henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2434 times:
Hi all,
Dana suggested for me to open up a new thread, which I've done so.
Just wanting your feedback here. Got the following photo rejected for soft, blurry, oversaturated colors & quality.
I'm struggling to pick up the blurry/soft parts in the photo. Can you point this out for me? Had I noticed any blurriness initially, I wouldn't go as far as editing/submitting the photo.
Over saturation is easily fixed although I don't think the colors are too bad; not too eye popping in my monitor.
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
The quality isnt great,Its affected by alot of heathaze,Very soft and slight blur around wing area/engines,Also the front of the fuselage and nosegear.
Oversaturation I wouldnt say its too bad but overall the quality isnt there.
You will start to notice over the next few months during the summer periods that trying to get decent shots will only be possible between 6-830am and after 3-4pm-Dusk,I was surprised the other day I was shooting around 8am in morning and the heathaze was quite bad.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2424 times:
Hi Mark,
Thanks again for your input.
Appreciate the eagle eyed review on the heat haze around the wing, gear etc.
I planned to go spotting tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully the haze will be at a minimum. Top temp to be about 20 degrees, so crossing my fingers for the best. Might bring the ladder and take some photos around the fence. You should join me if you are free.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Thanks Dana for your input as well.
OK, I got this one rejected for still soft.
Mark may recall this one from the previous thread, where this image was rejected for red cast and over sharpened.
I included a personal message to the screener noting that this is the second attempt. Color does look better (thanks Mark) but to counter the over sharpened issue, I applied a lighter pass of USM.
I think the screener misunderstood the personal note.
Still soft?? Soft was not an issue in the first place, until now..
So, what do you think? Have I gone too light on the USM - therefore, could do with another pass?? Or is it worth appealing??
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
As Dana has mentioned it seems effected but some heathaze which kills the shot straight away,Trying to get the balance right might be quite hard because of the quality not really being there,Was this shot taken same day as the Thai 747 at around a similiar time like 10-1130am?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2328 times:
Hi guys,
Thanks for having a look.
I'll have to look back at the original later on tonight.
Mark, there is a good chance this CX photo was taken around the same time as the Thai 747. Looks like shooting CX110 (first CX flight for the day) might be the way to go.
By the way, do you use a ladder at the Tower Mound? I'm thinking of doing that next time. The elevation might help/give a different perspective. Although in saying that, the TG was shot whilst I was on top of someone's car.
Cheers,
HB
Edit: I'm certain that I have other frames that I could possibly use and submit. I just thought submitting this photo just to be a little different from the rest of my photos. Looks like a blue sky background might be the way to go.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
Hi all,
Got this one came back with rejection reasons as: common, category & dark.
So with the encouragement all else is OK; common is just a tag on reason, which I understand also means that I need a near perfect photo.
Category will be easily fixed - was not sure if this was classified as a special livery (obviously is).
Now, the dark rejection - I realised the sun was still quite high at the time. Is this photo fixable at all? Can I counter by adding a little more brightness?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2133 times:
Hi Mark,
Hope you're well. Sorry for the extra late reply. Been so busy lately that I had actually forgotten I had posted the UPS for feedback. Nevertheless, I've taken your advice and will re-work it.
Just a question regarding the image below;
Is the crop acceptable? Cutting the horizontal stabiliser. I've had a couple of photos where the crop involved cutting the stab but was accepted. From my understanding, pending on the motive, angle of the photo, in some instances it may be acceptable.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2050 times:
Hi guys,
Can I get your thoughts on this one?
Rejected for dark and soft.
Photo taken probably an hour before sunset, so the light was getting low, reaching the stage of late afternoon/evening.
I like to question both reasoning. I don't see dark as an issue. Make it any brighter, maybe it will be then over exposed etc.
And where is it soft to warrant a rejection? If you can tell me where, maybe I can apply some more USM (selectively).
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 20, posted (6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
'Dark' as a rejection reason often causes consternation, as the logical conclusion is the image needs to be brighter, but it is often given as a rejection when the light just isn't very favorable. I agree that making your image brighter wouldn't help, but I also agree that overall the light isn't very good, as it was coming more or less directly from the side.
For softness, it looks soft all-over to be honest. Would benefit from some sharpening and maybe a smaller size. There is also a dust spot over the left wing that was missed.
^ Similar shot taken by a fellow Sydney photographer (taken at different day).
With the UA shot that I had taken, if I reduce the contrast (which I don't think helped because the flaps is still active, so extreme shadows "look and feel" will always be there), can I overcome the dark rejection? Or is the light not favorable as well, on this occasion?
