American and Qatar have taken delivery of many airplanes from CHS. The others have few if any left to deliver. AA has yes, but behind the scenes there’s some squabbling about that from what I’ve been told. Qatar? You must’ve missed the huge uproar they had about CHS. Not the point. The point was th...
Jump to postI pine for the days when Boeing built airplanes. Not like it is now when they seem to be assembling kits. Perhaps a few thousand passengers per year care where their aircraft are produced/assembled (who pines for the day when A220's were only assembled in Mirabel?), and zero commercial airlines do....
Jump to post5 days in Seattle - maybe some sort of maintenance check being done? I hope so. But I will say what we are afraid to. It is probably in for paint. Especially if it moves somewhere off SEA for a few days before RTS. SEA doesn’t have a paint facility. Most if not all of AS’s paint is done at VCV, so ...
Jump to postA few things of note RE cancellations. A LOT frame and a T’Way frame have appeared painted over in VCV, unknown if it is the same frame or if these are two different frames. From what I’ve heard, Comair has only cancelled two. I suspect a lot of the cancellations we are seeing are carriers transferr...
Jump to postGot it. thanks. I thought Delta didn’t have many left, but even anywhere close to 50 is still a lot of planes. As if today (after the two departures) there are 8 WN Max AC still sitting in VCV: N8701Q N8704Q N8710M N8717M N8719Q N8723Q N8729H N8733M Of course, not counting any undelivered ones that...
Jump to postDid anyone see BOE901 1249 to 1324 ? I saw it on final to BFI - Flydubai A6-FMP flew as BOE901 verses BOE17 since Ryanair EI-HEZ flew using BOE17. That was yesterday's flight wasn't it? I was referring to the 901 on Thursday. I think 901 on Thursday was EI-HEZ that day as it flew with an Irish hex ...
Jump to postVCVSpotter wrote:Qatar 787-9 A7-BHL flying PDX-VCV as BOE948 for storage.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a7-bhl
I think it could depend on if she was using her tail number or a N reg. If its a N reg it may be doing some testing/certification stuff. Or that's the way i have been told that happens What is the actual protocol for Boeing, and for Airbus for that matter, when it comes to test-flying all new frame...
Jump to postET-AYC is delivered, took quite a bit of humanitarian aid when it left PAE. Carriers who are still taking deliveries seem to include Vistara (not including the Hainan NTU frames which are stored), Turkish, Ethiopian, and American, maybe some others I have forgotten about. Most everything else is goi...
Jump to postHow 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 postIt 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 postIFL 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 postDylan, 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 postAlright, 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 postThanks Kas! Yeah, definitely not the greatest weather, but it was pretty special witnessing and documenting a first flight. Do you think these would be acceptable or do I need to go further on the contrast?
Jump to postThanks 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 postHi 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 postThanks JK, I'll delete the Xiamen for now and have another go later.
Jump to postLovely 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 postI see the haloes as well, there's some around the right winglet too. Should be a pretty easy thing to clean up, other than that its a very lovely angle!
Jump to postThanks, 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 postThanks 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 postThanks 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 postHi 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 postThanks all, made some further tweaks and got it into the db yesterday. Hopefully sooner or later I’ll get one of these things in better light!
Thanks Kas, what are your thoughts on the second version I linked above? I’m assuming code would be “02” since that’s what’s on the nose/tail.
Jump to postHi 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 postHey 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 postHaha Julien, same here. That spot is absolutely fantastic except the fence, but as mentioned earlier, hopefully the taller ladder fixes that! Thanks again, and have a nice weekend guys!
Jump to postThanks 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 postHi 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
Hi Julien,
Thanks for the feedback! I totally agree on the crop, but unfortunately widening it much more throws off the centering, it’s pretty much maxed out on the bottom of the frame crop wise. Would that be a rejection or just preference? Thanks!
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.
Thanks Harry, Jehan, Kas, I’ll try an appeal then. I appreciate the feedback as always. Thanks!
Jump to postHey 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
Roger that, thanks Kas. It’s a priority, so I’ll keep an eye on things to see if it becomes visible. If I have to reupload, no big deal. Appreciate the hard work, as always.
Jump to postI'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 postHi 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 postWhat 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 postI 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 postSo the KC-130 was rejected for overexposed. UT was also rejected for flat and overexposed. That’s a bit frustrating considering a head screener said they looked alright, and I personally don’t see those issues. Thoughts? Thanks!
Jump to postThanks Jehan! Bravo 7 does afford some very nice views for shots like that.
Jump to postThanks 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 postTried 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 postThanks Jehan, no worries. I tuned it up again and it's in the db now.
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