pre-post screening spompert

fsx98 · Fri May 03, 2019 12:45 am

The Turkish does show some magenta cast on the rear of the aircraft; also overexposed in the same area.
The British 777 could be higher in frame; could lighten up shadows a little bit in the lower fuselage.
The Lufthansa A320 could use some extra kick in exposure.

jelpee · Fri May 03, 2019 12:05 pm

fsx98 wrote:
The Turkish does show some magenta cast on the rear of the aircraft; also overexposed in the same area.
The British 777 could be higher in frame; could lighten up shadows a little bit in the lower fuselage.
The Lufthansa A320 could use some extra kick in exposure.

I concur.

Jehan

spompert · Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:59 am

Hello I would like to know if a motive like this would be acceptable. I understand the airplane itself is pretty small but it gives a nice impression of the crowds in summer along the runway in Amsterdam. Maybe acceptable under creative composition? Or just not suitable for Airliners?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 25da9e490e

jelpee · Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:57 am

I think this will draw a motive rejection mainly because the people in the foreground are more of distraction due to the fact that they are all out of focus. Also the people are scattered with empty space around them. For me, there are multiple elements trying to be the center of attention with none of them succeeding. I'm not on my screening monitor, but I see a slight ref tint to the image as well.

Jehan

airkas1 · Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:21 pm

I agree with Jehan, including the red tint.

spompert · Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:06 pm

Okay thanks, good to know beforehand.

spompert · Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:37 pm

Hi, this one was rejected for Oversharpened, Quality, High Contrast and Noise. Do you agree on all rejections? Also was mentioned that the size was too big for this quality. The original is quite sharp and normally for this quality I try 1600 px, so a bit surprised with this remark. Please advice which parts to improve. Thank you.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 38fc7bb167

Runway28L · Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:36 pm

I have to agree with the image being OS, looks like most of the aircraft is a bit too jaggy. Contrast isn't too bad, but it does seem to be on the high side and I would reduce it anyway.

I'll let a screener determine quality but I don't see how that's an issue. Noise seems really over-the-top IMHO.

jelpee · Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:54 am

Although I see some jaggies on the wing, I'd say they are acceptable. Some noise visible in the shadows.Contrast looks OK for me. My biggest issue is that the nose is quite dark due to the angle of lighting. Sometimes there are multiple minor issues that together warrant a rejection...perhaps this was one such instance.

Jehan

310815 · Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:22 am

Hi Stefan,

as Jehan noted the oversharpening is minor. The quality is also allright. For sure this one is good enough for 1.600px.
I can see some noise in the sky, but also minor.

But for me it defintely has a harsh contrast (leading to the dark, nose wings and so on). Contrast would need to be lower, You could also try some slight shadow lifitng (only to the ac, otherwise you will produce halos) .

Julien

spompert · Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:18 am

Thanks all for taking the time to react. I'll improve contrast a bit by decreasing it. Also try to improve sharpness.

spompert · Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:43 am

Hi there, I have appealed a photo a week or so ago and it`s still there. Just wondering when it will be decided. Thank you, Stefan

airkas1 · Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:53 am

What's the ID?

spompert · Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:37 am

airkas1 wrote:
What's the ID?

5575503

spompert · Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:28 pm

Hello, I was wondering if these three photos would be acceptable motive-wise. There are some small obstructions:

http://nl.tinypic.com/r/344r1u8/9
http://nl.tinypic.com/r/2wn7go1/9
http://nl.tinypic.com/r/a1sb3r/9

I have read the rules regarding museum shots but it`s a bit arbitrary. Interested in your opinions. Shots are not edited yet.