I'll work on it later tonight and might get your feedback to see if I can get on the right track.
Yeah, 'dark' was probably the wrong rejection reason - if anything, harsh contrast would have been more appropriate. As with the other one above, increasing the exposure isn't going to help much.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2036 times:
Ok, so I'll ignore the dark rejection then for the UA shot. That changes the whole perspective and luckily I asked you first before having a second attempt and increasing the exposure to overcome the dark rejection initially.
Thanks a lot Dana. You've been most helpful. Appreciate your effort to help us all. Cheers!
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
Hi all,
Wanting your feedback on the photo below. Was rejected for soft and common. To resolve the soft issues, I've applied a pass of USM, hopefully to fix the problem. What are your thoughts?
Rejected Image:
The fix:
Appreciate your feedback.
I really like the photo and the tight cropping. I will do everything to ensure it makes it onto the DB.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1966 times:
Thanks Dana. I haven't resubmitted the EK photo yet but I might try my luck out as is. The photo was about 5000 px once cropped (I didn't have to crop much), so the quality should be there for it.
I like some feedbacks/tips on this photo that came back for soft and centering; high in frame
I can't say that I completely agree with the centering reason. Although after taking a second look, maybe it could do with one more "down" key press.
Soft - can you tell me if it's the whole aircraft or specific parts? I might've applied the same standard (sunny, well lit photos) sharpening inputs onto this image. As the light was quite low for this photo, I may need to be a little more "aggressive". Anyway, if you can point out areas where it could do with more USM, please let me know.
Just wanted some advise on how to crop gears/tires properly, so I can fix this issue for future photos and this one.
How do you do it? I have this same confusion with engines as well, but I'll leave that for another day.
If I could use photographs that are already in the database as examples for this lesson;
^ Aren't the photos above technically also has a poor crop on the tire or gear as well? As in, they're cut off as well? What happens had I crop (my photo) tire/wheel half-half? Would that had been more acceptable?
Should I re-crop the photo up to the flag/engine? By doing so, I see it as an easy way out though.
The original framing/photo is attached below. Looking back at the original, maybe I should had left it, so it resembles the EK A380/QF B744 as per examples above.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1914 times:
Hi all,
Can I please get a level check for the following?
So many poles, but I was told once before by Dana and Mark H, to never trust the light poles as they're uneven. Anyway, so I based my level on the building in the center (near the BA plane/tail).
What are your thoughts? Does it look level? If it's not level, how many degrees do I suggest for me to turn it? I think I'm pretty close to be where it should be. Any adjustments should be minor (I hope).
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1886 times:
Thanks Dana.
With the feeling it was OK, I went ahead to process the QF photo above and found it difficult to center the frame (aircraft too low) unless I crop it tightly. I might give it a miss. Nevertheless, I found other similarly situated photos which may be workable and I will use the building on the background to assist me with the level.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1816 times:
Hello,
Got this one done for OVER SATURATION. I'm surprised by it as I did not add any vibrance/saturation to the photo. Obviously, I had to amend the contrast and brightness etc, so that does alter the color somewhat.
On a side note, the plane itself, is relatively quite new. I'm only guessing though and I should really check airfleet to confirm but with the rego SKL sounds to be relatively new - not sure if that helps my case.
Now, the last time I used other photographer's published photo(s) as example/comparison to highlight/support my point, I did not get a response from anybody. But I can't help but to use that approach again to illustrate my point. I'll just use one...
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
Hi Dana,
Thanks for your input earlier. The photo has now been approved via appeal.
Can I get your view on the following photos?
^ Would this photo be too high in frame? Otherwise, is it OK in general?
^ Was previously rejected for motive/poor crop on the main landing gear. Would this crop be any better? If yes, then is the photo in general OK? Hope the crop is passable. It looks cool to fit the JAPAN AIRLINES title in the frame.
^ Would really like to have this photo in the database. I cropped it using 4:3 ratio because I wanted to leave the "interesting" bottom half in the composition. Would it be OK as is? Or am I allowed to do one of those "off-centered" crop and include more of the bottom half (grass) - and less of the sky? How is the photo in general? Please note: photo was taken about an hour before sunset. I suppose a bit of yellow (if there is any) is perhaps tolerable?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1771 times:
Hi Dana,
As always, appreciate your experienced feedback.
Just some follow up questions;
1. With regards to the JAL photo - if I crop it tighter up to the engine nacelle, would that make any difference? I can see part of the main wheel (under shadow - looks black) will be featured. I supposed this is technically still cutting the main wheel, right? Is there any way around it, with the current frame?
