For people who want evidence on the N750AN thing: Here is the original pics I believe you can look up yourself :) https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/1/94834_1090324679.jpg https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/1/37801_1090324526.jpg There's a screenshot from Ins which use these shots as reference for the hoax...Jump to post
For people who want evidence on the N750AN thing:
Here is the original pics I believe you can look up yourself
Merry Christmas ! Sorry for the late reply as we are working on the queue lately. Regarding the photos you posted above, Single Prop* I prefer slightly CCW Rotate, and Qantas LINK looks compressed to me
rpd14 wrote:Hi guys
I need your feedback again for my photo
Is this passable ? Thanks in advance
Hello dear A388, I and we sincerely apologize to the inconvenience made to you. Info - Builder rejection will not be given alone, it will be given along with some other existed problems. Sometimes we see Builder Info in the wrong place but if the picture is fine we will just go ahead and accept. I k...Jump to post
Most of time JPEG does look better than RAW, however JPEG won't have too much space for you to do editing via whatever software you use especially for some extreme photographing conditions which include night shots, poor light, hard weather situation, and etc.. For me I always take Best Quality RAW ...Jump to post
Just FYI, you can always find personal message from us via the Email we sent to you after our Rejection. You won't be able to find the message through Photo Corner though.
Why not make the settings for Camera settings Standard. I'm not sure which part are you referring to, but I am guessing that you are talking about the EXIF showing option above the Watermark tab. From my personal opinion is that sometimes some people don't want to show the details of equipment of s...Jump to post
Hey Wiggy, Since I am not using my screening monitor right now, my opinions could be limited for your reference. As far as I can tell based on your posted above, I would suggest to try smaller size rather than size larger than 1600px because some detailed parts look tad blurry on my side at this siz...Jump to post
Sup ! I dont know how it will look like when you use a uploading size because your current size is original size I believe, and you should judge it from our angle which is checking your pic in uploading size since we can't access your original pic. IMO, the pic is also underexposed and soft. There's...Jump to post
Hi, IMO, the overall quality for this pic is insufficient at this size. It could be improved by using smaller size like 1200px with more sharpness. Smaller size could also reduce the visual effect of heat haze (if any). For this one, I only see obvious "Blurry" , "Soft" and "...Jump to post
If you are referring to this one then I believe it's been added successfully as Priority.
It depends on your need I would say. As hoons90 mentions if you take daytime photos most of the time, APSC would be a nice choice for spotting aircraft, but FF do can provide much better quality photos. IMO, I would use Sony FF like A7 iii and its replacement A7 IV since I am also considering to rec...Jump to post
Hi, The rejected one does look slightly underexposed even without checking the histogram. If you want a more subjective reference you can check histogram but don't rely too much on it. Just a reference. Besides, I would suggest you to try adjust "Level" in Photoshop or whatever softwares y...Jump to post
Sharpness loosk not bad to me although I would increase slightly for it. Hwoever, the major problem should be the cropping issue because the whole aircraft is not centered at all. Right hand side has too much empty space.
Sorry for the late reply. We couldn't access large size photos you posted like this. Please try another method to post photos. We would be glad to help you !
Hi Andy, I can't access to the photo you posted above. One of the ways to recognize the compression is to check if there's "Pixel" feeling or effect on the photos. Typically can be observed in the sky and some colorful areas. You can experiment this by saving an identical photo with differ...Jump to post
Ditto with Karl's opinions.Jump to post
Thanks Harry! Just to be sure, I selected night shot and special paint, am I missing anything? No need for "Night/Dusk/Dawn" category for this case. Sunlight situation looks pretty enough from the picture you showed. Only need to select the "Colorful/Special Paint" from the cate...Jump to post
Brightness looks passable for me, but I do agree with another two on Low Contrast and Oversharpened. Adding slightly more contrast would be better and some jaggy can be seen surround the windows and edges of fuselage.Jump to post
Looks nice for me.Just ensure you enter correct info and select appropriate category for it when upload
Agree with Tim's point.Jump to post
Hi, Your link probably would not work for us in here since the link will take us to our own Photo Corner Page. Your photo should be "Untitled" first and then follow its real owner "Korean Air." Since there is no specific title on the aircraft body, the first airline should always...Jump to post
CW rotation means that your current one needs some CW (Clockwise) rotation. Reason(s) for "Motive" should be explained in "Personal Message" which which will be shown in your Email !
Hope that helps!
Hi Jalap ! You can always use the "Reupload" function which can be easily found in "Photo Corner" ---> "Accepted" ---> "Photo you want to switch"---> "Reupload" to replace the current ACCEPTED photo with another better one. Follow the instructions sh...Jump to post
I would do so although the second one does look marginal at quality respect ( Sky has bit of noisy ). The first one (71), I can't recognize obvious borders and heat haze.
