Hi Aviaflyer, As screeners, we use background verticals to judge the rotation of an image. In this case, the background verticals I'm looking at are the apartment buildings which are leaning to the right. This means that they need some ccw rotation to make them stand up straight. Should be an easy f...
Jump to postHi Mika, I understand your concerns, and as an uploader myself I get the +- 3-week queue being a frustration. It is important to remember that all screeners are volunteers, we volunteer our time to screen and we have other things going on in life. Personally I'm approaching the end of my first semes...
Jump to postMake sure when you're export that you're exporting at the correct settings.
Ie: Maximum quality settings, correct width and height in pixels, etc.
If all that is correct then I'll have a look.
You can request photo feedback here on the photography feedback forum.
I'm happy to take a look at this photo but I need a link to the correctly sized photo (at least 1024 px wide).
Tim
Airport overviews do not qualify for priority screening. Please review the priority screening guidelines at https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1473719 Tim Dear Tim, How long it could take for a photograph to be screened and (if) accepted? George Right now it's exactly 14 days. Though t...
Jump to postAirport overviews do not qualify for priority screening.
Please review the priority screening guidelines at viewtopic.php?t=1473719
Tim
Personally I think it would be better if you cropped closer to the horizontal stabilizer on the left side, as well as loosening the crop on the right hand site to include the entire wing mount.
Exposure is passable for me
Tim
Always shoot RAW, 100% of the time.
It may take up more space but it makes up for it in image quality.
That and implementing what I told you before should see a spike in the quality of your images.
Tim
Hi there,
The entire photo is very blurry and soft with far too much sharpening added to compensate. It would also be rejected for motive as there is a lot blocking the aircraft.
It also looks like there was an excessive amount of noise reduction used.
Thanks,
Tim
I'll use anything you have, just let me know what you want to use.
Jump to postI have light room but I am to waiting to be shown how to use it and in the mean town I'm just using windows photos until I get shown how to use light lightroom as for resizing I click on resize then I click on something like enter custom dimensions and I put in 1092px or smaller at that is maximum ...
Jump to postI love Battersea Heliport and love keeping up with the movements in and out.
I would absolutely love a webcam of the heliport to be up and running!
Tim
What you said about not seeing a glaring issue is I'm exactly the same so does that mean I'll have live with it and keep trying? Spotting issues comes with practice, but from time to time you just miss something. About dust spots, this is where lightroom/photoshop will come in handy as it has a dus...
Jump to postNothing wrong with the 1500d, what lenses are you using?
Oh, and by the way: I, a screener, recently had an embarrassing number of photos rejected that I'm still kicking myself for not seeing a glaring issue. Rejections happen to everyone, its not ab-normal.
- May I suggest you look into using Adobe Lightroom? It is a tuned down version of photoshop that is much easier to use. I use it myself for all of my photos. - If you're using the Windows Photo app, when you are about save find "Resize" and you will be prompted with the popup shown in thi...
Jump to postHey Hadleigh, Your photos are NOT terrible, back when I first started I thought my photos were terrible too! While my old photos are not showstoppers it would be wrong to call them terrible photos. I started taking my photos in late 2017 when I was only 15 years old. Here I am almost 19 and a screen...
Jump to postI found two good examples here of what everyone is disgruntled over I think. Why would you even upload or accept such a backlit version of this shot? Can the helicopter not fly up-sun of the subject? 6653259 6654289 I like to think of it this way: A backlit, side on, shot from the ground, photo of ...
Jump to postBy any generally accepted standards this is an average at best photo. The front of the aircraft is nearly cut off in the frame. But this is acceptable...? Ok Anet prefers tight crops. Is there a published guide somewhere about other foundational photography concepts that we can ignore when shooting...
Jump to postTim, Thanks for the reply. I will concede the dust spot below the landing gear, that is fair. The rest of it is baffling to me. I wish there was a better way to discuss an image and convey feedback. I could go on about the things I disagree with you about, but I sense there isn't much to be gained ...
Jump to postCell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the ...