2. With regards to the Garuda photo - I will add a bit more contrast to the photo and get you to check it out before submitting. Just to get a feeling, am I far off with the contrast? Since no mention about it, I presume the photo is passable on the subject of color cast?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
Hi Dana,
Thanks again. I really need to learn how to use the quote function properly.
I'll leave the JL for now. I'm sure I had taken many other frames, so I'll choose another. Does JL fly to your local airport?
On a final note, I made a small adjustment on the Garuda A332. Flat and a touch cyan. I added some contrast, adjusted the levels a little bit and added +1 of red in the color balance. How does it look now? Hope I didn't make it worse.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
Dana,
I just realised that I forgot to get rid of the bird on the top right hand corner, as you suggested. I have got rid of the bird on the revised version, which I won't upload here, as it will be the same as the above.
Yup, until a year or two ago were using 747s, then went to 772s briefly, and are now to 763s. Hopefully with things starting to look better, they'll bring back the 777s.
Quoting henkita217 (Reply 39): On a final note, I made a small adjustment on the Garuda
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1718 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 41): Yup, until a year or two ago were using 747s, then went to 772s briefly, and are now to 763s. Hopefully with things starting to look better, they'll bring back the 777s.
Good stuff. For us, the 77W is quite rare and it is normally quite noteworthy when such equipment change is implemented for Sydney.
Thank you for your help with the GA A332. I would be quite proud to have a decent photo of my national airline in the database.
If you don't mind, I'd like to query a couple more taken in CGK. I'm always concerned with the color cast (mostly yellow cast), so let me know if any of them pose any issues with colors and of course, anything else in general.
PK-GFS - I don't know, something tells me this one could possibly be slightly high in frame. Unsure about the overall color either.
PK-AXG - I chose two frames. Which is better in terms of, which one is almost ready?
One in Sydney;
A6-EHB - Is the photo in general OK? The crop? I tried to center the aircraft as best I could, whilst leaving a bit of room to fit the horses at the bottom. I thought this photo was somewhat interested, as the jump seat rider had a look over his shoulder to check the horses out (or perhaps the women out)?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1707 times:
Hi all,
After experiencing quite a pleasant experience to ensure a photo is up to the standard, I now have to experience this.
I'm not happy with it, because my aim was to improve my acceptance ratio, after dropping to a measly 24% a month ago. Throughout this month, I've achieved that and bumped my acceptance ratio to 56% at one stage.
Anyway, I'm not happy with what happened, because to me, we were going around in circles over a photo, wasted 2 attempts whilst at it (dropping my ration unnecessarily), and even though I had fixed the only issue with the photo, it was rejected for something else that was OK'ed first time around. Isn't it frustrating? What makes it even more puzzling was that a head screener (or two) got involved in the decision and advise making.
What can I do next?
The photo in question and what happened. Please note that I don't have the exact timeline log.
Nov 29, 2012: Rejected by a screener for DARK, YELLOW CAST COLOR and MOTIVE for horizontal stabiliser cut off.
Appealed the same day it was rejected. I explained during the appeal, that the light was low (about an hour before sunset) and I was told that the crop was fine due to the tight crop as per feedback I gathered from a screener via direct email - no need to guess who it is. He is the most helpful one here on this forum.
Anyway, the head screener who handled the case rejected the appeal saying; Motive and color OK. But contrast harsh making it look a bit dark.
So what do you do before re-uploading again? Listen to the advise given and fix the image accordingly.
I re-uploaded the second time after toning down the contrast and probably adjusted the levels to bring it in line with the contrast adjustment.
Rejected Dec 07, 2012: Rejected by a screener for Color is still off and motive (crop) is poor.
I scratched my head when I saw this, even though I included in the note, that this photo went through the appeal process and the Head Screener confirms color and motive was ok etc etc etc.. I think you all know what I would've said to save the screener a bit of tip of where we are with the photo. What was encouraging (to me at least), the dark rejection is gone, so to me, I've overcome the DARK problem.
I appealed not too long after the rejection. I thought this should be a straight forward fix.
Woke up this morning to see that the photo was not added to the database with the message: Screener correct.
Now, this may sound simple and straight forward rejection for which ever Head Screener who handled the case (even though I included in the note, please get a better understanding on the situation as this is the second time around), but to me, this is baffling at most. Not sure if I am over reacting here but I have followed all valuable inputs to "get it right" and yeah, I'm not going anywhere - quite frustrating.
