SteelChair wrote:UAL had a hub at EWR.
AA is never leaving JFK.
Photograph: Saleh Al-Obeidi/AFP/Getty Images <a href="http://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9a21498417d137b47e6bdb698059564fbe76ab0e/0_0_4252_2717/master/4252.jpg?w=1920&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=5051159131379d838f65c77851e6d5b6" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9a21...
Jump to post@miamivice uploading will not change the fact that E-mails are not generating properly. However, the queues will be very deep by the time we get through the current batch of images on hold. Basically only accepted images are going to be processed fully. Those that are flagged for rejection will be h...
Jump to postJosh, I screened two of them today and while I did not reject them outright, I did not agree with the motive. Beautiful scene as it stands but for me for the db, there was just too much empty space to justify it (to me). Do you have any other frames where the mountain is more central? I did not scre...
Jump to postVery nice scene... it will likely not pass because it is soft and likely because of heat haze. Try it at 1000px wide. Was it shot at 300mm or more? The compression of all that terrain, at low level does not help you in any way.
Jump to postBe careful when sharpening Air Canada titles as they have a faint 3D border on them which makes them look soft. I would use selective sharpening on these as some parts may <acronym title="Austrian Airlines">OS</acronym> when doing so. As for the shots above, why not try to edit at 1000-1200 first? A...
Jump to postLooks better to me exposure-wise and color-wise. But it is blurry and probably won't make it through screening.
Jump to postActually, Auto Color in PS takes good care of the cast on this image. Give it a shot.
BTW, to me it is a tad OE. Try it with about -5 brightness and see if it looks better.
Cheers!
Manny
Agree that the Super Hornet number 3 is the most pleasing one to me. The <acronym title="Carpatian Air Transport (Hungary)">KC</acronym>-135 though, while number 1 has a gorgeous sky, I think the OOF <acronym title="Ariana Afghan Airlines">FG</acronym> is distracting. I like Number 2 a bit better. C...
Jump to postVery nice image. It is soft and very grainy. Also for the crop you selected, a lot of the image is in a lot of darkness which adds nothing to the scene. Perhaps a different crop? Or do you have any other shots with different exposure / more balanced dynamic range? You said you have not edited the im...
Jump to postWhy the missing blue? It looks very red to me and oversaturated. I am not familiar with this jet but I would expect a better treatment to look like below (quick and dirty edit to show what I meant, not a final edit by any means) The plane is a bit high too for my taste and have cropped it tighter an...
Jump to postContrast is a bit harsh... I would pull it back a bit. Sharpening is a bit much for my taste in some areas like the titles. Is the original sharp or is it OOF or soft? Try the shot at 1000-1200 and see if it improves the sharpening at all. There are also some dust spots that would need to be cloned ...
Jump to postHey Jehan, I think it is easy to make this mistake in the comment to photographer because in our internal comments, we refer to the <acronym title="Air Marshall Islands">CW</acronym> or CCW as to what it needs and what it is very loosely and we all know which way it should go so this is a mistake I ...
Jump to postIvan, Your example is a bit different isn't it? There is a vapor cone that helps the viewer decide if the exposure is correct or not. In this case, the vapor cone is exposed pleasingly. Also the angle of incidence may not coincide with the position of the light and shooting location as it did in you...
Jump to postOh absolutely. I was trying to be nice about it LOL. If I were to be totally honest, speaking for myself, not as a screener, crap light. Period. I don't think there is any saving it. No offense Ivan. For the record, it took me a long time to get over myself to become a better self editor. I now will...
Jump to postVik, Of course you could disagree. But trust me when I tell you, the plane SHOULD be gray in a normal exposure under these conditions. But since photography is about personal interpretation, of course you could interpret it any way you want for yourself. <img src="http://cdn-www.airliners.net/...
Jump to postIvan, Please always remember screening is subjective in almost 99% of the time. Nothing is 100%. When we have great photos, well exposed, good light, etc. EVERYONE agrees the photo is great to one degree or another. When the photo is not great to start with you will not get nearly as many people thi...
Jump to postThiago, I have seen some of your shots while screening and I believe that it is a matter of editing, not necessarily a bad shot to start. That being said, I am not sure what you have to start from. If you'd like, I can take a look at an original or two and give you [my] opinion. From the looks of it...
Jump to postStill looks soft/OS, sorry. Quality is just not there IMO. And as I usually, jealous of the shot, wish it was me who too k it. Would love to see these birds in person. BTW, do you have a WIDE shot of this particular scene? The levels look off given the terrain and the far away buildings. I'd love to...
Jump to postAngad, What I would give to see one and photograph in person. LOVE the shot. Tough light. I don't see major issues with it but with critical eyes, it may still get some challenges. To me, the sky quality is marginal and also feels like it could still use some more contrast. Take a look at the Histog...
Jump to postHi Josh,
It is soft and perhaps OOF. Amrit is correct on the level. Needs CCW. It also has a hint of yellow color cast and vignetting.
Manny
Probably not going to pass screening. I see the issues being Soft/Oversharpened on both. The Tarom has a very distracting foreground which will likely lead to a motive rejection as well as back lit (dark rejection) Both are very grainy. The Tarom is slightly low in frame for my taste. The Wizz Air c...