Regards
Stefan

airkas1 · Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:24 am

I would pick either photo 1 or 2. No issues for motive with those. 3 has the least chance in my opinion.

spompert · Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:24 am

Okay thanks!

spompert · Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:08 am

Hi there, I have appealed a photo (ID: 5619973) four days or so ago. Just wondering if it just need some more time or it might be stuck somewhere. No worries, thank you, Stefan

airkas1 · Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:36 am

It's not stuck and will likely require one more view. The light is really poor though, so I don't know.

spompert · Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:27 am

Okay, thank you Kas

spompert · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:22 am

The photo is in the appeal queue now for more than a week. I hope it can be seen by a screener soon or is there some update maybe? Thank you!

spompert · Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:27 pm

Hi, I attended a special KLM event yesterday and made two possible shots of a KLM B747. I have two questions about it. Do they make a chance? There are obstructions but perhaps due to the circumstances (inside a hanger and people visiting the plane) it is allowed? Also I clicked the priority box because it`s a special local event with a lot of media attention and photographers, but it was deprioritized by the screeners. I don`t fully understand because with the new rules I thought local events would qualify?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... db06cdbbcc
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 7028aa73bd

Greets
Stefan

airkas1 · Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:27 pm

Since you posted here, I'm not going to reply to your E-mail anymore.
The 2 photos both seem like the upper deck/cockpit are out of focus. I don't know for sure why it was deprioritized, but it does kinda make sense. Nowhere does it show any festivities and it could be any other non-prio worithy event. I am aware it happened and that it was of the 100th anniversary, but nowhere in the image is that apparent.

spompert · Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:34 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Since you posted here, I'm not going to reply to your E-mail anymore.
The 2 photos both seem like the upper deck/cockpit are out of focus. I don't know for sure why it was deprioritized, but it does kinda make sense. Nowhere does it show any festivities and it could be any other non-prio worithy event. I am aware it happened and that it was of the 100th anniversary, but nowhere in the image is that apparent.

Thanks for the reply. I might try a smaller size because of the softness of the upper deck. But strangely enough the original looks pretty muck okay (maybe a bit soft in some places yes). Would the one with the stairs be allowed or probably rejected for motive?

spompert · Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:25 pm

Still undecided which one to choose. Probably the one with the stairs has greater chance to get accepted? Or is there leniancy towards blockage with not standard shots in hangars, etc?

airkas1 · Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:30 pm

In this case the stairs don't really add anything, so I would lean towards the less blocked photo.

spompert · Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:02 pm

Thanks

spompert · Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:58 am

Hi, it looks my appeal of photo ID: 5725559 is somehow taking much longer than normal. Any idea if it will be seen soon? Just curious. Thanks Stefan

airkas1 · Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:10 am

It's not lost and will be screened when someone else gets to it. Currently there are 71 appeals waiting.

spompert · Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:19 am

That's a long list, get it. Thanks for replying.

spompert · Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:45 pm

This photo was rejected for unmotivated crop:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c3b8c5b9db

I agree the crop is not standard but was hoping it would be a nice addition. I choose this angle because it shows the nose and people queing to get in. I was thinking the people would give some impression of the size of the 747 and also some idea about this special day when KLM celebrated it`s 100th birthday. Is it definitly not interesting for Airliners?

jelpee · Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:52 pm

The perspective is not a concern for me. Perhaps it was the clipped window from on the right side that triggered the unmotivated crop reason. No personal message with the rejection?

Jehan

spompert · Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:59 pm

Hi Jehan. No the motive was the problem. This was the personal note: "Sorry, motive doesn't work. We consider this an unmotivated crop." I first though okay probably not the right angle/motive but still wondering if it`s really that unaccaptable.

jelpee · Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:55 pm

Some motive rejections are matter of screener discretion. I would have called out the cropped window frame as a motive issue, but not the angle. Perhaps some other screeners will weigh in on this thread.

Jehan

spompert · Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:43 am

Thanks Jehan,

It would be nice to get some additional feedback indeed. I am considering to appeal it and see how the head screeners look at it.

310815 · Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:55 am

spompert wrote:
Thanks Jehan,

It would be nice to get some additional feedback indeed. I am considering to appeal it and see how the head screeners look at it.

