How many NTU are available now ? with Vistara, Avianca and Hainan... Avianca returning some too, second hand market to grow. I think the Vistara NTU frames were originally Hainan frames. Hainan comprises the bulk of the NTU aircraft, iirc 4 are not yet allocated. Those 4 were going to Vistara prior...Jump to post
It seems that I was correct in stating that Aeroflot 77W VQ-BFO would be in the ‘old livery,’ now the question remains: why? It was ordered and agreed before the rebrand. It’s not unknown, BA took a Landor B763 and some B752s after the launch of the world tails livery. The contract signed at the wo...Jump to post
IFL Group 727-200F N215WE flew LRD-CNO yesterday (May 16) as TSU215. Nothing filed out yet, hopefully not for scrap/storage but unknown at the moment. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n215we They've been doing Managua-LRD-CNO a few times within the last week or two, so it is almost certa...Jump to post
Dylan, if you've got the option of a second body, the 70-200 2.8 or 4 (depending on budget) might be a worthwhile aquisition. I think you'll find the 60-600 to be good, but quite a big step down from the 200-500. Having used both (albeit not much for the former), and as an owner of the latter, I don...Jump to post
Alright, thanks guys. I'm not quite willing to give up on them just yet, here's another go. I still have a little bit of room adjustment wise if this isn't quite far enough. Thanks. takeoff: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/7/3/5873379.jpg?v=v49c131079bf runway exit: https://imgproc....Jump to post
Thanks to you both for the feedback, I screwed up the turnoff shot edit pretty badly, usually I catch that before uploading here but I failed to see it. Anyways, here's new versions of both, with the exposure decreased slightly, and some contrast toned town. Thanks! takeoff: https://imgproc.airliner...Jump to post
Hi all, couple 777X shots for prescreening. Thanks!
takeoff: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 82d92f1547
runway turnoff: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 724157258b
As someone who has also had a mysteriously high number of PC’s recently, with no obvious cause, I would also support the system outlined by Kas, Jehan, JK, Daniel and others. Perhaps even internal to the site, a list of voters would at least (theoretically) rid of the bots. As for a voting mafia, I ...Jump to post
Lovely shots all! Kas, that DC-3 shot is fantastic! Tim, always loved 130's, that is a very nice angle! Lee, love the heritage pass, very nice capture! Solon, awesome wing view! Here's my three, it was an awesome year of photos! 5736301 Hard to not include the Seattle fall foliage. This day was pret...Jump to post
Thanks, Here's another crack at both of those, I just bumped the shadows slightly on the 46 and added a touch of sharpening to the Xiamen. Thanks! Xiamen: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/1/7/5847711.jpg?v=v47eaf0f5170 KC-46: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/0/7/58477...Jump to post
Thanks Tim and Kas, Here's a re-edit of Xiamen with color adjusted, and a couple others. I know the lighting on the tanker isn't fantastic, but since that's not an often-seen angle I'd like to give it a shot if it looks otherwise ok. :) Thanks! Xiamen: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/...Jump to post
Thanks Jehan and Evan, Here's re-edits of those three. I did reduce sharpening on the Zero-G just slightly to get rid of the wing jaggies. I wasn't seeing the vignetting but I did attempt to correct that as well. I left the crop a little wider on the Xiamen to show a bit more of the jetwash, but I c...Jump to post
Hi all, Thanks again for the help with that troublesome P-8. Here's a couple I for prescreen from the archive. Thanks! Zero-G: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/1/0/5842013.jpg?v=v41d0cf78603 N225AX: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/0/0/5842009.jpg?v=v4f571e13838 B-113...Jump to post
Hi all, On the back of 5 straight rejections, it somewhat feels like I've forgotten how to edit. This one was rejected for cyan cast (not mentioned the first time but I can somewhat see that being a problem.) Additional rejections include flat, overexposed, and oversharpened. I do not see the first ...Jump to post
Hey all, three recent rejections I'm struggling with a bit. The Alaska turnoff shot was rejected for quality, noise, oversharpened. I can somewhat agree with that, I knew that was going to be borderline overall. The Alaska side on was rejected for blurry, oversharpened and quality. Not really seeing...Jump to post
Thanks all. I completely agree on the crop being looser, most of the rest of my uploads are like that. In this case, this annoying fence ruined my ability to widen the crop without the airplane being too low. I've been looking at taller ladders to get around this, and allow for more flexibility, so ...Jump to post
Hi again all,
Here's the Eco-Demonstrator re-done. Unfortunately not much I could do regarding the crop, but at some point I'll upload a shot of the other side with a more conventional crop. Thanks!
