Airliners.net

jelpee

Re: Tips on "Common" comment

The Acceptance Guide has an explanation for when the reason "Common" is used. I believe it should help clarify. Typically, if there are over 100 images of the registration/air-frame in the DB, the standards for acceptance are more stringent. In such a case, "Common" will be assig...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Is there any point in trying to get photos accepted?

If you apply the Equalize filter, the halos around the gear and fuselage are displayed in an enhanced manner. Overuse of the shadow/highlight tool typically causes halos. Equalizing an image is a good way to check.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Have quality standards changed on here recently?

This image was accepted in error and will be removed. We do screen to accept but not this one

Regards,

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: [Post-Screening] Akira Uekawa JA67NH

Uekawa-San, You omitted some key points: According to the screening log, this image was submitted and rejected 7 times for blurriness and low contrast, among other issues. The appeal screener also recommended that the image not be resubmitted. In using all capital letters, I think the last screener ...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Multiple rejection

Typically distant horizontal references are reliable as well as background vertical references that are at, or close to the center. In your image, the far edge of the runway in the background looks to be sloping to the left. Also the power line towers in the background are leaning to the left as wel...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Multiple rejection

The biggest issue is CW rotation needed. Other items are passable for me. I recommend minor reduction in brightness and sharpening.

Jehan.

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Rejection reason “blurry”

Please include the entire image in order to assess it. The titles look fine but there could be other parts of the airplane that are out of focus (blurry).

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Multiple nightshot rejection

Hello Rainer, Anytime an image gets a second screening, it is not unusual for other issues to be identified. I realize it is frustrating to have an mage rejected for additional reasons, but the end goal is always to get the best quality image accepted into the database. Having said all of that, I re...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Rejection reason “blurry”

The main titles look blurry. At 1600 pixels + image size, issues such as blur get magnified. You might try uploading at 1200 pixels.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Post-screening feedback

Screeners use the reference to Quality together with a slew of other rejections all of which make for a lesser quality image. The poor angle of light is rendering the image as dark versus being uniformly lit. To me, the image needs more contrast which would fix the soft appearance. The entire image ...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Lens upgrade

Re. your question on the AF, it has never failed me. For me the weight has never impacted focus as a result of camera shake. The lens is very sharp at f5.6. At ISO 200, I'm able to shoot in excess of 1/1000th of a second on sunny days. I have used it with a tripod, but you need to use a heavy duty t...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Lens upgrade

I use the Nikon 200-500 mm on both the D7100 and the D800. For me, it has been a gem of a lens. Super sharp and excellent contrast and clarity. I've owned and used it for 5+ years. Having lugged it around to various spotting locations around the US by air, it has been very durable as well. I only ha...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: First Photo Pre-Screening Feedback

I agree with BWIAirport: Not a strong motive for the perspective that you have shown. Also due to the back-lighting, it will be considered underexposed. The second image also has the window frame cropped which will also draw a "motive" rejection.

Regards,

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening Advice

Looks like it has a heavy yellow color cast even for sunset lighting. Otherwise OK for me.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Priority Screening Inconsistency

Hello Robert, From your description, it should have received Priority Screening. However, without seeing the image and the submission, I cannot determine if the screener had a reason for de-prioritizing it. Please send an email together with the photo ID# to [email protected].net and we can ta...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: News Banner Question

Hello A388, The best way to address any discrepancies in handling is to reach out to the screeners at [email protected].net. You can also use this forum. However, you will likely get a faster response via an email. Re. you r image, it appears that the livery in your photo is already in our databas...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: bnoble feedback

It should be listed as a Beechcraft G36 Bonanza.

Regards,

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Firefighting Helicopter Picks up Water - but backlit, acceptable?

Nice compositions, but being backlit makes them unsuitable for a.net.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening Advice

Duplicate post--disregard.

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening Advice

Hello Adam,

I looked at the thumbnail sized version of this and the centering looks acceptable to me.

Best regards,

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening Advice

Still looks High. In this case the tail dominates the perspective and factors into the centering. Centering based on the fuselage alone will render it High in Frame. A good way to judge is to look at a thumbnail sized version of the image. In the case of this image, the thumbnail says HIF. Screeners...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Light Trail Stacks

[email protected], we can look into it.

Thanks

Jehan

jelpee

Re: Have quality standards changed on here recently?

For some time now I have had the impression that only heavily edited pictures are actually published here. Photos directly from the cam, scaled down, sharpened and added with a little bit contrast have no chance for beeing accepted anymore. Last year some some of my pictures were rejected because t...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Priority Photo Question

Greetings. I looked at the screening history for the referenced image. Per the Acceptance Guide, museum, restored or permanent display aircraft are excluded from Priority Screening. Since your image is one on permanent display, it was not considered eligible for Priority Screening. The initial scree...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Overexposed rejection...