Jump to postHi there, I screened this image. At 1920px wide, there is clear blurriness visible, a smaller size may hide the blurriness. Regarding Dirty, in the hill below the main gear closest to the camera there is a dirt/dust spot in the hill, easily removable using the spot removal tool. Dark halos are visi...
Jump to postHi there, I screened this image. At 1920px wide, there is clear blurriness visible, a smaller size may hide the blurriness. Regarding Dirty, in the hill below the main gear closest to the camera there is a dirt/dust spot in the hill, easily removable using the spot removal tool. Dark halos are visib...
Jump to postCell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the ...
Jump to postSQ22 wrote:I have forwarded it again, it has been reported, but then it was solved after clearing the Captcha. So you seem to be the only one who reported it.
terrywade wrote:Thank you for trying to help me
WestJet: flat, OE, and yellow colour cast.
15001 with CF18 (both shots): flat, First is a bit yellow.
Flair: flat, soft
Snowbirds: could use a tighter crop, a bit flat as well
GLEX: Probably acceptable as is, however the crop look weird imo. Personally I would crop it right up to the engine on the left side of the image. IT also could do with a slight hit of ccw roation.
VH-VPF: Definitely high in frame. otherwise it looks ok.
Tim
I screened this image. The photo is blurry to the point of no sharpening will fix it unfortunately.
Tim
Hello,
The photo needs CW rotation, more contrast, a slight bump in exposure, as well as using less noise reduction, the entire image looks very pastey as there is too much noise reduction.
Might be fixable.
Tim
Looks a little Over Exposed to me, as well as high in frame, should be fixable.
Tim
Personally I see nothing wrong with the above images, I dont find any trees/light poles/ground equipment distracting at all. I do agree that the Transavia B738 isn't superb light wise, however it looks passable. Any website of this sort (particularly this one) always aims to accept photos, and given...
Jump to postHello Adam,
QFA 737 still leaning a bit left in my eyes, but is now much better sharpening wise.
Really nice light as well!
Tim
The two NASA 747SPs still show some OS on the tail titles, but the rest are much better (FedEx and the more daylight SOFIA could be a touch lower in frame though)
- Tim
FedEx: as well as some slight OS, its very noisy/grainy, quite a bit of colour noise all around. SOFIA: NASA title looks very OS, otherwise a very nice shot! UPS: same as first Fedex Silkway: A touch noisy, and the OS is causing some bleeding(?) around the tail with the night sky, it looks weird aro...
Jump to postBacklit/poor lighting, Very magenta Colour cast, the nose, engine #2 and the wind are very soft/blurry.
- Tim
Image is visibly blurry all around to the point where it wouldn't be acceptable at any size or with any amount of sharpening. I would personally just drop pit.
Tim
Looks like it could do with a smidge of rotation to make the background more level. I also see a bit of blurriness/heat haze, which may make it inadmissible no matter what. Visually a touch of contrast wouldn't hurt either, though its probably ok as it is. Try a smaller size along with the other fix...
Jump to postGot my 500th photo accepted today! I'd like to thank the screeners for the time they take to screen all the images on this site, and at the same time apologize for some of mine. :lol: Lockdown has given me time to sort through all of my photos, and upload ones that I previously wouldn't have as the ...
Jump to postHi,
For me, yes. Its very noticeable, personally I dont think its fixable.
Tim
Hi all,
I was wondering when screener applications take place. Is there a set time of year, or is it random?
Thanks,
Tim
Looks a bit soft in my eyes, maybe a touch magenta as well.
otherwise fine.
Tim
Not a screener (but who knows, maybe one day... :scratchchin: ) F16: Soft around the tail and nose, however, given the conditions (long lens, likely a large crop) it could go either way. F18: Bit of a tight crop for me, also a touch OS, otherwise ok Thunderbird T38: Unlevel? Its really hard to tell ...
Jump to postThis would vary from screener to screener. I personally think it would be better if cropped a bit tighter.
Tom
Cathay: Agree with what you said.
Qantas: Framing looks ok to me, bu a touch soft around the rear of the aircraft.
Tim
Definitely Condor, whats the date? I'll ask a few friends to see if they were out on the same day or if they can find out using a higher up version of FlightAware or FR24.
Tim