F-16C : Agree with Tim's point on soft. The whole aircraft looks very soft especially the areas beside cockpit cover. Hard to get a pass IMO. F18C : Crop should be fine. Sharpness looks marginal but passable for me. If it still gets Soft this time, I would highly recommend you to apply a small size ...Jump to post
I just took a look at it. The body looks blurry and oversharpened at some parts as well due to blurry. Probably would be better with a better angle in this series.
6160563: Overall looks ok for me. There is a bird-like thing above the aircraft, which would be better to be removed IMO. Since it's hard to be recognized even in some large screen. Probably would lead to Dirty Rejection. 6160565: A visible dirty circle spot in the upper left corner. Otherwise, look...Jump to post
Hi Sorry for the late reply. Firstly, the crop looks really iffy for me as I am not a fan of this kind of crop because it looks not really balanced in genearl although it is close to Example 22c. I won't recommend this crop, IMO. There are also some other issues as well. Reflections on the body due ...Jump to post
I can't access to the later two links you posted ;D
Could you please check it again ?
Hi Stuart ! Sorry for the late reply for your thread. Here're my opinions for them : N624XA : CW rotation needed (Using consturctions outside airport) ; Too low in frame (Too much space on the upper frame) ; Could be slightly brighter. N542NM: Vignettings from left and right side ; Slightly low in f...Jump to post
OK, sorry for delayed reply, a couple of family events over the weekend. Re-uploaded using the photo from the previous link without watermark. I saw it, but that won't work at this size honestly. 1920px requires very high quality from many aspects. Would be better at a smaller size like 1300px - 14...Jump to post
Hi, This is a common issue (Not a Bug) about the color file used when you edit your photos. You would be better to use sRGB file rather than RGB file when edit your photos and ready to upload to Web. Since most Webs will not show real color of the photo (like this case). We, screeners, can't see thi...Jump to post
Well, it is better than the previous version, but I still think that you left too much unnecessary upper empty sky. Replacing those sky areas with the bottom areas would be better IMO. Regards, You mean like this? https://flic.kr/p/2jDg872 Yes with appropriate size and quality, this is much better :DJump to post
Well, it is better than the previous version, but I still think that you left too much unnecessary upper empty sky. Replacing those sky areas with the bottom areas would be better IMO.
OK I couldn't wait... retrying and link to new upload is here: https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-corner/photo/6141783 Please let me know if that is more what you had in mind? Thanks Charlie. Hey Charlie, The link you posted is for your own Photo Corner, which will lead us to our own Photo Corner...Jump to post
Hey Charlie, This photo has been through four of us in the process, and each of us agrees that this is a nice one with beautiful sunshine, but the upper frame is too empty since the sky doesn't have too many interesting things there. I would agree what JakTrax talked about above. You can also try to...Jump to post
Hi Yousaf, Sorry for the latre reply for your previous post. I'm not a fan of the angle of the BMX, but that one looks fine for me. It would be better to give a slightly tighter crop. For BLZ, it looks tad low contrast for me and the bottom has bit of magenta cast. Plz also ensure you insert sRGB co...Jump to post
Hi, For heat haze, if the heat haze effect on the aircraft is visible and obviouse enough in large size image,we will mostly reject that. Some severe and obvious heat haze would be rejected directly. Some minor heat haze in original photo can be seen but after editing and re-size processes cannot be...Jump to post
Sorry for the inconvenience. We have already added this one for you again. Photo shown normally right now ; )
Looks not bad at this size for me ; )
That one looks pretty soft for me especially the nose gear area. Besides, it also looks low contrast and underexposed for me probably due to the poor weather situation I guess. If you want to make adjustments on it, ensure don't make more noise in sky.Jump to post
Hi, I actually deleted that photo, but it would be helpful if you could check 6107693, Thanks! Would like to confirm if it's Cessna 608A taken at JXN ? Although it's ok to do so, highly recommend you to post links in the threads so that everyone can provide their thought on it if you like ! Since w...Jump to post
Anything which requires fixing? https://i.ibb.co/JkxshCM/IMG-8652-Edit-AP-BGK-1600-x-1067.jpg This one is very low contrast obviously I think. I can see slight heat haze along with the top edge of the aircraft in this case, and the size is too large to satisfy this standard in this case as well. So...Jump to post
https://i.ibb.co/SKXTTcZ/IMG-8300.jpg Is this worth occupying an upload slot? The quality for this one is veyr marginal I think. There's a obvious flares from light in the background above the nose of the aircraft.Looks some cw rotation might be needed as well. A little bit right in frame since the...Jump to post
Could you please share a link of the corresponding photo to us here ? I can't access to the photo you mentioned above. Thanks.
Cathay 748F looks ok for me in terms of sharpness at this size.
For Qantas, I agree with Tim's opinions that it has sligly soft, but frame is fine IMO.
For the latest two, I would agree with Tim on obvious Noisy and Blurry. I can't judge sharpness and color right now as I don't have my screening screen yet, but these two look pretty obvious.Jump to post