Is this one of those photo where it is 50/50 which causes subjective decision making, pending who handles it? I wish the appeal process or re-uploading process can be handled in a way, that it is screened by the same screener whom rejected it initially. That way, you won't have this situation where one person says fine, the other says no. For someone who is trying to improve stats, this is a set back and I'm far from happy with this decision.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 44, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
You do realise there are six different head screeners, right? Unfortunately, we are not all going to agree 100%, all of the time. Inconsistent in this case yes, but hard to avoid completely when you have a number of human beings trying to come to a subjective decision. In fact, we are not allowed to handle appeals of images we had any hand in screening, so as to be impartial. Obviously there was a disagreement about the image, which is why you had two different outcomes.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
Thanks for explaining the situation and acknowledging the inconsistency of the decision with this photo. I'm obviously disappointed since I am the one affected, but I will move on/forward.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Hi all,
I've got the following G-VEIL photos for you to review and provide feedback in relation to if it's ready for the queue;
1. Tail shot of G-VEIL: I've tried this shot before. Sat on the screening queue for a long while and ended up getting rejected for soft and quality - I uploaded at 1200 pixels the last time around. With a bit more experience, would this edit be any better? Trying at 1152 pixels.
2. On rotation: I tried another frame a month ago, and it got done for high in frame and heat haze. How does this one look? I don't think the haze is too bad.
3A. If the photo passes the cropping/motive test (assuming all else is OK), I'd rather go for this 3A.
I've seen some photos in the database which had the engine cropped off and I always wondered how to get around it. If I could use one example below to support my way of thinking. With my photo, I wanted to illustrate the Virgin Atlantic title/name, which by doing so, I suppose I could crop it tighter, if allowable.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (5 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
The heat haze is apparent on #2, but I am not sure if it is bad enough to warrant a rejection, that's Dana's department. Personally I'd go with 3B, it looks the best overall to me.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
Thanks a lot Dana and DL747.
Just one that was missed from earlier post.
Would this EY be alright as is? I am concerned for haze.
Should the aircraft be slightly higher in frame, I chose to do so to illustrate the pair of horses and ladies, which caught the attention of the jump seat rider, who turned over his shoulder, placed his face in the window. Is it justifiable for such framing?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1553 times:
Hi Dana,
Got this one rejected for dirty, with a personal note noting a dust spot below the tail in the sky.
I took a closer look and equalize the photo. Example as follows.
I don't normally have dust spot in that location. Mind you, I cleaned up about 3-4 spots during the processing of this photo. If I'm not wrong, does dust spot appears as dark spot in the photo whilst equalizing, right? Well, this one doesn't show up as that.
I can understand how the speck can be mistakenly seen as dust spot. Should I just remove the speck and re-upload? Any chance of acceptance via appeal? I prefer the latter, obviously to retain my percentage, if at all possible.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1548 times:
Hi,
Can I get a general check up for the following photos I took earlier this year. I went back, hoping with more experience, I could salvage them somehow.
Hopefully one of them is at least good enough for Anet. The last 3 consecutive photos, I'm not 100% sure re: level. I thought it would be easy, but after processing 3 similar positioned photos, my eyes are playing up on me (I think).
Please be mindful these photos were taken at the last light of the day, so the brightness on them as they are, are more than what I saw at the time the photo was taken.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 56, posted (5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Not too bad, but the poor light gives them a dark look. You'll need to be careful with the exposure & contrast, and sharpening on the first which is a bit soft.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Thanks Dana. You are right that the light was receding at the time the shots was taken, hence the dark feel/look.
You advised to be careful with the exposure and contrast and I reckon you're talking primarily about the QF B737-400 photo, which on second look, the fuselage is little blown out. To me and my trusty monitor, the second NZ and QF B738 seemed alright for contrast/exposure. Do you agree?
Are any of the photos lacking in contrast, or has excess contrast that pose problem?
You did not mention about level is any of the photos. Did I do alright leveling them?
You mentioned the first photo is a bit soft. Are the other 3 photos passable for sharpness?
Cheers,
HB
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 58, posted (5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
I don't see level or sharpness being an issue (except for the first). Increasing the exposure generally makes the contrast seem harsher, so that's what I was saying you need to be wary of.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
That's an interesting point Dana.
So, to "brighten" up a photo, would it be better to increase the actual brightness rather than exposure? Maybe even adjusting the mid-tones via levels.
Just a question, would a small sun glare in the cockpit area be an instant killer to a photo? Happy to show you an example if needed.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (5 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
Hi,
Can I get a general check for the following photos taken in Indonesia? Due to the atmospheric differences when comparing Jakarta to Sydney, I'm therefore always concern/unsure with the overall quality, color cast, contrast level etc.
