks for that  


User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1697 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 26):
First one in this CRJ in front of the Queen:

I don't really see anything soft here. Maybe the wrong box was checked? Not sure about the compression either. I think that oversharpening and sharpening artifacts can appear as compression, and I would agree that the RJ looks a bit oversharpened. Being much smaller than normal in the image probably emphasizes that.

Quoting moddin (Reply 26):
And here the second reject I'm a bit confused:

I am not sure how accurately these colors reflect a sunset viewed live, but it does appear that cameras (or at least digital cameras) tend to produce them, and you can easily find other images that look similar to yours in the db.


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1093 times:

Thank you mjgbtv for your response. Maybe I will try them after reworking again during the cold winter season.

I now have another one for you, as pre-screening this time. Yesterday we had a beautiful autumn day here at Munich with great colors. But I'm not sure with this picture: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/e1382477172.107314_zz330.jpg

I have the feeling it's blurry but not sure about. What do you think?


User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

I would not say blurry. Maybe a bit soft and low contrast? The one exception is the port horizontal stabilizer, which does look blurry, but since nothing else looks the same I am thinking it might just be in the jetwash.

User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1068 times:

The whole plane looks blurry to me to be honest...

User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 829 times:

Hello, just got this picture of an Emirates whale rejected with 'oversharpened'

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...name=n1386826899.944107_a6-edv.jpg

Well, now I'm searching for signs of oversharpening but I cannot see any stairs or white lines next to the borders. Can someone help me before I appeal? Just appealed another picture which is sharper than this but got it twice rejected with soft, so I'm not sure what's going on right now with my monitor.

Thank you in advance.


User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1114 posts, RR: 9
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 823 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Hi Martin;

The Emirates A380 doesn't look oversharpened to me. Perhaps some soft areas near the rear, hard for me to tell as I'm not at my regular screening station. Probably worth an appeal from what I can see.

Pete



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 790 times:

Hi Pete,

thank you. So I will try it. I don't like to use the appeal function too much.

Martin


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 706 times:

Hi. Another problem: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=f1388431068.024903_zh887.jpg

How shall I center the C130 correctly? Got it rejected with high in frame although it (the fuselage) is exactly in the middle of the picture.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 688 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Because of the tall tail, I would put the center line at about the middle of #4 engine.

User currently onlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 1207 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 684 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 35):
Because of the tall tail, I would put the center line at about the middle of #4 engine.

yep, sounds about right.

Great shot by the way!

Cheers
Angad


User currently offlinemoddin From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (3 weeks 3 days 10 hours 37 minutes ago) and read 257 times:

Hi again.

Can you help me in advance with these three pictures as my recent uploads of the last three weeks all got rejected and I'm now a bit frustrated about this.

All pictures are taken with the Canon EOS600D in the AV mode and my not loved Tamron 18-270mm lense.

The Thai was taken at 7.15am some minutes after sunrise. After the upload to airliners it looks much softer than I've edited it in Photoshop.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/o1425845802.977703_hs-tgw.jpg

For this Aeroflot I need your help with the contrast and the sharpness as well (as this is my most reject reason).

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/u1425846843.737112_vp-bdk.jpg

With the SAA I'm not getting warm with the colors but I don't know how to get them better. I've tried several versions but this is the best one. Unfortunately the sun was behind a thin layer of clouds but still was visible so the light was really strange.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/v1425847075.237915_zs-sni.jpg

Thank you in advance, Martin


User currently offlinekann123air From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1141 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (3 weeks 3 days 9 hours 59 minutes ago) and read 251 times:

Quoting moddin (Reply 37):
For this Aeroflot I need your help with the contrast and the sharpness as well (as this is my most reject reason).

I think the contrast is fine. It looks a bit oversharpened to me, particularly on the titles and tail.

South African looks fine to me but maybe a little soft towards the front (nose gear and Mandela sticker). Be careful though as the titles and the rest of the plane look perfectly sharpened if not borderline OS. Also it might need some CCW.

Amrit



Always hopeful for a Malaysian napkin to wash up on some Australian shore...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pre-/Post-Screening Moddin
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format