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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Please wait 24 hours. If it does not show after that, contact the [email protected]. The system has been experiencing some incidents like this recently. Sorry for the inconvenience.
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
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
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
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
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 wrote:I agree. The image is backlit and not the best crop. The matter is already under review amongst the Head Screening team.
I agree. The image is backlit and not the best crop. The matter is already under review amongst the Head Screening team.
I've been using the D7100 for many years for Aviation Photography. The quality of the image is directly relate to the quality of the glass. I use it the Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR and enjoy excellent results. From a performance point of view, I have not had a reason to change/upgrade.
Hello Bob, Welcome to Airliners.net. The best place to start would be to review the Acceptance Guide located on the photo upload page. You can also find it here: https://www.airliners.net/faq/photo_acceptance_guide/ The document is somewhat dated, but the acceptance criteria still apply. Also feel f...Jump to post
Garrett, In looking at this shot there is a registration number identified (N858V). Let me know if I'm missing something in your inquiry. As for it not being designated an Airport Overview, we usually do not reject for a "Category" issues only, since it is something that the screener can a...Jump to post
Hi Rainer, The latest version looks oversharpened to me. Especially visible in the tail markings and also cockpit windows. If you can selectively apply some sharpening it would work. On the other hand, since this is a negative scan, I believe the prior version should be acceptable. I don't do vintag...Jump to post
Hello Rainer, The new framing and composition works much better for me. The image is balanced and you still get the impact of the spray. I know this may sound picky, but the aircraft looks a tad blurry. I see it in the tail and wingtips. I wouldn't upload at a size larger than 1200 pixels to minimiz...Jump to post
Hello Rainer, Even with the effect of the spraying, IMO, there is too much dead space on the left side. For me, while the spray action is an important part of the image, it is not as dramatic since the spray is a light color. If there was a visually impactful spray (as we would see in de-icing, or s...Jump to post
I do not see halos on the first link, but visible on the second (e.g. around the wings and tail). I'm surprised you do not see it when the image is equalized. Both images are pretty blurry though and will likely be rejected for it and quality.
6273007 is not showing up. Thanks! Sorry that you are experiencing this issue. According to teh screening log, the image was accepted. If the image does not show up within the next 12 hours, please resubmit it as "Priority Screening" with a comment referencing this forum post. Regards, Je...Jump to post
Hello Garrett, While there is nothing specific to this subject in the Acceptance Guide, the guideline has always been that the registration for aircraft closest to the photographer is what should be listed. Typically, this is also the most prominent subject. However, there are circumstances when the...Jump to post
Congratulations Colin! A great milestone. I enjoy screening your images and glad you are an active contributor.
The image is within acceptable standards. I did not screen this image, but I do not see any heat haze or other issues that that would have caused me to reject this image either.
Sometimes it is nice to not have the camera all the time and enjoy things without worrying about motives, light, etc. Completely agree. You miss a lot by only looking at life and the world through a viewfinder or display screen of a camera. But to answer the OP, it is a good idea to always have you...Jump to post