gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Post-screening gh6912

Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:21 pm

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 Image
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
Crosswindphoto
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:21 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:41 pm

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
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:59 pm

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
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:53 pm

Thanks for the info yall, I will see what I can do with it this evening. Thanks again!
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 7995
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:28 am

I’m also seeing a purple sky.
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:15 am

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!
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 7995
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:56 am

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.
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:24 am

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!
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:22 pm

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
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 7995
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:25 pm

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).
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:41 pm

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- Image
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
JKPhotos
Screener
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:19 am

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
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:38 am

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
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:41 pm

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!!
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:56 pm

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

Thanks

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:36 am

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- Image
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:09 pm

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

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 7995
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:57 pm

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.
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:30 pm

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!
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:15 pm

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! Image
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 7995
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:38 pm

I think it could use a bit more sharpening.
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:23 pm

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
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:19 pm

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
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:00 pm

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! Image
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:46 pm

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" Image

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.
Image

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
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Screener
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:51 pm

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! Image

Hi There,
I would agree with this screener's rejection. Basically, the whole aircraft looks very soft at this size.
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : https://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Screener
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:54 pm

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" Image

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.
Image

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
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : https://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
gh6912
Topic Author
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:05 pm

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" Image

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.
Image

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!
Lone Star Spotter, F-4 Phantom Phanatic
 
JKPhotos
Screener
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jelpee and 56 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos