Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre/post Screening Comments Welcome Powwwiii  
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3614 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

opening a new thread for my uploads, the old one has been locked.

Please comment on these two new uploads, which one to keep? probably can not have both because of the double rule.

These are the first 787 flight arriving at ORD, I like the second one better because the angle probably will be a bit different with others and the 320 adds some interest too. but the light was not as good, so I hope it can make it, what do you think? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/q1352305179.4263dsc_3294-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/u1352305303.0841dsc_3303-2.jpg

86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Thread starter):
probably can not have both because of the double rule.

Indeed, you should submit only one.

Quoting powwwiii (Thread starter):
the light was not as good, so I hope it can make it, what do you think?

Light looks fine for both, though the first has a moderately strong yellow tint.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3614 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks Dana. just got the second one accepted, hope ppl like it.

Please comment on these rejections, both for cyan tint, I thought they are already a bit yellow, what do you think? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1113_a1352339879.782dsc_3167-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...113_p1352305044.3595dsc_3288-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1113_h1352343539.221dsc_3626-3.jpg

[Edited 2012-11-13 16:39:17]

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

UA 738 - more of a cast here than on the others, that's for sure; if that helps, I'm not too sure.. It only really exists towards the nose.
I see no cyan on the BR MD11.
I hardly see a cyan cast on the A320.. If there was one, it's extremely faint. I'd probably add a wee bit more contrast to this one if you were going to edit it further..



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 2):
Please comment on these rejections, both for cyan tint, I thought they are already a bit yellow, what do you think?

Yes, they all have color casts to varying degrees. Cyan/green on the two UA, and I'd say the BR is also a bit oversaturated. Check out the right side of the two below which I've adjusted:

http://imageshack.us/a/img585/6883/20121113a1352339879782d.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img231/3673/20121113p13523050443595.jpg


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3614 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks NZ107, and thank Dana for the edition, now I can see the color tint.

Now, these two new rejections are for grainy and soft, I have taken many pictures with similar light condition, ISO was still 200 I believe, same work flow as many accepted pictures, never had a grainy rejection, soft is different question. so I want to ask for a second opinion to see if you see grainy and soft. thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...114_w1352419223.5354dsc_1468-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...114_v1352419729.8835dsc_1480-2.jpg


User currently offlineJKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Hi,

I can see the grain in the first one, but it is minimal.
The rejection is probably a bit hard.

But you can easily remove it with a noise reduction-tool.


And at least with my camera I do sometimes have a slightly grainy sky even with ISO200, too.



Personally I don't see the first one as soft but the second one is indeed a little bit soft. It should be better with some extra-sharpening.


But there are probably better judges on soft rejections than me.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 5):
Now, these two new rejections are for grainy and soft,

I see a tiny bit of noise, but not enough to warrant a rejection. Same for the softness.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 3610 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, here are some more grainy rejections, which I feel also not guaranteed, please take a look and comment, thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...121120_p1352834490.008dsc_3323.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21120_b1352834423.1519dsc_3321.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21120_h1352834125.8222dsc_3316.jpg this one also oversharpened?

and this last one was for soft, really soft?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21120_w1352834213.5255dsc_3317.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 8):
Thanks Dana, here are some more grainy rejections, which I feel also not guaranteed,

Not sure what you mean about them being 'guaranteed' (did you mean warranted?), but I don't see noise being an issue with any of them.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 8):
this one also oversharpened?

I see some jaggies on the leading edges, but otherwise not too bad.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 8):
and this last one was for soft, really soft?

Doesn't seem really soft to me.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3566 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks Dana, yes I meant "warranted". those are all fine now.

Here are a few new uploads, please comment on the quality, I am not sure about the color of them mostly. Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/z1353905161.3802dsc_3532-3.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/u1353906282.5582dsc_3471.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/f1353906430.5145dsc_3507-4.jpg


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 10):

Colour seems ok.. But I'd probably tone down the images - the 2 E170s seem a bit overexposed for my liking.. Another sharpening pass could also be beneficial.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3517 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks NZ107.

I just recently got a new monitor, seems the color and brightness are different with the old one, probably my eyes are already used to the old one. Please help me to calibrate my eyes to the new monitor. Here are three new uploads, please comment on the quaility, especially color, brightness, etc. Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b.../ready/b1354574460.773dsc_3787.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1354574590.8434dsc_3923.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/v1354581949.1399dsc_3572-4.jpg


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

AA and B6 seem ok.. I'd be inclined to add a bit more contrast to the UA 753. It just feels a little flat, especially under the wings and around the undercarriage.


