Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
trevisan26 wrote:Harry, Karl, Vik and Kas, really appreciate all your comments and tips.
There is indeed some dust spots on GOL and TAM, already cleaned up them and add a small amount of sharpness and uploaded again. About TAME and Ethiopian, I'll give a try with appeal. Skygates I'll reduce sharpness a bit (oversharpened 3 x 1 soft ).
Four more pictures, the first two are very special for me (but I know that doesn't matter to a.net) as it was the first and second time ever an An124 landed im my hometown airport.
Volga Dnepr
Rejected only for cyan cast, corrected and now rejected for blurry and soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3814612c6
Antonov Airlines
Rejected for soft and magenta cast, correct, and now rejected for high contrast and magenta cast again.
About contrast there is nothing to do, the plane is correctly exposed and the background simply don't have enough light. Magenta cast is really that bad? Color balance is a little tricky on this one because on the right you have the sodium lights and on the left LED lights.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af4a1ba080
Azul
Rejected only for oversharpened, corrected and rejected for blurry and oversharpened.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1a9ccefb61
Gol
Rejected for green cast, corrected, HQ1 and then soft, high contrast and underexposed. Considering its the very last rays of sun, looks ok to me...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 32b3c4c455
Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan
trevisan26 wrote:The two appeals were accepted
I think its worth saying that on Antonov Airlines, the color on the right bottom is the result of the light from the car on the right, it was so strong I decided do crop the image at the engines instead of showing the full wingspan because it was a little distracting.
I'll be waiting for a few more opinions, because as we know, everyone can see it different. Anyway, thanks very much for your opinion Vinicius. I'm from Porto Alegre and looks like you're from Brasília, would be nice to met you for a spotting session one of these days. Cheers!
In my opinion, blurry (many times with oversharpened together) is being overused as rejection reason.
trevisan26 wrote:The Avianca A330 which was rejected by soft, then soft and oversharpened is now overexposed, soft and heat haze. It was a cold morning (about 15C degrees) and I was standing less than 100m to the center Thanks in advance.
airkas1 wrote:BA A318: looks alright. Not great, but not great conditions either.
AV A330: titles maybe a little soft, but otherwise ok.
GOL: looks fine
AF A340: not OS/OE, blurry is debatable, but passable for me
JKPhotos wrote:Hey Thiago,
totally off-Topic, but there is nothing to add to Kas Feedback anway.
You consider 15C degrees a "cold" morning? Damn, that made me smile... I just came back from a short sneak to the airport before work to catch the Swiss "Romandie" Special and it was - 9C degrees. That would be a "cold" morning for me ;-)
By the way, really nice shot. Would love to shoot so close to the runway as well.
Cheers,
Julien
airkas1 wrote:Agree with S7 and I voted motive on the stair photo as well. UA looks blurry at the tail and quite soft indeed.
JKPhotos wrote:Hi Thiago
I am not too familiar with interior shots that's why I skip them.
Otherwise I would like to say something different, but the Boeing factory shot is definitely rather soft (or even blurry - hard to tell on that size) and would need more sharpening. I don't think it is overexposed, but I would bring down the midtones (adjust the Levels further). That will also make it look sharper.
Julien
airkas1 wrote:Boeing overview looks fine.
QR business: Agree on blurry/dof. The area is just too large and prominent.
KE business: Not that bad, but I dislike the empty foreground.
KE first: Not that bad.
airkas1 wrote:Cathay: Fuselage looks a bit marginal, but I would probably give you a pass on it.
Virgin: Looks fine.
Eilat: Embraer looks a bit blurry, but the ATR should be OK with less sharpening (I'm guessing OS was a reason?)
KE: better.