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 56): Not too bad, but the poor light gives them a dark look.
Dana, I want to focus on the 2nd NZ (not the soft one) and the QF B738 - based on your inputs, should I brighten the image slightly more, or do you think they're passable as they are? Will I most likely be given a dark rejection if I left the 2 photos as is?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
Dear all,
Firstly, happy Christmas to you all. Hope y'all been good so Santa have got you many goodies.
Now, to the content.
Got these 2 rejections that I'd like some feedback with.
^ Got done for grainy/blotchy sky.
Photo was previously rejected for DIRTY only. Given the first rejection, I obviously just fixed the speck, which I discussed with Dana above (reply 52).
I don't get how by removing a tiny speck makes the whole sky grainy and blotchy on the next edit/version.
Do I stand a chance if I appeal this one?
^ Got done for high in frame.
Is it borderline passable? If not, a small tweaking should do it.
Well, in my opinion, probably yes, given that there really isn't anything special that requires that crop. Also looks very heat-hazed arond the lower rear fuselage, especially the registration. I'm not sure if it has the quality.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1424 times:
Thanks all for the SQ feedback.
I made another attempt on the KE photo. Your (Dana) feedback that the original was quite noisy to begin with, got me worried. Photo was shot using ISO200, which normally would not differ much to ISO100 (to my camera anyway). So this initiated my purchase of Neat Image, which has assisted me in some high ISO shots but was limited to 1024 pixel photos only.
Anyway, here is the latest. Hope she is good to go now.
I can see the blotchy sky now, as I observe the before and after shots.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1380 times:
That's encouraging Dana.
Below is the final edit.
I added a bit more cyan to the photo, to counter the red cast.
Hope the level, crop and centering are passable. I possibly could crop tighter on the left, but the QF 767 tail would be cropped unattractively. Hope that backs up my action to crop the left side as is.
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 73, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
To me the "com" titles and front around nose look abit soft,Also too high in frame for me.
Also seems to have a yellowish cast aswell,Abit of blue makes it look better.
Regarding this spot,Is this from the walking track infront of the dog park?
I hav'nt been there for awhile and there was a dirt track beside the dog park last time I was there and in the few years since I last went there that does not seem to be there anymore.
I gather its a fair walk to this spot from the carpark near the sports oval down below the dogpark?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1363 times:
Evening Mark & Dana,
Many thanks for your feedback. Appreciate it very much.
Re: off centered framing/positioning, I thought I explained above why I may have to place the aircraft slightly off centered, mainly to fit the aircraft on the bottom of the frame. So the crop is not justifiable for this photo?
I made another edit to crop it tighter, which is really the only way for me to place the aircraft lower in the frame. Centering should be fine now but as you can see, however, you don't think the crop is "unattractive", with the Dash 8 cut in half etc?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
Quoting aussie18 (Reply 73): Regarding this spot,Is this from the walking track infront of the dog park?
I hav'nt been there for awhile and there was a dirt track beside the dog park last time I was there and in the few years since I last went there that does not seem to be there anymore.
I gather its a fair walk to this spot from the carpark near the sports oval down below the dogpark?
Mark, you are correct that the old track is no longer there or is now gated. It is a fair walk around the dog park. Not straight forward either as you feel like doing bush walking for a good kilometre to get there.
Thanks Hendra,I may give it a miss as not too keen on bush walk during the summer months as not sure what Ill stumble upon in there,Still a nice location,Shame the trees are so high from in the dog park these days.
Quoting aussie18 (Reply 78): Thanks Hendra,I may give it a miss as not too keen on bush walk during the summer months as not sure what Ill stumble upon in there,Still a nice location,Shame the trees are so high from in the dog park these days.
Mark,
I realised (after the short session) that I had many cuts in my legs.. Perhaps it might be better for something like winter, to make it more worthwhile.
Hi all,
Can I get a centering check for the photo below?
I should know what I should be aiming for (by now). I have some doubts centering the fuselage right in the middle, as it positions the tail sit a bit higher, and left more dead space in the bottom. Hope what I've done is correct.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1306 times:
Thanks a lot Dana.
Question: Does a photo with the sun disappearing at the moment of the shutter release, will be an instant no-no? Does it have any chance and if so, what should I be looking for?
I took this OneWorld QF 332 over the weekend. I liked the shot but the clouds took over during the phase of shooting this plane. Any advice or keep it for the personal collection?