Good point about the halos. This image should also have drawn a blurry/over sharpened rejection. The tail section is visibly blurry and jaggies are visible on the port wing, engine nacelles and main title.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening Advice

Could use some CW rotation. Also the rear section looks a tad soft and could use some sharpening.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening Advice

Agree with Tim. It needs CW rotation. If you align the runway to be horizontal it should be good.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: pre-screening advice

It's a little high in the frame but otherwise looks good. Contrast and color look fine to me.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening Advice

Hello Adam, Welcome to airlines.net. The Qantas 737 needs some CW rotation. The runway and the fence posts in the background are leaning to the left. Also the aircraft could use some sharpening. CS-TQY A330 could benefit from some contrast. Otherwise IMPO it looks fine. The Acceptance Guide can be f...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: wiggys photos

The horizon needs to be leveled, or a vertical reference at or close to the center of the frame has to be level. Avoid using vertical references (e.g. sides of buildings, poles, etc.), at the right and left edges of the frame since these can be subject to an inward lean due to lens distortion charac...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Have quality standards changed on here recently?

Our intention is to provide banner promotions for those images that are eligible. We miss items on occasion. There are those photographers who images are missed that contact us about it following which the issues are resolved. An email to the Head Screeners about any discrepancies is a more effectiv...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: NIKON AF-S 200-500MM F5.6E ED VR + D7500 for Plane Spotting Photogrpahy

I have used this lens almost exclusively on a D800 body for the past 4 years and can't say enough good things about it. It is reasonably priced and IQ is excellent even at 500 mm. It's been quite durable after this much use and also having carted it around to various spotting locations. I have provi...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Filter recommendations for Canon RF glass

Hoya Multi-coated filters have served me well over the years. I use their UV filters as a protective layer on all my lenses.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: bnoble feedback

If you're talking about the jet-wash coming off the engines, it should not be an issue. It adds a nice and dramatic touch. The image however looks like it could use some CW rotation.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Post-screening — oversharp

The image shows jaggies in various places and shows it clearly at this large size. The recommendation by the screeners to try a smaller size is that that it would perhaps mask some of the jaggies. At 1900 pixels everything is clear in view, but also magnifies any minor flaws.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: wiggys photos

thx guys another issue I have is when I rotate an image it goes blurry is it meant to happen? You should rotate the image from the original file and not from an already edited one. If you do the latter, it will create a loss of sharpness. My workflow is always to level, crop, resize and then other ...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: pre-post screening spompert

Looks soft overall at this size. At 1600 pixels or larger, the screeners look for near flawless images. I think one more pass of sharpening should work.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Post-screening questions

Let me weigh in. The aircraft is technically right in frame. Unlike High/Low in Frame which looks at the perspective and impact of the tail, for Right/left in Frame, it is generally equidistance from the ends of the airplane. In your case, it would be from the nose to the left edge, and the tip of t...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Is this worth appealing?

It does not over-sharpened to me. However, vignetting is visible in the upper corners. Vignetting is where there are dark shadows in the corners. It can be mitigated to some extent with a photo editor. I use Photoshop Elements and there is a correction tool in the Filter--> Correct Camera Distortion...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Help for correction

I took a look at the image in Photoshop. If you drag the right end of the histogram over from the current 255 to about 230 it should brighten up the aircraft without blowing out the sky. Wouldn't this chiefly brighten up the sky rather than the a/c itself? I tried what I described n Photoshop Eleme...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Help for correction

Hello Philippe, The image is underexposed. I took a look at the image in Photoshop. If you drag the right end of the histogram over from the current 255 to about 230 it should brighten up the aircraft without blowing out the sky. As a matter of fact, I selected the "auto contrast" function...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Prescreening: speedbird52 UPS 747

In addition to what dutchspotter 1 says, they both look quite blurry and over-sharpened to compensate.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Accepted Photos Not Showing

[email protected]. The system has been experiencing some incidents like this recently. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards,

Jehan

jelpee

Re: Cupid arrow heart

Hello Geuwon: We have accepted these types of images in the past and one from you as well. However, we are no longer accepting them. The accepted images will remain in the database but no new ones with this motive should be accepted. They are nice images, no doubt, but technically speaking they do n...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Cupid arrow heart

What the screener meant was that the main subject is not a picture of an aircraft or airport. The main subject is that of smoke trails in the shape of a heart and arrow through it. While there is an aircraft in the picture, it is too small to matter. Therefore, Distance and Motive are appropriate re...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: "Screener rejection correct"

Hello Jeongguenwon: Based on the Appeal Comment, we try to provide some additional clarification where we think it is needed. However, sometimes, the screener may feel that the rejection reason is obvious, or that the initial screener already provided some comments. In any event, we will try to impr...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: How do I know if I’ve sharpened my images enough?

In my experience, all images require some amount of tweaking to optimize the sharpening. A good lens should provide a good image; sharpening should enhance it. It is oftern difficult to restore sharpness to a fundamentally soft image without making it look crispy since it is not just the edges that ...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: How do I know if I’ve sharpened my images enough?

Good advice from cpd. I too apply Unsharp Masking (USM) on a layer (50% 0.3). When I see jaggies, I use the eraser tool on those areas. Most times I do one application. Occasionally an image may need two. If more than two are needed, I ditch the image. Also, I select the airplane only when applying ...

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Have quality standards changed on here recently?

jelpee wrote:
I agree. The image is backlit and not the best crop. The matter is already under review amongst the Head Screening team.

Regards,

Jehan

The image has been removed from the site and the photographer has been notified.

Jehan

Jump to post

jelpee

Re: Have quality standards changed on here recently?

I agree. The image is backlit and not the best crop. The matter is already under review amongst the Head Screening team.

Regards,

Jehan

Jump to post

Search found 1140 matches