Hi Stefan,

I would not appeal. I can tell from the log 2 Headscreeners have already seen it (as you uploaded it as creative), but weren't in favour of it, mainly becaus of that cut window. So I d say an appeal would not stand a chance.
I am not a fan of the overall compostion to be honest, but with a full window included it would be technically acceptable.

Cheers,
Julien

spompert · Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:25 am

Thanks Julien, good to know. I think I leave the photo for what is is.

spompert · Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:02 pm

Hello, this one was rejected for quality, noise, underexposes, dark.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a162195608

I agree the light is not very favorable. But I managed to get other shots in same conditions accepted so was wondering what you think.

spompert · Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:04 am

Hello, had this photo rejected for blurry, oversharpened and underexposed.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4accea62e6

Strangely enough the original looks not blurry but sharp enough to edit. I find the other rejecting reasons a bit harsh. Maybe a smaller size will help? How can I fix this shot the best way? Thanks

spompert · Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:54 pm

Hello I have two photos in the appeal queue. One of them is now almost five days in the queue. Is there just a longer queue than normal or is there some error perhaps? Thanks Stefan

spompert · Sat Mar 14, 2020 3:01 pm

Still nothing on the appeal queue. Is there some problem going on? Are others also experiencing long waiting times. Appeal photo now one week in the queue. Looks like there is some technical problem. Should I withdraw the photos from the queue? Hope to hear something. Thanks a lot. Stefan

HarryLi · Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:20 am

Hi Stefan,

Sorry for the long waiting and late reply for your issue. I can't access the Appeal Queue since I am not HS, but there currently no obvious problems in system process. Many Heads and screeners are busy with the normal queue recently since they are very long and we hope to "cut " it to a comfortable length for benefiting most people. Heads also try to screen as many as they can in this proess for both Appeal and Normal Queue.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your patient.

Sincerely,
Harry

spompert · Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:30 pm

Hi Harry, sorry I didn`t tell it earlier but it has already been fixed. In the sitewide-forum I posted something about it. Anyway thanks a lot!

spompert · Fri May 08, 2020 8:29 am

Hello, I am trying to get a photo accepted of a couple of B777`s on the Schiphol runway but somehow it gets rejected for overexposed and oversharpened. I really can`t see the overexposed parts. The original is more underexposed than overexposed if I look at it. There are small glares on the rear of some aircraft but the tails look okay. Also wondering if oversharpening is in some particular parts or more overall. Thanks Stefan

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 7ba83dfb22

HarryLi · Fri May 08, 2020 5:31 pm

Hi Stefan,

Honetly,I do not recognize neither oversharpend nor overexposed from it. Exposure looks fine for me. Sharpness looks bit soft for me but not bad. That's my point of view.

Regards,

spompert · Fri May 08, 2020 6:12 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hi Stefan,

Honetly,I do not recognize neither oversharpend nor overexposed from it. Exposure looks fine for me. Sharpness looks bit soft for me but not bad. That's my point of view.

Regards,

Hmm, I also thought it looked better than told. It was rejected by priority screener. So does that mean appealing has no use in this case? I also have a new original so I could also try a new edit. Thanks

JakTrax · Fri May 08, 2020 8:31 pm

No overexposure on my screen. Appeal it.

jelpee · Fri May 08, 2020 9:11 pm

Exposure looks fine. But the aircraft look blurry and over sharpened to me. Blurry perhaps the result of heat distortion based on the distance.

Jehan

spompert · Fri May 08, 2020 10:14 pm

Thanks for the advice everybody. I agree there is some heathaze in the original especially in the far distance. I was able to shoot again and edited a new original. Is this any better? This original is sharper overall. Thanks
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 1c133fcce2

spompert · Sat May 09, 2020 6:18 pm

The latest version was accepted in the end

Thanks for the feedback

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net