Pre-screening

yousaf465 · Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:54 pm

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbvoxwvngq25q ... 4.jpg?dl=0

Please comment on this photo for upload. any suggestions are welcome.
Thanks

jelpee · Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:52 pm

The image has a yellow color cast and shows a lot of noise. It is also soft and the horizontal stabilizer is blurry. Regretfully, in its current form it will not make it. Probably not editable enough to offset the blurriness since you image is already at 1024 pixels on its long side. At smaller sizes, certain flaws such as blurriness are not visible as much as they are at larger sizes.

Jehan

yousaf465 · Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:48 am

jelpee wrote:
The image has a yellow color cast and shows a lot of noise. It is also soft and the horizontal stabilizer is blurry. Regretfully, in its current form it will not make it. Probably not editable enough to offset the blurriness since you image is already at 1024 pixels on its long side. At smaller sizes, certain flaws such as blurriness are not visible as much as they are at larger sizes.

Jehan

Yellow color cast was the actual lighting at the airport, this is how I saw the image with Naked Eye. It can be fixed as it's a Raw file.

Blurry ? Camera was resting on stable platform, I used 10 sec timer, and aircraft wasn't moving.

len90 · Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:24 am

I agree with Jehan. Remember there are multiple different types of blur that an image can have. There is blur from the image being out of focus. Depending on how the image was shot, f-stop, the depth of field of the image can ultimately suffer thus areas that are at a different focal length from the camera will show up as blurry/out of focus. Motion blur is something else which you would see from the camera being held in a hand etc. A stable platform is actually not as good as a tripod from my experience.

Sodium lights can cause a yellow/orange lighting. However, there is still seems to be more color cast.

Lastly, just out of curiosity what were the camera settings you used for this shot?

yousaf465 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:17 pm

len90 wrote:
I agree with Jehan. Remember there are multiple different types of blur that an image can have. There is blur from the image being out of focus. Depending on how the image was shot, f-stop, the depth of field of the image can ultimately suffer thus areas that are at a different focal length from the camera will show up as blurry/out of focus. Motion blur is something else which you would see from the camera being held in a hand etc. A stable platform is actually not as good as a tripod from my experience.

Sodium lights can cause a yellow/orange lighting. However, there is still seems to be more color cast.

Lastly, just out of curiosity what were the camera settings you used for this shot?

F14 10Sec ISo160

yousaf465 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:24 pm

https://www.dropbox.com/home/A.net?prev ... 1234-2.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/home/A.net?prev ... G_1205.jpg

Any issues with these ?

yousaf465 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:31 pm

https://www.dropbox.com/home/A.net?prev ... 9+1024.jpg

airkas1 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:46 pm

The links are not working.

yousaf465 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:29 pm

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f2bl1ugnrqvet ... 4.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e0pk2c4tj6yx2 ... 2.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6esyji4jufeb ... 5.jpg?dl=0

yousaf465 · Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:45 am

links have been fixed. please advice.

vcruvinel · Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:59 am

yousaf465 wrote:
links have been fixed. please advice.

[ I'm not a A.net screener]

Hi! I think all of them need more sharpeness and contrast. The third is a bit HIF. But just my point of view. Hope I can help.

Best.

Vinicius

airkas1 · Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:28 am

1) dust spot top of frame (above left side hor.stab.), quality seems a bit compressed (perhaps due to the hosting site). Image seems a bit soft.
2) soft, low contrast, high in frame.
3) soft, low contrast, high in frame, CCW.

yousaf465 · Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:18 pm

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eyu5obih0oy7l ... t.jpg?dl=0

any issues ?
Thanks

yousaf465 · Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:51 pm

Which one of these two is correct , the photo in post above or this one ?

yousaf465 · Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:11 pm

Over-Sharpened ? any other issues ?
Thanks

yousaf465 · Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:31 pm

Fixed Sharpening, contrast and Frame

yousaf465 · Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:31 pm

Another view

yousaf465 · Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:47 pm

Is it ok for submission ?

yousaf465 · Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:25 am

Guys please reply.

spompert · Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:27 am

Hi, the crop could be a bit tighter (leave less space around the edges of the plane, respecting the allowed ratios for uploading).

airkas1 · Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:17 am

The derelict Cessna (?): second one is better in terms of color, but still blurry, noisy and quality.
First heli: not great, but perhaps passable
Second heli: not great, unbalanced crop.
Second photo of -BLH is better in terms of color, but still a bit blurry.

yousaf465 · Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:58 pm

Thanks Spomspert and Airkas

Cessna 131k blurry ? Camera was resting on the ground with No wind around. Should I upload at higher resolution ?
.
For Mi17 58660 , I have retaken the picture will edit and reupload. Will try my luck with this version too.

Please comment on this 4R-MRE too. If quality is an issue I can upload at higher resolution.

yousaf465 · Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:12 pm

Is it worth uploading at higher resolution ?

yousaf465 · Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:41 pm

Please comment on Alouette photo .

airkas1 · Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:39 pm

yousaf465 wrote:
Should I upload at higher resolution?