And a feedback with this photo. I processed this photo awhile back. I might be able to come up with a better edit, if required - as now I have a more steady workflow than before.
angad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 180 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1290 times:
The QF A332 is a great shot. I don't know if it would make it past screening because the background is pretty blown, but it looks fantastic to me. Love the stark white (and clean!) fuselage, and the clear colours, contrast etc. Might as well give it a go and hope for the best.
Aside: That's VH-EBV, isn't it? I think she's the only QF bird currently in OneWorld livery.
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 84, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1277 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
Agree with Dana,the contrast on A332 isnt great and also has a strong cyan cast.
The 2nd shot is very soft and blurry in parts,Probably best to keep for personal collection unfortunately.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1227 times:
Hi all,
Got this photo done for heat haze & soft. I didn't have full confidence with this photo but did not think it would be rejected for heat haze. I was thinking more towards the colors, but that seems to be fine.
I had to revert back to the original file to see how severe the heat haze was. The original can be found below - downsized to 2500 px.
So, is the photo terribly affected by the haze? Where is it soft exactly? What/where is the heat haze distorting within the plane, that is most affected? To me (on the submitted version), the cheat line does not look too bad. The engines are perfect circle - I can't see anything unusual about it.
Anyway, moving forward, can I try 1024 or is the heat haze that bad?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
Hi all,
After general feedback on the following 2 photos;
^ The SQ photo is a follow up frame to the above rejected. As you can see, the sun came and go on that day. I'm hoping the heat haze does not kill the second shot. Hardly had to crop much, so I thought I'd give it a go at a larger size than usual. I did the processing at the same time with the first photo, so if heat haze is a real problem with this SQ sequence shot, please don't shoot me down with the second photo (large pixel).
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 88, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1205 times:
Hi Dana,
The Jetstar photo you, me and Mark had worked on, came back today with a soft rejection.
Mark was being quite specific in pinpointing the soft parts, which were the nose and the jetstar.com titles. I selectively sharpened the areas mentioned.
What are my chances in overturning this decision via appeal?
If I need to go back to the drawing board and add more sharpening, which part specifically? IMO. the whole plane looks well balanced and the rego is on the verge in showing jaggies.
A question: I'm submitting this photo @ 1152 pixel. I am following my normal workflow, which have steadied the ship. Why does this photo needs extra sharpening than others? The original is not blurred and the photo was shot at 100mm (short end of the lens) and f-stop 9.0.
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 89, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1199 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
I didnt screen it but it does still seem soft around the front especially the ".Com" titles and front part of the nose so it does seem a justified rejection but you are still entitled to appeal the image if you feel its harsh.
Best bet is too try a new edit at smaller size like 1024x and try and apply more sharpening to this area I mentioned.
Also remember each image is going to be different and require different amount of sharpening,There seems to be alot of heathaze visible in the shot aswell,Some shots will be sharper than others and some will have soft parts and this can be caused by weather conditions,camera settings,focal length,Depth of Field etc...
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1177 times:
Thanks for providing me with a detailed response Mark.
Ironically, I was testing out different metering mode. Normally, evaluative metering works well so far for me. But for this photo, I shot it with center weighted average metering. Could that upset the depth of field for such a close shot?
Anyway, I might use a different frame, considering I couldn't neatly cropped the bottom frame with the QF tails. I'll work on the composition in winter. It was my first time there.. :P
Can I get a general feedback for the following photo? Mark commented the other frame I used may be blurry. I looked at the original and it was very soft, so I thought I'd try out a different frame.
Again, last checked, rego does not exist in the database, so I hope the leniency will work in my favour.
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 91, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
This one looks better,Slight softness on the "Baron" titles and whites on the rear part of the tail look abit bright/soft but other than that it looks good.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (4 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1112 times:
Thanks Mark and Dana, for the feedback on the Pitts Special.
I've got the following rejected for slight red cast & soft.
Would the following fix be acceptable? I countered the rejection reasons by injecting a little bit of cyan and another pass of USM. Given the shot was taken an hour after sunrise, I would think the cast would only be natural. Anyway, let me know how it is now.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1047 times:
Thanks Dana for the feedback on the QF.
Since the noise level was still within the limits and the fix was still quite dark, I boosted up the lighting a bit more than the fix I emailed you. I'll give it one more try/rejection before keeping it for the collection. Crossing my fingers.
Can I get a general feedback for the photo below? Does it have the quality here? Is the crop acceptable? The photo wasn't too badly cropped; it was about 4200 pixels from the 5200 pixels my 550D generates.
Also, since close up nose shot seemed to be a bit more popular than your usual side on shot, I wonder if the photo below is ok for submission?
I had a QF A333 recently accepted, so the VA above sort of imitates that.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 99, posted (4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1026 times:
Hi Dana,
Thanks for the assessment. I might try the DJ as is, assuming all else is ok with the photo?
