Hi all. Recently had this shot of an F-35A rejected for the halo around the tail. Im relativity new to the editing side and was looking for some pointers to eliminate this both so I can resubmit and for future shots. Thanks in advance for your help- Garrett

Immediate fixes:
-Make sure you haven’t lowered the highlights to much
- make sure the clarity isn’t too high
- don’t up the shadows to much

Good feedabck shared by CW Photo re halos due to over use of shadow/highlight tool.

The halos I see on this image are ones that appear then there is too much sharpening applied. If you look at the image through the equalization filter, it will magnify the condition for better visibility. The image could use some added contrast as well.

Jehan

Thanks for the info yall, I will see what I can do with it this evening. Thanks again!

I’m also seeing a purple sky.

Hi there, just had an accepted photo of an Israeli F-35, accidentally provided the serial number of the aircraft directly after it on the assembly line. Submitted a correction request, out of curiosity what’s the time table on getting that reg fixed? Thanks a sorry for the mistake!

If you submitted a correction, that's fine and no further action required. The editors usually take care of that anywhere between an hour to a day.

airkas1 wrote:

If you submitted a correction, that's fine and no further action required. The editors usually take care of that anywhere between an hour to a day.

Awesome, much appreciated. Felt like a fool for listing the wrong registration. Thanks!

Just want to say a quick thank you to the screeners as of late. I know I've been submitting a lot of priority shots due to the amount of military aircraft evacuated due to Hurricane Dorian. I appreciate your quick screening and feedback. Y'all are the best! And I'll cut off the priority tag on any more Hurricane Evac aircraft lol. Thanks y'all, it really is appreciated

Hey Garrett,

Thanks for the kind words and our pleasure! The uploads have been nice and newsworthy enough, but indeed not really prio anymore (especially after 2 days).

Hi there. Seeking some help with compression issues. This shot and a few others of mine have blotchy sky problems and I wanted to know how to possibly solve this? Please see below-

Hi

Hard to tell. Typically compression issues coming up by not saving at the highest amout possible (12 in Photoshop) or by editing on already resized finished files or generally by squeezing very large originals into tiny sizes.

In your case sky is rather blotchy. If you want, you can send me the orginal and I'll have a look and can try an edit, because like that it is hard to tell where it comes from in a specific case. JKphotos (at) airliners.net

Cheers,
Julien

JKPhotos wrote:

Hi

Hard to tell. Typically compression issues coming up by not saving at the highest amout possible (12 in Photoshop) or by editing on already resized finished files or generally by squeezing very large originals into tiny sizes.

In your case sky is rather blotchy. If you want, you can send me the orginal and I'll have a look and can try an edit, because like that it is hard to tell where it comes from in a specific case. JKphotos (at) airliners.net

Cheers,
Julien

Hi Julien, I will do so! Thanks so much for your help on this one! I really do need to upgrade my editing software in general. Ill email you the original raw unedited file now.

Thanks again,

Garrett

Hi there, had an F-35 shot rejected for underexposed (no issue there will correct) but there was a personal message attached and unfortunately it didn’t come through so just wanted to get that before going back in to re-edit. Thanks!!

Please post a copy of the image so I can confirm if I may have screened it.

Thanks

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

Please post a copy of the image so I can confirm if I may have screened it.

Thanks

Jehan

Apologies for not doing so, here you are-

Sorry, don't recalls screening that one. Exposure is passable for me though.

Jehan

Versions are cumulative, not stacked.

Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: T-38C Talon
Version: T-38C Talon

is incorrect.

Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon

would be correct.

---

In this case:

Use the Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled (MFE) --> tick "no".

Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon

is correct.

---

Sometimes the 'normal' way (MFE = yes) does not always display the entry correctly. Most of the times this is due to an incorrectly added entry by a photographer who does not know what he/she is doing. When you keep the cumulative part in mind; if the 'normal' way doesn't get you the desired result, tick the MFE "no" box and 99^% of the cases you will find a proper entry.

airkas1 wrote:

Versions are cumulative, not stacked.

Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: T-38C Talon
Version: T-38C Talon

is incorrect.

Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon

would be correct.

---

In this case:

Use the Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled (MFE) --> tick "no".

Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon

is correct.

---

Sometimes the 'normal' way (MFE = yes) does not always display the entry correctly. Most of the times this is due to an incorrectly added antry by a photographer who does not know what he/she is doing. When you keep the cumulative part in mind; if the 'normal' way doesn't get you the desired result, tick the MFE "no" box and 99^% of the cases you will find a proper entry.

Thanks for your help cleaning that up! I’ll be sure to verify that on future submissions, thanks again!

Question on this MD-80 rejection. Was rejected with the reason of "soft". I dont really see where needs sharpening so wanted a second opinion here before considering appealing or resubmitting. Thanks!

I think it could use a bit more sharpening.

airkas1 wrote:

I think it could use a bit more sharpening.