No, that will make it look worse. Perhaps the focus/DoF was incorrectly set. Either way it doesn't seem fixable for that photo.

A320: Blurry, low contrast, quality.
ALO3: seems passable

yousaf465 · Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:36 pm

1/500s ƒ/8 ISO200 with center focus point right on belly of the aircraft.

HarryLi · Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:46 pm

yousaf465 wrote:

1/500s ƒ/8 ISO200 with center focus point right on belly of the aircraft.

This one looks soft to me and the some parts look bit of blurry to me mabye because of soft problem and i will resize it to 1200px or 1024px. Besides, it's bit of underexposed to me.
In addition, i am not sure that whether if you upload this one will reject for Similar or Double because you posted a similar Alouette here last time. I'll choose one of them to upload as the change of angle of them is slight. Last one seems better i think.

Cheers,
Harry

yousaf465 · Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:11 pm

HarryLi wrote:
yousaf465 wrote:

1/500s ƒ/8 ISO200 with center focus point right on belly of the aircraft.

This one looks soft to me and the some parts look bit of blurry to me mabye because of soft problem and i will resize it to 1200px or 1024px. Besides, it's bit of underexposed to me.
In addition, i am not sure that whether if you upload this one will reject for Similar or Double because you posted a similar Alouette here last time. I'll choose one of them to upload as the change of angle of them is slight. Last one seems better i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Thanks for the detailed advice.

Yes I will only upload one of these.

Which areas seems blurry ?

HarryLi · Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:24 pm

yousaf465 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
yousaf465 wrote:

1/500s ƒ/8 ISO200 with center focus point right on belly of the aircraft.

This one looks soft to me and the some parts look bit of blurry to me mabye because of soft problem and i will resize it to 1200px or 1024px. Besides, it's bit of underexposed to me.
In addition, i am not sure that whether if you upload this one will reject for Similar or Double because you posted a similar Alouette here last time. I'll choose one of them to upload as the change of angle of them is slight. Last one seems better i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Thanks for the detailed advice.

Yes I will only upload one of these.

Which areas seems blurry ?

The "ARMY" looks so soft that i consider it looks blurry but it actually should be ok i think. I did a quick edit to it and i tried to resize it to a smaller size like 1200px or 1250px and then gave it more sharpness then it looks better. Besides, it also can have bit of more contrast too when you add some exposure to it.
However, to be honest , i will choose last one to upload as that one has better light condition and other aspects look better than this one too. As Kas commented before about that one it looks ok.

yousaf465 · Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:38 pm

Thanks I will go with side shot as advised.

How should I improve this AH-1 Cobra Pak/US combination aircraft ?

HarryLi · Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:16 pm

Regarding to the AH-1, if you have another angle of it i would suggest you to change another angle as the light condition of this one is pretty bad i think.It looks bit of backlit i think.Besides, the contrast of it is definitely low to me.

Cheers,
Harry

yousaf465 · Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:26 am

any issue with light or editing on this one ?

HarryLi · Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:38 am

The light condition is much better than the last one but it deserves more contrast i think. And ... not sure about others as the quality looks iffy to me.

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:02 pm

Low contrast and marginal quality.

yousaf465 · Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:27 am

reworked. Please comment

yousaf465 · Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:13 am

Should I upload this ?

jelpee · Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:28 am

Should be OK with a few edits:
1. Apply some clockwise rotation to level the horizon
2. A hint of brightness
3. There is a white speck located at about the middle of the cloud in front of the wing.

With the above, it would be acceptable for me.

Jehan

yousaf465 · Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:05 pm

jelpee wrote:
Should be OK with a few edits:
1. Apply some clockwise rotation to level the horizon
2. A hint of brightness
3. There is a white speck located at about the middle of the cloud in front of the wing.

With the above, it would be acceptable for me.

Jehan

I have edited as per advice.. Is it good enough now ?

yousaf465 · Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:25 pm

good enough for A.net ?

airkas1 · Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:34 pm

The first isn't great in terms of quality (and maybe also a bit overexposed). The second one has the sunlight illuminating dirty areas on the window, so for me that's a no-go.

yousaf465 · Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:04 pm

Fixed the requested issues

yousaf465 · Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:07 am

Please reply.

airkas1 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:46 pm

Better, but still marginal quality.

yousaf465 · Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:26 am

airkas1 wrote:
Better, but still marginal quality.

Can I upload this version ?

yousaf465 · Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:12 am

Should I proceed ?

airkas1 · Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:10 am

That's entirely up to you.

yousaf465 · Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:17 am

airkas1 wrote:
That's entirely up to you.

Just in time

yousaf465 · Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:53 am

Please comment for upload ?

HarryLi · Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:59 am

It looks oversharpened to me. Very obvious jaggys there. The upper right angle looks very dark,which makes me conside "Vignette" Reason.

airkas1 · Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:00 pm

Oversharpened, noise, vignetting, quality.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net