Post-Screening photos - fsx98

fsx98 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:02 am

Hello everyone! In addition to the pre-screening photos thread that I have opened, I am also opening a post-screening thread in regards to whether one or more of the rejected photos could be fixed.

To start off, I have a Southwest Airlines B737-700 in Louisiana One livery photo rejected for quality, halos, and noise, all of which can be addressed or fixed; I also have a personal message in regards to the rejection but I did not receive a rejection email that would have the personal message on why it was rejected, as the airliners.net website is in the process of moving to the Google Cloud Platform (from the support email received from a.net) and I have yet to receive the rejection email. What is the personal message in regards to this rejection that I didn't receive?

Here is the link to the rejected photo below (#5104083):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0c58c27daa

airkas1 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:13 am

The personal was: "Noisy sky, slight halo arounds the aircraft."

I'm seeing jaggies on the leading edges of wing & hor.stab. and also agree the quality is marginal. Noise isn't that apparent for me, but agree on slight halos. Personally, I use the "quality" rejection to indicate that the photo isn't salvagable, but not sure if others do the same.

fsx98 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:03 pm

Thanks for the personal message, Kas. In some cases when a photo is rejected for quality, I would try to completely redo the photo that was rejected and then reupload the photo with edits; in few cases, some of the photos rejected for quality got accepted for some reason.

For this Southwest photo (#5104083), I'm pretty sure that I have poorly tried to remove the halos from the picture so I'll probably try to re-edit the photo completely and reupload; I will post this photo in my pre-screening thread for any opinions and if it isn't passable, I will throw in the towel for this photo that could not be fixed.

fsx98 · Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:31 am

I now have two photos that were recently rejected for different reasons:

N791AN (Dark, OS, and Underexposed):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a693b2d8ca
N426AA (Blurry, Compressed, and Underexposed):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a2fb73be3a

Any advice on whether either photo would be fixable is appreciated!

dutchspotter1 · Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:34 am

N791AN: doesn't look dark/underexposed to me, but the titles are oversharped.
N426AA: doesn't look underexposed either, but the right part is blurry.

fsx98 · Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:35 pm

dutchspotter1 wrote:
N791AN: doesn't look dark/underexposed to me, but the titles are oversharped.
N426AA: doesn't look underexposed either, but the right part is blurry.

N791AN: will sharpen less but will double check on exposure settings;
N426AA: will crop out the blurry areas but again, will double check for exposure settings

fsx98 · Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:17 am

Hi everyone! Just a quick update that the N791AN photo was accepted into the a.net database; now I have another AA 772 photo (N794AN) rejected (OS and soft at the same time); can anyone give me pointers on which areas are oversharpened and which areas are soft?

Here is the link to the photo below:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 25c3574416

DL747 · Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:04 am

Front looks soft to me, tail borderline, and the titles are slightly oversharpened, but borderline. It is also fairly noisy, so I would suggest a pass of NR.

fsx98 · Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:33 pm

DL747 wrote:
Front looks soft to me, tail borderline, and the titles are slightly oversharpened, but borderline. It is also fairly noisy, so I would suggest a pass of NR.

Thanks for the pointers Preston! I have applied your suggested fixes and re-uploaded the photo to the queue.

fsx98 · Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:17 am

I have two photos uploaded for priority screening because both of these registrations are new to the database; both are rejected for blurry; will downsizing the photo help the two?

N549M: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 23f81de9d0
N128KH: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 086fa91df9

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

DL747 · Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:45 pm

You could try downsizing, but imo I don't think that will mask the blur enough. The second probably has a better chance than the first.

fsx98 · Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:51 pm

DL747 wrote:
You could try downsizing, but imo I don't think that will mask the blur enough. The second probably has a better chance than the first.

Thanks Preston! Will probably give the second one a shot!

fsx98 · Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:43 am

I have four other shots of N549AE that are rejected for blurriness; will downsizing one or more of the below shots help mask the blurriness?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 446d3619f3
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 98f79e4da0
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... ca6ec7e194
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 963357c965

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

fsx98 · Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:36 am

N128KH Update: Photo is accepted and it's my 100th photo accepted to the a.net database!

airkas1 · Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:38 pm

Congrats on 100!

fsx98 · Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:12 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Congrats on 100!

Thanks Kas! And also thanks for the feedback on these pre-screening and post-screened photos!

DL747 · Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:23 pm

Congratulations on 100, hope to see many more!

fsx98 · Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:52 pm

DL747 wrote:
Congratulations on 100, hope to see many more!

Thanks Preston! And also thanks for the feedback on the pre-screening and post-screened photos! It really helped me edit photos a lot better and save a lot of time waiting for the photos to be screened!

airkas1 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:36 am

49M:
The photo of the left side of the aircraft, with the tower in the background is the best one from that series (2nd of the 4 links). Blurryness isn't that bad, so should be passable in a smaller size.

fsx98 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:31 am

airkas1 wrote:
49M:
The photo of the left side of the aircraft, with the tower in the background is the best one from that series (2nd of the 4 links). Blurryness isn't that bad, so should be passable in a smaller size.

Thanks Kas! Will try out this photo in a smaller size!

airkas1 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:04 pm

Sorry I had to reject it, but I think you made an editing boo-boo.