It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3410 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks NZ107, that was very helpful.

Some reupload, this one was rejected for color and soft. now it is better? thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/q1355601873.5629dsc_4412-3.jpg

and the next one was for low contrast, now looks ok?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/n1355601179.8156dsc_4456-6.jpg

Thanks!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3403 times:

Both look yellow and a touch bright, but otherwise ok.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3360 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, they have been corrected and re-uploaded.

Here are two new uploads, please comment on them, thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/n1356054345.4724dsc_6300-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/f1356055087.7291dsc_6321-3.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (2 years 23 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 16):
Here are two new uploads, please comment on them

Color is off, cyan cast or worse. Look at the top of the fuselage of the 67, the color is different than the rest. I see my fair share of AC aircraft, and can't say I've ever seen a similar effect.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, I give up on that 767, but re-work a bit on the 319, hope it is passable now?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/n1356135855.3252dsc_6321-4.jpg

And uploaded a new one, the lighting was quite difficult, please see if it gets a chance, thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/d1356138286.8474dsc_3991.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 18):
re-work a bit on the 319, hope it is passable now?

No, still green/cyan.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 18):
And uploaded a new one,

A touch bright.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks Dana!

Here are a few new uploads, would like to ask for any comments.

Like this parallet approach, especially all 3 are United 319s, so any problem with this one?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/z1357535714.2432dsc_4495.jpg

the second one would be a new addition to the database, I like to have the tower in the picture, so the crop/center is a problem?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/n1357535954.8529dsc_4285.jpg

those fence and lights are problems for the third one?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/t1357536821.4195dsc_4524.jpg

Thanks in advance!


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

1. A bit soft, possibly due to the noise reduction and still a little flat.
2. Might be ok but to me, it doesn't really add too much to the picture. Seems a little on the cool side too.
3. It's low in the frame to begin with and the other bits are distracting, especially the overhead light.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3213 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 20):
Like this parallet approach, especially all 3 are United 319s, so any problem with this one?

Needs cw rotation.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 20):
the second one

Borderline, but might be passable.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 21):
Seems a little on the cool side too.

Color is fine.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 20):
those fence and lights are problems for the third one?

Yes, very distracting, especially whatever's in the foreground. Also a bit dark.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 21):
It's low in the frame to begin with

No, centering is fine.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks Dana, I made corrections accordingly.

Just got a rejection for soft, now resized the picture to 1100, so it looks sharp enough? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/m1357698182.0201dsc_3489-3.jpg


User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1757 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 23):

Still looks soft around the nose,left wing and along the fuselage-All the windows look quite soft.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3177 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Mark, so try one more time with more sharpening, how it looks now?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/u1357706823.8745dsc_3489-4.jpg


User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1757 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Still quite soft around the center part of fuselage,made tad blurry the center windows above wing.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3147 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks Mark!

got this one rejected for the crop too tight, I used to like to crop a bit tight, maybe too tight, but seems not a problem for upload, so really a problem?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...30116_g1357538348.2336dsc_4184.jpg

Thanks!


User currently offlineDL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Crop is a bit too tight for my eyes. It makes the plane look to be at a very strange angle. I think a bit looser crop would benefit.


Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3124 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks DL747.

got two rejections, first one was for soft, and second one is for color. Please help me to see what I can do to re-edit. Dana, pleae help, thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...118_y1357738875.5395dsc_4270-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...30118_f1357710622.7109dsc_5864.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3121 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 29):
got two rejections, first one was for soft, and second one is for color. Please help me to see what I can do to re-edit

Both look a little yellow, and the first is a touch soft. Should be easy fixes.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3107 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks Dana for the quick response, corrected and reuploaded!

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 3056 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi there, this is a new upload, please comment on it, color, brightness or anything else? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/v1359120636.1513dsc_4574.jpg


User currently offlineDL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Looks a bit low in the frame for me. Also, might be a bit harsh. Looks good to me other than that.


Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks DL747. Got two rejections for grainy, these were taken at sunset, so lighting was not really good, any chance to fix them? although I could not really see too much noise in the sky.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...125_o1358387232.3038dsc_4535-3.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...30125_r1358388184.0664dsc_4500.jpg


User currently offlineDL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

Yeah, I don't see that much grain either. You'll have to wait for further input on that one.


Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thanks DL747.

got this rejection for cyan cast and overexposure. but I only adjust the white balance very little to get rid of the yellow cast, now cyan? also I feel the exposure is fine, what you think? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...127_z1358563498.1955dsc_4270-4.jpg


User currently offlineDL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 36):
now cyan?

Looks a bit cyan, yes.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 36):
I feel the exposure is fine,

It appears the whites are a bit too strong, not sure if it is fixable. The SA symbol especially looks a bit blown out.



Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 36):
what you think?

Overexposed, soft, and more yellow than cyan. It seems you have more problems with color than most. Perhaps there is an issue somewhere, either with your monitor, camera, or other?


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, this one was shot around 4pm here, so sun was low and light was warm. I corrected the exposure. But soft? I thought it was OK.

I did get a new monitor a couple months ago, still trying to get used to it.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2920 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Re-uploading some pictures, Dana please help to see if they are fine now, they were rejected for color and soft. Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/o1359847764.4213dsc_5859-3.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/d1359848117.533dsc_4270-7.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

319 is a touch dark & cyan; 57 is a bit bright/contrasty.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2896 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, those have been corrected, hopefully they are fine now.

Got a few rejections, and this one was for oversharpened to compensate a blurry/soft or out of focus picture. I looked at the raw picture, it is not blurry or out of focus. This is the second time it was rejected, first time for low contrast, and I added a bit more contrast, but now oversharpened... What you think? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...203_q1359248022.0278dsc_4990-2.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2885 times:

Yeah, hard to judge the sharpening on that one. All that wording/advertising on the aircraft is either going to look too soft, or oversharpened. Not sure what to tell you in this case. That KL 47 you also had rejected for dark, however, shouldn't have been.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2803 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana!

I have a few rejections on a few 57s. one I just can not get the color right, I might need maybe Dana to help me with the processing, can I send the RAW to you? Thanks!

Then the following first 57 was for dark, but I think it is not dark at all. the second 57 was for soft, I really don't see it. And finally the 77W, for cyan tint and oversharpen, it may has the color problem, but again I can not see the sharpness problem, what is your opionion? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...214_h1360080609.0956dsc_4714-4.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...213_d1360042299.0848dsc_4754-3.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...211_b1359936541.6109dsc_4906-4.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

Color's a bit off again on the first two, but otherwise they should be fine. Third one indeed has a cyan cast.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2691 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana! got 12 rejections today, mostly for dark, kind of surprise for me, will you please take a look?

also I am uploading some new ones, please comment on these two, window shots and night shots are new to me, so please comment, thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/z1361652882.4937dsc_5088.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/p1361653339.7dsc_5034.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 46):
please comment on these two

Not much aircraft visible on the first, so motive would be a concern. Second has a very strong yellow cast.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 46):
got 12 rejections today, mostly for dark, kind of surprise for me, will you please take a look?

Sorry, I'm not going to go looking through your rejections to find possible issues. If you have questions about specific images, please post them here.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana!

Here is a new upload, please comment on it, dark? soft? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/i1363391186.6783dsc_6526.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Maybe a slight cyan cast, but I don't see it being too dark or soft.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2363 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana. Here are a couple of new uploads, please comment on their quailities, thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/f1364089909.5539dsc_7099.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/w1364090531.1998dsc_6951.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2355 times:

They look decent for the size, but as always, your chances of acceptance go down the larger you submit them at. The second has a slight cyan hue.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2304 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana!

Resubmitting a couple, this 748F is sharp enought now? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/m1364741443.3997dsc_5981-7.jpg

and this UA is bright enought? it was also rejected for level, but I think that was fine, so I did not rotate. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/m1364742116.5457dsc_6699-4.jpg lighting was not good, so I guess contrast might be flat.

The followings were rejected for grainy (noise in sky), I found that is difficult to believe, they were shot with low iso at 200. What do you think?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0331_r1364048743.234dsc_5306-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...331_g1364049062.0653dsc_5308-2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...331_k1364048249.8613dsc_6858-2.jpg

Thank you very much for comments!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 52):
this 748F is sharp enought now?

Should be ok for sharpness.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 52):
it was also rejected for level, but I think that was fine, so I did not rotate.

Not a good idea unless you are looking to receive a warning/ban for re-uploading.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 52):
The followings were rejected for grainy (noise in sky)

I don't see them as being too noisy, but there are some banding artifacts visible in the sky, perhaps that was what the rejection was for.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks again, Dana. That UA 772 was for Dark and Level, I brighten it up a bit. But based on the tower, I feel the level is fine. Definitely not looking for a warning, do you see problem with its level? Please let me know.

Banding artifacts is something new to me, any suggestion how to fix it? Or what caused banding? Thanks!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 54):
Definitely not looking for a warning, do you see problem with its level?

If you don't agree with a rejection, the proper recourse is to appeal. Simply uploading it again unchanged because you don't agree will get you a warning first, and then a ban if it happens again. Both will remain on your membership permanently, so best not to upload it unchanged if you wish to avoid that. The image looks very bright and needing ccw rotation to me.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 54):
Banding artifacts is something new to me, any suggestion how to fix it? Or what caused banding?

Almost impossible to remove, better not to introduce them in the first place. From my experience they are most commonly introduced with noise reduction, either on the jpeg, or the RAW file itself.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

OK, I re-worked on that UA 772, less brightening and some CCW. Also trying to avoid bandings, I actually decrease the sharpening a little bit, and then only apply minimium amount of noise reduction, maybe less sharpening only need very minor noise reduction plus they were taken in bright sunlight, so they don't really need too much noise reduction. Here is what I got, hopefully they are ok now?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/v1364772184.5224dsc_5306-3.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/b1364772359.8678dsc_5308-3.jpg

Thanks Dana again for all the help!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 56):
hopefully they are ok now?

Banding is less evident, so whatever you did has affected it - most likely the noise reduction.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, I think I learned something new about sharpening and NR.

Anyway, got this one rejected for overexposed again after a re-edit. I really don't think it is too bright now, what do you think? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...408_d1364676322.6589dsc_6861-2.jpg


User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 998 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

you do have a couple of reflections that are clipped (or close to clipped) but I have a feeling you could appeal that successfully.

OR - kick up the shadows a bit and simultaneously drop exposure to reduce white clipping.

Cheers


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 58):
I really don't think it is too bright now, what do you think?

Would be better with a slight reduction in brightness.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2115 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, very slightly reduced the brightness on that one and resubmitted.

Also resubmitting this one, it was rejected for cyan tint, heat haze and soft. I adjusted the white balance and resized it to a smaller size, to address the softness. But looking at the original RAW, I can see only minimum heat haze on the aircraft, there is significiant heathaze on the buildings behind, but that is a mile or more away. I reupload this version, it is acceptable? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/v1365820709.6239dsc_7659-6.jpg


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2105 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 61):
I can see only minimum heat haze on the aircraft, there

I can still see it on the nose gear, though you might get away with it at this smaller size.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thank you Dana!

Here are a few new uploads, please comment on their quality.

This AA is dark? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/k1366244317.2942dsc_6352-3.jpg

This AC is yellow? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/l1366244702.9016dsc_6349-2.jpg

And maybe this UA is cyan? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/w1366210183.9976dsc_6630-3.jpg

Thanks!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2040 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 63):
This AA is dark?

No.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 63):
This AC is yellow?

A touch, yes.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 63):
And maybe this UA is cyan?

Definitely not. Actually a little yellow. Not meaning to offend, but do you perhaps have issues with color blindness? It could be the reason you often have problems with color in your images. If not, then I would strongly recommend getting your monitor properly calibrated.

Centering should also be checked on those images, as the first two are a little high.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, I don't really think I am color blind. I can tell there is a color difference when I adjust the color temperature, my problem is I have not got the sense of a neutral white balance. Anyway, looking through my pictures in database, I think I am making progress in term of the color.

I have a different question, what is the policy about reflections? I have a few pictures, the aircraft itself is good and sharp, but because they were shot through windows, there are some reflection on the picture too, not too bad but definitely there, so it is a automatic rejection if there is a reflection? Thanks!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 65):
so it is a automatic rejection if there is a reflection?

In most cases, yes.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1972 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks for clear that up, Dana.

This China Southern was rejected for oversharpening, as it was like this: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0421_e1365832448.848dsc_7676-5.jpg

Here is the new upload, hope it is ok now? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/l1366574520.0771dsc_7676-6.jpg

Again this one UA was rejected again for yellow tint and grainy, here is the new upload, http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/c1366563807.8105dsc_5306-5.jpg
this one was shot with good lighting, early morning with nice sunshine, but turns out it is difficult to get this one accepted, hope now it is fine. Thanks!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1961 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 67):
Here is the new upload, hope it is ok now?

No, still looks pretty bad. I assume a fair amount of heat haze you tried to fix by oversharpening?

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 67):
Again this one UA was rejected again for yellow tint and grainy,

Again, whatever you are (or aren't) doing in regards to color simply isn't very effective. Most of your images have a yellow-ish cyan hue as on this one.

http://imageshack.us/a/img27/2950/c13665638078105dsc53065.jpg


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1944 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thank you Dana, I try to adjust the tint to remove the yellow, but doing that I also can see the image become purple or magenta, I am wondering how you adjust because I don't see purple on the half image you processed, how did you do that?

That CZ cargo does not have too much heat haze, and I only applied low sharpening when exporting, I am not sure why it appeared oversharpened.

Thanks again!


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 69):
Thank you Dana, I try to adjust the tint to remove the yellow, but doing that I also can see the image become purple or magenta, I am wondering how you adjust because I don't see purple on the half image you processed, how did you do that?

Simple adjustment to the hue. I would guess it's something you're doing with the white balance or maybe saturation. Are you setting the white balance manually?

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 69):
That CZ cargo does not have too much heat haze, and I only applied low sharpening when exporting, I am not sure why it appeared oversharpened.

Yes, after seeing the original, I can see that. This is just a case then of the cheat lines being jagged to start with, and sharpening and re-sizing making it look worse.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1938 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

so you just add more blue hue to the image to remove the yellow? or just decrease yellow? I tried to play with hue in LR but seem the effects were not very obvious, PS is more powerful to do the hue adjustment? Yes, I pretty much set the color temp and tint manually now, trying to address this color issue.

For that CZ cargo, it was rotating so the cheat line was not a level line, maybe I will try 1400 size with low sharpening when exporting, to see if that looks a bit better.

Thanks Dana, very helpful!


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Got these two rejected for soft, or quality, I think both are ok in term of the sharpness, what do you think? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...512_q1367456914.1248dsc_6352-5.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0512_v1367458451.269dsc_8406-4.jpg


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi, just got these two rejected for dark, I don't really feel they are too dark, what do you think? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...30601_t1369112479.0916dsc_0224.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...601_h1369112778.2364dsc_0187-3.jpg


User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 915 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 73):
just got these two rejected for dark

I think that is correct. Check the histogram; there is empty space on the right side.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 73):
just got these two rejected for dark, I don't really feel they are too dark, what do you think?

UA could stand some brightening, and while the LH is also a touch dark, it's probably ok as is. I'd appeal that one.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1530 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Dana, also got your message, thought I could resubmit the appeal with more specific reason, but found once I removed it from the appeal queue, it disappeared forever. I will brighten them up a bit and resubmit.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1517 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Here are two new uploads, first is a 748i cockpit, my question is for cockpit/cabin shots, does everything need to be in focus? like this example, I had some DOF issues, those chairs are definitely not in focus, is it a problem?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/c1370138716.8525dsc_0675.jpg

and for the following American Eagle, I would like to add it to the database as it just got the new paint too, unfortunately a cloud blocked the sun when I took the picture, so it was dark while background was pretty bright, I try to brighten it up, so I wonder if it is savageable?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/k1370233343.3445dsc_0305.jpg

Thanks for your help!


User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 998 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

The cockpit shot looks all right. I've seen plenty of shots in the DB with out of focus seats in the foreground. I think everyone recognizes that shooting at close quarters means you are guaranteed DoF issues.

The Eagle actually looks great to me, but I don't think it would hurt to give it a tenth of a stop more in terms of brightness.

Cheers


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thank angad84.

Just got this one rejected for overexposed, which I don't agree, nothing blown out and I am thinking about appealing this one, what do you think? thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...613_a1370136495.2056dsc_0663-2.jpg


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10340 posts, RR: 26
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

Doesn't look overexposed to me, but looks like there might be window reflections/spots.


How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thanks Vikkyvik, you mean the runway area? I looked carefully, does not seem like reflections to me.

User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 915 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

I see some streaks/patches in the lower left quadrant that look like they might be reflections.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I think those are something on the runway, they appear to be vertical to the length of the runway, nothing from inside of the aircraft would have that pattern.

User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1347 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Here is another upload, do you think this backlit one would work? Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ready/h1371269017.1515dsc_2493.jpg


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10340 posts, RR: 26
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 84):
Here is another upload, do you think this backlit one would work? Thanks!

Works for me.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1246 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Thank Vikkyvik.

To my surprise, I noticed Dana's post. Just want to say that Dana you have been so helpful for me, many many thanks and best wishes!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pre/post Screening Comments Welcome Powwwiii
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