Thank you! Ill do so and resubmit. Thanks for the speedy feedback, always prefer to go on here rather than appeal

The elements to the rear (vertical and horizontal stabilizers and engines) noticeable less sharp, most likely due to depth of field. As Kas suggests, a round of sharpening should work.

Jehan

Hi there, as I've said before I really hate having to appeal because I don't want to waste any screener's time so I am back looking for some feedback on this image. Was rejected for being "Soft" just want to know where the softness is in your eyes before I go back and edit or if I should consider an appeal. Thanks so much!

One more I'd like a little feedback on. The first submission of this F-15K was at 1400x898 size wise and was rejected for simply being "soft"

I resubmitted after adding sharpening slightly and reduced the size a bit to 1250x802 and it was rejected for "Overexposed, soft, low contrast, noise, heathaze" and was called unfixable.


I know that screening is subject to opinion of the individual but I'm just curious how when I added only sharpening to the 1st edit it caused so many additional rejection reasons? This has happened a few times to me in the past so I just want to be sure when resubmitting in the future. Appreciate all the help - Garrett

gh6912 wrote:

Hi there, as I've said before I really hate having to appeal because I don't want to waste any screener's time so I am back looking for some feedback on this image. Was rejected for being "Soft" just want to know where the softness is in your eyes before I go back and edit or if I should consider an appeal. Thanks so much!

Hi There,
I would agree with this screener's rejection. Basically, the whole aircraft looks very soft at this size.

gh6912 wrote:

One more I'd like a little feedback on. The first submission of this F-15K was at 1400x898 size wise and was rejected for simply being "soft"

I resubmitted after adding sharpening slightly and reduced the size a bit to 1250x802 and it was rejected for "Overexposed, soft, low contrast, noise, heathaze" and was called unfixable.


I know that screening is subject to opinion of the individual but I'm just curious how when I added only sharpening to the 1st edit it caused so many additional rejection reasons? This has happened a few times to me in the past so I just want to be sure when resubmitting in the future. Appreciate all the help - Garrett

For me, I don't see obvious heat haze, overexposed,and contrast issue from it. Sharpness looks not bad at 1250px for me.

Regards,
Harry

HarryLi wrote:

gh6912 wrote:

One more I'd like a little feedback on. The first submission of this F-15K was at 1400x898 size wise and was rejected for simply being "soft"

I resubmitted after adding sharpening slightly and reduced the size a bit to 1250x802 and it was rejected for "Overexposed, soft, low contrast, noise, heathaze" and was called unfixable.


I know that screening is subject to opinion of the individual but I'm just curious how when I added only sharpening to the 1st edit it caused so many additional rejection reasons? This has happened a few times to me in the past so I just want to be sure when resubmitting in the future. Appreciate all the help - Garrett

For me, I don't see obvious heat haze, overexposed,and contrast issue from it. Sharpness looks not bad at 1250px for me.

Regards,
Harry

Thank you for the follow up on both questions. I will get to work on the Phantom and consider appealing the F-15. Thanks so much!

Hi Garrett,

let me say that I first screend your F-15 and gave it a Second Opinion as it was still soft for me and it does look overexposed IMO. I did ask for another opinion as overexposed wasn't mentioned before, so to stay fair I tend to ask further. Obviously the next screener shared my opinion.
For what's its worth I don't see heat haze being an issue and contrast is okay. "Unfixable" is usually written when the light is very tricky and it will be hard to get it right. I would tend to think yours is salvageable though. Try to bring the exposure down (background is very bright) and sharpen it more. I wouldn't appeal in that case, but of course your choice.

Julien

Hi there. Out of curiosity could someone give me a bit more info on what the “HQ1” process is? I’ve currently got one photo in screening flagged HQ1 that was initially screened on 12/18 and was submitted back on 12/11 so I wanted some background on what exactly HQ1 is. Really appreciate it! Thanks- Garrett

Hi Garrett,

It usually means that the screener saw a relatively minor or subjective flaw. When HQ’d, the photo leaves the main queue and needs to be screened by someone else. This often takes a bit longer than a direct add.

Hi Kas, gotcha! Really appreciate the explanation, figured it was something along those lines! Always appreciate the response. Have a happy holidays!

Wanting some feedback on this rejection

Was rejected for “blurry, people, quality, soft, underexposed”. and came with the personal message "colour abberation, not fixable". While I can perhaps see soft or underexposed I can’t say I agree with blurry, quality, and people. More so “people” I find a rather unsatisfactory rejection with the amount of photos in the database from the same airshow with a similar amount of people in the margins.

I don’t plan to appeal this photo but I felt the amount of rejection reasons was overkill. I’d also like some feedback on if there is any way at all to fix color aberration.

Thanks for the feedback!