N772ET: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... bf33207e8b
Been out of the editing routine for a little bit, hopefully these two are okay. Thanks!
N1015B: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c08d641006
N772ET: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... b2e2df3d8b
Thanks Kas, I toned down the highlights and decreased overall exposure just slightly, does this look better?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 95d3c3b5fe
Hi all, 115DU got in on appeal.
Hey all, this recently got rejected for soft and I'm not quite seeing where. To me, the only place that's not right on the verge of oversharpened is the tail. Any thoughts, or opinions on where its soft? Thanks!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2510844da2
I've got that issue as well, seems to be happening regardless of browser. Before I realized the problem, I had uploaded an image. I am wondering if that will be visible to the screening team or if I should delete it and wait for the issue to resolve before uploading again?Jump to post
Hi all, been a bit since I've uploaded. Threw a couple in the queue and they were both rejected. Kunming for underexposed and Alaska for underexposed/soft. I suppose I can sort of see how Kunming is a bit dark but I'm failing to see either for Alaska. Thoughts? Kunming: https://imgproc.airliners.net...Jump to post
What AF issues? If you're using that lens with a TC1.4, then your camera has to support f/8 autofocus, which should be OK on the D850. BTW, the D850 is an FX camera, so lens focal length is what it is. That’s correct, I neglected to see the 850 and assumed he was on a DX body for some reason. I’m n...Jump to post
I own this lens, and I don’t think you need the TC. As mentioned above, I would not recommend it due to AF issues. Furthermore, the lens is probably high enough quality in most situations to allow you to just crop a bit more, if you really need it. Keep in mind if you’re on a DX (crop body) focal le...Jump to post
Thanks Evan and Jehan, here are re-edits of both. The WN is not blurry straight out of camera, there was slight NR used so it may be that. I attempted to increase sharpening on the titles slightly, while the T-38 has reduced overall sharpening. Thanks! 64-13247: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/...Jump to post
Tried to edit the previous post, but it appears I am a bit too late. Sorry for the unnecessary clutter, but here's a couple more for prescreening. Thanks! 64-13247 (Beale T-38): https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/8/5550851.jpg?v=v4ad84c10769 N8735L: https://imgproc.airliners.net/phot...Jump to post
Tiger is probably not worth even attempting an edit due to poor lighting conditions, the second aircraft (not good with vintage military types, sorry) is quite noisy and lacks the quality for that size. The light is also posing some issues as it has blown out the wing/fuselage.Jump to post
Update: rejected again "still quite soft" and now also low contrast. Kind of frustrated with the ever-changing reasons, and not really sure what to do since all I did was decrease brightness by 5 and add just a slight bit of sharpening. Frankly, I really don't see how/where its soft, there...Jump to post
Thanks Tim, I'm kind of with you on POWH frankly. Hopefully a screener could offer some guidance, it isn't the best shot, but with the new titles and rarity of the subject in this area of the world, I figured I'd go for it. MKZ was rejected only for soft, which I don't see as an issue, but color is ...Jump to post
Thanks Kas, and thank you for the kind words. Timing is everything! Included below is a re-edit of 737AT, and the G-POWH rejection I'm struggling with. It's been rejected twice for oversharpened and dark, the first one I could definitely see and it was not a great edit. I know the light is pretty di...Jump to post
Hey all, back with a few for pre-screening. Thanks in advance! N737AT: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/7/1/5544175.jpg?v=v4b02ddd108c USMC KC-130J: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/8/1/5544183.jpg?v=v42873987e21 VQ-BIN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/...Jump to post
Re-edited AA got rejected for the exact same things. Some screener input would be appreciated, because for whatever reason I am struggling with this one.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 12ff1ee8d1
Hi, I don't have any of said photos accepted here, but if you look through the database, I'm sure you'd find several. That's probably your best bet to find what you're looking for.