Photo you linked on forum: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 98f79e4da0
Rejected photo: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 58bd03600a

Compare the tail and sky above the treeline. Definitely something off there, likely due to editing brushes. In general the sky is also worse than the forum file. Did you make a fresh edit?

fsx98 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:09 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Sorry I had to reject it, but I think you made an editing boo-boo.

Photo you linked on forum: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 98f79e4da0
Rejected photo: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 58bd03600a

Compare the tail and sky above the treeline. Definitely something off there, likely due to editing brushes. In general the sky is also worse than the forum file. Did you make a fresh edit?

In each and every rejection, I always start off with a fresh edit; I was much concerned about the halos in the sky after equalizing this photo.

fsx98 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:27 pm

I have re-uploaded the same picture with the sky edits undone; not sure if there are any halos in this picture...

fsx98 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:59 pm

N549M Update: after previously rejected for OS and High Contrast (no halos, thank goodness!), the photo is now in the database!

dutchspotter1 · Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:54 pm

Frankly, the windows and the American flag on the tail look quite blurry to me (soft at best).

fsx98 · Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:39 pm

dutchspotter1 wrote:
Frankly, the windows and the American flag on the tail look quite blurry to me (soft at best).

Should I try re-uploading the photo by re-editing with another pass of sharpening?

airkas1 · Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:18 am

That would help, yes.

fsx98 · Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:38 am

I have re-uploaded the photo with an extra pass of sharpening

fsx98 · Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:27 pm

N549M Update: Re-upload accepted and approved!

fsx98 · Wed May 08, 2019 3:47 pm

Hi everyone! It's been a while since posting my last post-screened photos and I have a DL B738 photo recently rejected solely for UE; may be a simple rejection to fix, but was wondering if this photo could be simply salvaged w/ an increase in exposure or should I bin this one completely?

airkas1 · Wed May 08, 2019 3:53 pm

It looks underexposed and blue. I would leave it.

fsx98 · Wed May 08, 2019 4:33 pm

Thanks Kas; I have some other photos of the same aircraft that I may try.

fsx98 · Tue May 28, 2019 4:28 pm

I have an Alaska A319 that was first rejected for blurry, low contrast, and UE; re-uploaded it with a downsized photo to mask blurriness and increased contrast/exposure settings and rejected again for all of the above except low contrast; is this worth an appeal or should I bin this one?

Crosswindphoto · Tue May 28, 2019 5:13 pm

I'd bin it. It looks blurry at 1024px, that is pretty well as low as you can go. I think the exposure looks ok, but there is no getting around blurriness.

fsx98 · Tue May 28, 2019 5:28 pm

Thanks Tim; will bin this one for good.

airkas1 · Wed May 29, 2019 9:53 am

FWIW, I agree with Tim.

fsx98 · Wed May 29, 2019 11:38 am

Thanks to both; I have another Alaska A319 up for priority screening with the new livery, but was rejected for OS, w/ a PM of:

"Very oversharpened. Previous photo was not soft, but also sharp on the aircraft aoutlines."

Was wondering if the aircraft outlines are oversharpened? May apply the eraser tool on a new layer after a pass of unsharp mask on PS.

airkas1 · Wed May 29, 2019 12:44 pm

The outlines looked too sharp, usually in those cases you will see a thin white line around the aircraft outline (where the aircraft meets the sky).

fsx98 · Wed May 29, 2019 2:31 pm

Got it; thanks Kas; just fixed the sharp outline issue and had the photo accepted!

fsx98 · Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:10 pm

Hi everyone; just had this Virgin Australia B773 rejected for dark, soft, and common; it may be unlikely, but I was just wondering if this photo could be improved further?

Starfuryt · Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:13 pm

Too much clutter detracts from the picture. It would do a lot better if there wasn't so much stuff around, I'd toss it.

jelpee · Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:22 pm

The angle of light is bad with the nose and part of the belly being dark compared to the rest of the fuselage. Softness doesn't appear to be much of an issue to me. That it is a common air-frame means more stringent screening criteria. I would save this for the personal album.

Jehan

fsx98 · Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:42 pm

Thanks to both!

fsx98 · Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:24 am

Hi everyone; I recently have a United B753 photo rejected for dark, soft, and UE with a personal message and yet didn't have a PM explaining further regarding this rejection; is there a PM for this rejection?

airkas1 · Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:15 pm

What's the ID?

fsx98 · Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:15 pm

airkas1 wrote:
What's the ID?

Photo ID is #5562341.

airkas1 · Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:19 pm

The personal message box was ticked, but no message was inputted by the screener. I'm going to guess it was an accidental tick, as the personal message box is above the soft rejection box.

fsx98 · Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:22 pm

That's what I thought of; thanks Kas!

fsx98 · Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:23 am

Hi again; I have a rejection email in regards to the QF A380 photo with rejection reasons of Common, Personal Message, and UE without an included PM in the email; photo ID is #5564117; did anyone meant to write a personal message in regards to the rejected photo?

jelpee · Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:33 am

Yes, that was me that rejected your image, and oops, that was an "Accidental Tick" I think I meant to write a personal message and ticked the box but must not have proceeded with it. . I had meant to put a comment that it was underexposed in general, i.e. it wasn't the dark nose per se. Check the histogram and it shows some room for brightness which should lighten up the nose as well. Sorry about being a bit picky about it, but it is a common air-frame and standards are higher for those.

Jehan

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net