whales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Hello
Please could I get some feedback on the photo below, it was taken in the evening, and there was a lot of cloud around. I am not sure about the lighting and the contrast mainly. If there is anything please let me know.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1174 times:
Quoting whales (Reply 9):
2. General feed back for this one please.
Looks like very harsh light, as mentioned above. Also looks a bit dark up front and soft, especially towards the registration. Might need a bit of CCW, also.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 12, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1169 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting whales (Reply 9): 1. I am not sure about the contrast and any other problems
Bit flat & noisy, also slight orange tinge. May be fixable.
Quoting whales (Reply 9): 2. General feed back for this one please.
Overexposed, verging on blown out in some areas. Not sure what horizon the others are seeing, all I see are trees, so the level is probably best left as you have it.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 12): Not sure what horizon the others are seeing
I wasn't basing the level off the horizon, because as you said there isn't one. I just thought it looked a little leany. One of those eye things, I wasn't basing my level off any object.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1027 times:
Nice shot, but I don't think it has a shot due to being backlit, as the sky is almost blown out and also all of the obstructions (ie, wing and box in the upper right.)
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (5 months 1 week ago) and read 1019 times:
So it can be fixed even with that box in the upper right? But, Andrew's photo for a slight gear block is rejected. Now that confuses me, just saying, I think that's a bit harsh. I like the photo a lot, but when we are getting rejections for having +1 too much contrast, that gets accepted with the wing in the way and that box along with a marginally blown out sky?
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (5 months 1 week ago) and read 1024 times:
First off, I have read the motive rules, as you yourself suggested earlier, also, the gear obstruction was barely noticeable. I think these obstructions are distracting, imho. I did have constructive criticism in my first reply. And, I will refrain from posting, I meant no disrespect or bad intentions, I just think it is a bit confusing and I think it should be changed.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 31, posted (5 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 953 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting whales (Reply 30): I have another below and am not sure about motive.
Kind of interesting motive, but would likely need more opinions. However, multiple severe quality issues that would need to be sorted (if even possible) first.
whales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 895 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Hi Dana
Thanks for your help and advice on the Air Mauritius photo in reply 20, it was accepted today. Also a big thank you for all your help and advice throughout 2012, it has been very much appreciated. I hope 2013 is a great year for you.
whales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 858 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Hi All
I had this rejected for contrast to start with, I added more contrast. It was then rejected for level, it said cw needed, I appealed it, but have not recieved the email, but still says level, and they have added contrast again. I do not believe there is anything wrong with the level, I have used the posts as my levelling measur as they have the most amount of area to work with. Is this site wanting us to use protractors now? If it is out, it is no more than 0.05 of a degree out! I have double checked in CS5 with the grids, and it showing as level. The contrast does it need more or less?
whales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 845 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Hi All
I have also had the following photo rejected for level, quality, noise, oversharpened and dark. I do not see any of the rejection reasons, please can I have some help. If I brighten the picture, the fuselage will then be done for overexposed, the level according to the tower in back ground in the middle of the photo is showing it is level.
whales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 840 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Hi All
Another rejection, quality and soft. Quality rejection is such a vague rejection, even in the rejection guide. It would help if the screener elaborated on the quality, like they do with contrast and level and added a personal note. Is this picture salvageable? Please could you also tell me where it is soft.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, RR: 32 Reply 36, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 833 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting whales (Reply 33): I had this rejected for contrast to start with, I added more contrast.
Looks like it needs more contrast and a little cw rotation.
Quoting whales (Reply 34): I have also had the following photo rejected for level, quality, noise, oversharpened and dark. I do not see any of the rejection reasons,
The only one I would disagree with is dark. The rest were justified, as the quality is quite poor.
Quoting whales (Reply 35): Another rejection, quality and soft.
Looks a little noisy too. If no other info is given, you can take a 'quality' rejection to mean your photo is not really close to being acceptable.
whales From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 610 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Hello
I had the photo below rejected for various reasons twice, but none included level, now on the 3rd attempt it is done for level, I appealed it, it was rejected again for level, saying it needed some CW rotation. I don't see it, and I don't know what they are judging the level on. Please could I get some advice on how level this and what to gauge it on.
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 323 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 596 times:
Hi William,
Some of the bands in the sky at the horizon do look off-level, but that does not mean they necessarily should be. I don't know what I would do differently.
What else was it rejected for? To me it looks fairly noisy/grainy and there might be some reflections as well, so that might be a bigger issue than the leveling.
DL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 588 times:
Kind of lost with what they would be judging the level on, I don' think you can judge level on clouds. They aren't always parallel to the horizon. I will let a screener explain that. The noise is pretty apparent and I am surprised it wasn't rejected for that as well.
Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
Sponsor Message: 
From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2006, 340 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7247 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3848 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 273 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