With regards to the VA photo, I remember having to apply a fair bit of clock wise rotation. Have I gone too far? What would you use as a reference to level? I tried using that vertical pole and brown colored thing. A false objects to use? I'll give it another crack later on tonight.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (4 months 11 hours ago) and read 981 times:
Hi all,
Got the following photo done for high in frame, which was fair enough.
It was shot on a rocky platform and windy as hell, so unfortunately, I cannot go any lower with that frame.
I processed the sequence before that (that same day/night) and I wondered if the following photo is also HIF. Flicking the two photos back and forth, I think the centering looked similar, yes?
If so, I think I have some room to lower the aircraft a bit more (if needed).
Ok, firstly is it really over exposed? It doesn't look that "hot" on the computer screen I am using. Can anyone else confirm?
As for the double rejection, is it warranted? Yes, it was taken on the same day, same airport, and have read the rejection guide.
However, the runway changed later that afternoon. The photo submitted is not from the same sequence. The photo already in the database was on arrival. The one recently submitted is on taxi for a departure. They're not identical in any way and the composition is different (not sure if that helps).
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 940 times:
Thanks Dana for confirming the Double rejection. For whatever reason, the guide's actual description did not hit me as how you put it. Anyway, lesson learned and will keep that in mind.
I have a question with the photo below;
- Is the crop acceptable? I can find similar photos that has similar crop in the database (although the photos was older - years wise), and they do expose/include more of the wings, whereas for me, I cropped it a bit tighter, up to the engines.
- How's the photo in general?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 916 times:
Thanks Mark. It does have that feeling to it and was afraid it might be the case.
Had the fuselage and engines be a little lower, would the centering and crop be passable?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 109, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 847 times:
Hi guys.
Just wanted to check on a rejection overnight...
Photo got done for yellow cast/colors.
Photo taken about an hour before sunset, regardless, there wasn't much direct light anyway.
I don't think the cast is that strong to begin with, so I corrected by adding a little bit of blue; about +1 point on the shadows/midtones/highlights. Is it OK now?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 111, posted (3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 808 times:
Thanks Dana. Might save the SQ Cargo for next time.
With regards to reply 97 re: Virgin Australia nose shot that needed more cw rotation, how is this fresh edit? Have I applied enough cw rotation? I did a fresh new edit because I've learned from a recent rejection, that you cannot just re-level a rejected photo and expect the rotated rejected photo to retain the same sharpness.
Appreciate the general feedback.
If good to go, should I click/choose NOSE shot in the category?
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 736 times:
Thanks Dana.
The crop is awkward because it is not tight enough, top to bottom, right?
I wasn't sure it would pass with the cropping either, but you've answered my curiosity.
What do got me worried is the compression and/or noise issues. The shot was taken @ ISO200, which generally would still be ok for most things, and I may had applied some NR to the photo. I would think the compression may have came from that step. That's a worry.... One that I need to watch in future.. Thanks!
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 723 times:
Hi all,
Shooting against blue sky is actually more challenging than I thought. Mainly because of the noise or grain in the sky that gets me most, so I've had to apply some NR to aid. Recently, I think by applying some NR has now swung me to the opposite, rejection for blotchy sky etc. Do y'all agree that noise reduction can do that to your image or is it something else?
Anyway, got the following photo rejected for blotchy corners and over saturated colors.
With regards to blotchy corners;
- What creates/causes it? NR, right?
- How do you fix it?
Over saturation: I don't think I applied any saturation because I thought the colors popped out already. As you may be aware, Thai Airways have like 2-3 different finishes on their scheme. Could it be that this aircraft has the shiny finish? If not, then I need to reduce the saturation on a minus value (if that is allowed, not sure, never done it before).
I plan to do a fresh edit with minimal NR via ACR rather than Noise Ninja. I'm afraid it'll get done by too noisy/grain but at least we know what went wrong.
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 120, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 721 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hendra,
I agree the sky is quite blotchy,seems like too much NR applied to it.
I use neatimage for when I apply NR and one thing I may suggest to you to do is doing all your editing of the image first and save the image,Than re-open the image in Neatimage/Noiseninja and apply different amounts of noise reduction with varied settings and see what works best.Than you can do it as many times of you want to get it right and still have your edited image.
I wouldnt say the colours are oversaturated though for me,Also you have uploaded this image at 1300x so just remember that the quality flaws stand out alot more at a large size compared to a smaller size like 1024x,Best to upload images at smaller size and reserve the better quality shots for larger sizes.
