Thanks again, I agree the WN appears blurryish but not sure why, since the original is pretty sharp. Here's a re-edit with some more sharpening. Thanks!
WN 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 137fe66d9a
Latest shot seems quite soft, looks out of focus at the rear, and possibly blurry. Overall quality will make it hard to get accepted. What were the settings of this shot?Jump to post
So here are re-edits of the MAX, 787-10, and Saudi. Additional/screener feedback on the two from the original post (WN 738 and KC-130J) along with these three new would be great. Thanks! Saudi 77W: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/8/0/5162083.jpg?v=v49448abd62c 787-10: https://imgpro...Jump to post
Those links work only for accepted images. Please go to that photo in the queue, right click on it and select copy image address, then you can paste that URL here so we can have a look.Jump to post
The new version appears almost blurry and compressed; possibly the latter is causing the look of the former. I recommend that you upload your images to the queue and link here, that way it is easiest to see the uploaded version without artifacts applied by flickr, imgur, and the like.Jump to post
Hi all, here's the re-edits on the MAX 7 and the 130, along with three more. Doing something a little special for 100, so focusing on getting to 99 for now lol. As far as I can understand, the 787-10 from this angle should not be considered double with the one that was accepted into the db already, ...Jump to post
So the KC-130 wound up rejected for dirty (spots on taxiway that I didn't see), soft, and overexposed. I guess I get overexposed, it was obviously dirty, soft I don't really see...but I guess I can add some sharpening. Would love further opinions on the P-51 and A-10 and the re-edit of the KC-130 si...Jump to post
Thanks Evan! I was trying to get the balance between acceptable shadows and good contrast, so I should probably add a little more contrast. I'd like some screener feedback on these, since Kas was unsure if the sharpening issues were imgur related. Edit: Congratulations on 100 Evan! That's not easy, ...Jump to post
Friendly bump for feedback on those two, and also here is one more shot. Thanks!
737-7MAX: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 10a04ce5ce
Will do, sorry guys. That's my bad. Here are the URL's.
A-10: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bf3bab7581
P-51: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b28e7b343f
Thanks guys, here's the re-edits of everything but the B-25 since that's a fairly comprehensive edit. Went ahead and added the Blue Angel solo shot and the 787-10 to the queue.
They all appear pretty noisy to me. What ISO are you using and how much exposure compensation/brightness are you adding in processing? Doesn't seem to me to be a reason daytime shots like this should be so grainy. FWIW I see a slight bit of banding near the sun in the UPS. S80 tail upon re-edit appe...Jump to post
Sometimes we see 1st flight shots, but AC is on the ground with all the gears (take-off roll), like a static shot. Is it acceptable? First flights will now have to be rotation or airborne photos. So what if we happen to see the landing but the wheels are on the ground, although clearly on a runway?Jump to post
Ok, so from the top disregarding the blurry FX. N429AW, looks backlit/harsh light, probably a no-go, also possibly flat and a little heat hazed. AA CRJ head on looks a little soft, again harsh light. CRJ cockpit looks blurry/out of focus in spots and windows are blown out. S80 tail looks noisy, dark...Jump to post
Thanks for the feedback. I knew the B-25 would be pushing it, but I have other shots of the same aircraft that are probably better, I liked the angle on that one. I don't know why the A-10 looks weirdly OS/blurry, the original is not blurry, might be imgur related. Could a screener chime in? Particu...Jump to post
IMO I would bin the MU, sorry. UA looks a tad soft at the nose but may be passable, AA 321 seems low and needing CW but I feel like the rotation is my eyes tricking me. I would let the trusty old ruler tool decide that one. MU inflight looks to be in harsh light, top is almost blown out and the shad...Jump to post
Quite compressed and therefore hard to provide feedback.Jump to post
Overall, these are pretty poor quality and look like possibly heavy crops. The first one has softness all over (look at titles and numbers) and slight blur on the tail. Sky is also somewhat blotchy, indicating compression. Make sure you do not edit jpg's, only save from whatever file type you're edi...Jump to post
The 135 does have some overall softness and areas of blur (tail mainly is where I see it). May have a shot at 1024, I doubt 1400 will work given the evident blur. The 15 I don't really see blur, but it is quite soft, as for compression, save from whatever file type you edit in to jpg only once and a...Jump to post
Out of frustration, abandoning the JAL 787. Here's a half dozen more I'd like feedback on. Also still welcoming feedback, particularly from screeners on the tanker and A-4 most recent versions above. Thanks! 1. N528ZC 787-10: https://imgur.com/TVY5RqJ 2. N88972 B-25: https://imgur.com/8mD6XWM 3. 78-...Jump to post
Again, please keep pre-screen requests all in the same thread. I'll reply by number 1-6 in order of how they're posted. 1. Seems pretty good, perhaps a bit soft in spots (gear door) 2. Poor light, flat, possibly blurry, looks compressed 3. Compressed, soft, flat, poor light, odd crop imo 4. Dark, po...Jump to post
Right. Must say though, looks pretty normal/good to me. I've seen a lot worse accepted. Mate, I'd agree with you there. The 429 looks pretty good to me imo, there's a very slight blur right at the nose and on the tail, but that's pretty nit picky. As far as the Cathay, maybe try at 1200, and hit th...Jump to post
Lovely report! Nice to see the Bay Area from the air, and I concur Eastern Oregon is deathly boring. You beat me to the Sonoma track by about two weeks; I was there for the NASCAR event. (No I am not a redneck, nor am I a hick, or a racist, nor do I wear a stained tank top. Ok I think I covered all ...Jump to post
Surprised to see a -800 parted out, and a RJ9+E75 in what appears to be storage. Lovely report, thanks for sharing!Jump to post
I don't think they're implying backlit, it does have a bit of a dark feel, but imo it is passable. I'd suggest either slightly bump the exposure/shadows, or appeal. As for new versions, the T-1 is still borderline OS but to me is acceptable, the WW looks slightly blurry in spots and minor OS to comp...Jump to post
Don't really see halos on the AS, it is a bit noisy, as is the WN, which also looks soft, and potentially heat hazed/blurry in spots. UA 752 has significant heat hazed as mentioned. EY is minorly blotchy (thinking maybe thats imgur at this point), contrast is okay imo. LH is a bit overexposed, contr...Jump to post