Jump to postHi Ashley,
It is blurry which is typically not fixable. To me it is also slightly dark overall. Could probably use some levels adjustments. However, the light is top heavy or even back-lit a bit.
Cheers,
Manny
If before you resized for upload the image dimensions were anywhere below 3000px wide, I would not give it a high chance. That is my limit when resizing. If it is any less than 3000px when cropped, I usually just leave it for Facebook <img src="http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/grap...
Jump to postIt is very subjective when it comes to the dark and contrast levels. I think selective application of the curves will make the dark areas a bit more prominent. Perhaps even some local contrast adjustments (with care as they can lead to overdone quickly) It is indeed a challenging subject. I wouldn't...
Jump to postYou could probably argue the dark but it is soft and contrast a bit flat.
Jump to postJulien, I see some <acronym title="Icebird/Islandsflug (Iceland)">HH</acronym> on the top of the fuselage near the nose. Also looks a bit dark and it does look rather soft. Remember soft can mean many things from a screening point of view. In my opinion, the original was likely not sharp enough and ...
Jump to postI love the site layout as it is... it is comfortable and familiar and it works... I would like some more reliability, speed and for god's sakes, less advertising... at least get rid of the dumb pop unders or pop-up ads in general. Reliability and Speed, that's good enough. And squash old bugs <...
Jump to postThanks Pete, it will be Miller Time for you sooner than later
Jump to postMark, that makes sense now, and yes, the counter is on par now, thanks for the explanation
Jump to postManny Gonzalez - Thrust Images <acronym title="Polynesian Airlines (Samoa)">PH</acronym>-BQG <acronym title="British European Airways (United Kingdom)">JY</acronym>-AIC Although both are re-uploaded and in the queue as suggested previously with a note about them being previously accepted but missing...
Jump to postNot sure if this is related, but my image count stopped increasing after 1002. Below is my 1007th image (the last one accepted and it still reads 1 of 1002 (which should be wrong too, as it should be 1007 of 1007) figured I would report it as well. Last correct image is number 1002. <img src="http:/...
Jump to postUPDATE: the upload error is much more persistent today (7:30am NYC) as I have tried 10 times to upload a photo only to receive the error <i>There was an error uploading the file, please try again!Error moving the uploaded file (/tmp/phpijibsH to /var/www/www.airliners.net/docs/addphotos/big/x1409743...
Jump to postUpdate...
Today I received the following error twice. Have not gotten it before!
There was an error uploading the file, please try again!Error moving the uploaded file (/tmp/phpxmZfuk to /var/www/www.airliners.net/docs/addphotos/big/c1409703620.23_mag3697_1200.jpg).
If it is of interest or related, as of this moment, the thumbnails are showing up on all pages all the time. It was not the case throughout the weekend where Thumbnails would not appear for all images.
Jump to postThanks Pete for the update. Not sure if I want to compete with the quality pictures of the volunteers and screeners for the front page :P :P :P
...but I also can't imagine waiting out the queue after it is fixed. It looks deep!
Not a good place to spot from. The heat turbulence from the terminal and APUs will kill every shot. May be good for night shots of the terminal and visible parts of the field.
I stayed there last in 1999 and the windows did not open. Not sure what has changed since then.
I've had similar experience. If one picture is screened and accepted, it shows up. If more than one is screened and accepted, at least one disappears.
Jump to postThanks Pete. I guess I am ok with the appeals taking longer as I rather have my one in the queue be my 1,000th image (if accepted) rather than the one in the appeal queue .
Jump to postDitch the tripod at airshows, you will be so upset after the first display that will want to throw it in the garbage. Action is way too fast for tripods. Even a monopod is cumbersome. I do carry a monopod for my 200-400mm f/4 but only to easily carry it over my shoulder when walking around or when t...
Jump to postThe list now looks like:
Manny Gonzalez - Thrust Images
Len Schwartz
Stephen Duquemin
Thiago Trevisan
Amrit Kannan
John Padgett
Chris Gimmillaro
Craig L Baldwin
Ryan Coulter
Mohit S. Purswani
Kas van Zonneveld
Angad Singh - Zone Five Aviation
Amrit, The screeners told us that it is likely they are gone forever, never to re-appear. So re-uploading is in order. To me, it looks like screening single images is far more successful than any batches. If a batch is screened, some will be lost almost 100% of the time. My last few accepted screens...
Jump to postI asked yesterday about the appeals queue. Any news if head screeners are going though the appeals? And/or is that broken too and will be dealt with AFTER the fixes are in place?
Thank you
Oh no, I hope not. I am trying to time my 1,000th image and that may throw it completely off LOL. Unless of course they get fished out AFTER the fact
Jump to postWhat about Appeals Queue? Could this be a good test for that? I have one in the appeals queue that maybe, if a <acronym title="Highland Air (Sweden)">HS</acronym> is feeling generous, could look at it for me? (hopefully the reject buttons are broken too and any button selected results in an acceptan...
Jump to postI know... so I will report this. I got the E-mail that they were accepted, and the two that were lost also had the accepted E-mail. just FYI. I do not mind re-uploading.
Jump to post