Am not seeing blurry, soft or quality issues that would be show stoppers. People are OK since they are not blocking the aircraft nor posing in front of it. Not seeing color or aberration issues either. Overall it sounds harsh to me. If anything, the image could use some CW rotation judging by the vertical alignment of the pole in the foreground.

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

Am not seeing blurry, soft or quality issues that would be show stoppers. People are OK since they are not blocking the aircraft nor posing in front of it. Not seeing color or aberration issues either. Overall it sounds harsh to me. If anything, the image could use some CW rotation judging by the vertical alignment of the pole in the foreground.

Jehan

Thank you Jehan for your feedback! I wasn't planning to appeal but decided after your feedback it was best to do so. If it is rejected for the CW rotation I would be satisfied and quickly fix that. But the reasons in the rejection prior I agree with you felt a bit harsh. Appreciate it, have a happy holidays!

Agree with Jehan, however, i'm seeing a little bit of chromatic abberation around all of the letters (more so towards the rear of the A/C.)
However, like Jehan said, not a show stopper, personally I would re-upload at a smaller size (1400ish), but thats up to you.

Tim

Crosswindphoto wrote:

Agree with Jehan, however, i'm seeing a little bit of chromatic abberation around all of the letters (more so towards the rear of the A/C.)
However, like Jehan said, not a show stopper, personally I would re-upload at a smaller size (1400ish), but thats up to you.

Tim

Thanks Tim, appreciate it! I will for sure resubmit in a smaller size should the appeal not overturn the rejection. Thanks again to everyone for your help!

Looks blurry/OOF, but otherwise fine. Not sure if a smaller size will be better.

RE: correct info for the MC-12.

Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled? --> No
Generic Type --> Hawker Beechcraft 350 King Air (C-12)
Version --> Hawker Beechcraft MC-12W Huron (350ER)

However quality is too poor and not fixable.

airkas1 wrote:

RE: correct info for the MC-12.

Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled? --> No
Generic Type --> Hawker Beechcraft 350 King Air (C-12)
Version --> Hawker Beechcraft MC-12W Huron (350ER)

However quality is too poor and not fixable.

Thanks Kas, yeah that one was rough conditions wise, Im going to hold off on trying any more from that set

Question on this one. I was on the fence on submitting this one anyway so cant say I was shocked it was rejected. Was rejected for CCW, rotation, blurry, quality, and underexposed. Again not shocked by that, just wanted to know where in the frame it is blurry? I was thinking the vertical stabilizer area (which is consistent with the soft focus spot on my old Canon 60D) just looking for verification.

I assume this one is unfixable? Thanks- Garrett

I think that was my doing and seem to remember that it’s increasingly blurry/OOF towards the left of the frame (so indeed towards the tail).

Indeed, blurry/OOF around the rear, and Chromatic Aberration around the entire plane. you can try a much smaller size, but no guarantees..

Tim

airkas1 wrote:

I think that was my doing and seem to remember that it’s increasingly blurry/OOF towards the left of the frame (so indeed towards the tail).

No worries Kas! Like I said I didnt think this shot would make the cut but wanted to give it a try. Between using my older camera body and a very poor kit lens it would have been a challenge to capture a really high quality shot. Thankfully I have since upgraded both camera body and lens (not to mention improved overall). Appreciate all the feedback again!

Quick question regarding duplicate photos of the same reg from the same day. I have photos from multiple different angles of the same reg number B-1 as shared below because it performed 3 or 4 touch and go's. Since I already have one photo from that date of this frame accepted would I be able to submit another from a different angle and different landing attempt or is it strictly one image of that frame from that day? Thanks so much for the clarification!

Same day, same location and same side will typically draw a "Double" rejection unless it is a different sequence of flight. e.g. landing, take off, taxiing, or parked at gate. Unless there is strong motivation for it, what you have described, will most likely be considered a double.

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

Same day, same location and same side will typically draw a "Double" rejection unless it is a different sequence of flight. e.g. landing, take off, taxiing, or parked at gate. Unless there is strong motivation for it, what you have described, will most likely be considered a double.

Jehan

Thanks Jehan! I figured so, thanks for that verification. All the best!

Hi there! Just had this one rejected for "Soft" wondering where specifically the softness is so I can correct that. Also curious if I should resize it? Not really thinking of appealing this one but if any other screeners think that it is good with this edit I would consider it. Appreciate the feedback as always, yall are the best! -Garrett

Not soft to me.
However, it looks very flat (low contrast) & theres chromatic abberation around some of the edges, particularly the nose wheel areas.

Tim

I screened this image. Overall it could be sharper. Soft areas are visible at the engine openings, tail cone. As I take a second look, I agree with Tim that it is also flat, and should have mentioned it. I would increase the contrast and see if it adds some sharpness to the image first. Nice lighting. I caught the El Al on the morning of Jan 19th at The Holes as well...it was a LA special paint. I need to edit it and send it in for screening.

Jehan