I do have similar issues with shooting against a blue sky especially the shots I take at Kurnell,I find I have noise in some images so I either use the noise reduction tool in photoshop if its not too bad or use Neatimage if its more prominent in the image,Can take my 2 or 3 goes at using Neatimage to reduce the noise and make the image look right.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 121, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 716 times:
Hi Mark,
Appreciate your response greatly.
Firstly, my apologies. I do use Neat Image as well, not Noise Ninja. Not sure where I got that name from. Perhaps another software that does the same thing.
Anyway, I have the purchase version of Neat Image, so that allows me to work on photos that I plan on submitting larger than 1024 pixels.
Your tip is a good one. One that I have always ponder in doing. However, if I may ask, when you say, after you complete the editing of the photo, is sharpening included? Because from what I understand, applying noise reduction to an image will actually add softness or loss of detail (if anything) to the photo. Am I wrong to assume this? If I am, then yeah, I'd be happy to follow that work flow.
I noticed Smiling China visited us again this morning. You probably don't need any more photos of her, but with the sunny morning, I thought the opportunity might be a good one. One that I need to catch.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 123, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 710 times:
Tomskii,
Yes I do. I actually have a value in the Noise Reduction setting of ACR. I can't think of the actual value right now but I'll share it with you when I get home.
However, it is not "strong" enough as I've had many photos rejected for grainy/noisy in the past, prior to Neat Image.
Perhaps the photo was OK without Neat Image applied to it. So I'll do a fresh edit and gather your thoughts.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 709 times:
Hi again Hendra,
This is the part I meant:
I usually set a lower value for well lit pictures but too much cant do anything wrong apart from getting small details to go away. Mostly I set between 30-50 for well lit and about 60-75 for medium noise. I suggest you just play a bit around with it
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 125, posted (3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 704 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
Quoting henkita217 (Reply 121): Firstly, my apologies. I do use Neat Image as well, not Noise Ninja. Not sure where I got that name from. Perhaps another software that does the same thing.
Noise ninja is another program you can use,Free or payware version of it.
Quoting henkita217 (Reply 121): Your tip is a good one. One that I have always ponder in doing. However, if I may ask, when you say, after you complete the editing of the photo, is sharpening included? Because from what I understand, applying noise reduction to an image will actually add softness or loss of detail (if anything) to the photo. Am I wrong to assume this? If I am, then yeah, I'd be happy to follow that work flow.
It does soften the image alittle bit and make the file a smaller size and can cause JPeg compression if used too much but I have not found I lose too much quality or sharpness from the edited version,I have checked images after using Neat image and added alittle bit of sharpness but not too much,It did take me awhile to get use to it though I dont use it as often as it sounds.
Quoting henkita217 (Reply 121): I noticed Smiling China visited us again this morning. You probably don't need any more photos of her, but with the sunny morning, I thought the opportunity might be a good one. One that I need to catch.
I went to get Smiling China this morning but weather was terrible,clouds were hanging around the sun like a bad smell,It was running late and weather was'nt looking promising so I left around 830am,I wanted to get it on 16R but they switched to 34L at 7am.Hopefully its back in before the end of this month.
No Neat Image was used this time around on the Thai Airways. How does it look? Probably grainy or noisy is my guess.
So, in relations to shooting with blue sky as background, I have the following photos in the queue, which I am worried will suffer the same fate as the TG. What do you think? Should I pull them off the queue?
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1609 posts, RR: 10 Reply 127, posted (3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 694 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Hendra,
TG still has some blotchiness in top corners of sky,not as noticable as rejected one.
SQ has some very noticable blotchy corners in top part of sky,Also abit oversharpened.
KE seems to have a very soft nose area,sky quality looks fine though on this one
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 691 times:
Hi Mark,
Was about to head to bed until I saw your reply..
TG given the very light application of NR on the TG, does the photo need any NR in the first place? Or am I applying something that it doesn't really need? You didn't mind grainy/noisy, so I take it that I should do without any NR whatsoever for this picture?
SQ: I might have done something alike as the TG, so I'll start fresh on that one. Took note of the over sharpened for the next edit.
KE: Will add more sharpening on the nose.
Thanks a lot Mark!!
Don't forget about the possibility of a special visitor this Saturday.
henkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 129, posted (3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 688 times:
Here is version 3 - completely NR free. Now let's just hope that I won't need to apply any NR because then, I'll be going around in circles - not sure how I am going to find the right balance. :P
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 284 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2572 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, 
From India, joined Nov 2012, 180 posts, 
From Belgium, joined May 2011, 453 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
