Re: Pre-Screening DL747

Not on my editing monitor, but the second one looks quite contrasty and I'd definitely ease that up.

Re: Photographer's choice

I think Karl was talking about trolling. Guys that vote arbitrary shots as a PC to make people look “bad” or guys that do whatever that suddenly these 4 mentioned shots block the front page likely to make anet look bad.
And yes that is sad.

Re: Photographer's choice

I would really like to avoid having the screening team decide about PCs or even what is PC eligible and what is not. As JK said above, that is opening the well known favoritism can of worms. If the system is apparently not working perfectly fine with a large number of photographers being able to vo...

Re: Photographer's choice

I like the idea of upping the pictures required to vote for PC as well. So do I. Although I'm just assuming here, I think a large part of the (possible) manipulation can be eliminated if you make voting for PC elegible only for photographers with a minimum of 50/100/whatever number of photos in the...

Re: Photographer's choice

I think it would be sufficient to publish the voters. Would make it very transparent.
Otherwise upping the votes is not a bad idea, but what happens then if there aren’t enough votes?

Re: Rejected-motive

You're welcome.

Was it screened before? I cannot find it on the log. Otherwise I can say it looks a bit flat (means it needs more contrast) and could use a bit more sharpening towards the back. Both are fixable.

Julien

Re: Rejected-motive

I am sorry that you didn't get any further information. I have looked it up on the screening log, Headscreeners rejected it for "motive" as they think the motive with the aircraft moving being half sharp / half motion blurred does not work. I tend to agree. You've had a similar rejection f...

Re: Photographer's choice

It is also possible that photographers campaign for votes, or as you mentioned, groups of photographers vote for each other--very easy to do with exposure on social media. If there is a deliberate attempt to swing votes to certain photographers, or groups, I agree that it goes against the spirit of...

Re: Pre-screening Rene Wendt

Yes it would be double as we require photos to be at least 90° different, which is not the case. If your shot in the db was more side-on we could talk about it, but as it is not. Sorry.

Julien

Re: Pre/post screen - Runway28L

The LH is not really blurry. The quality is not the best, but I don't see why it shouldn't make it if you go a bit smaller (1.400max) with some better sharpening on the back part.

The AA is a bit soft indeed and could do with a pass of sharpening allover.

Re: Pre-Screening DL747

Hey,

the Xiamen is still quite soft, especially towards the back (reg & titles). It needs quite a boost in sharpening.

The KC-46 looks okay to me & definitely better with the lifted shadows, though the overexposed background is a bit problematic, so be prepared for that.

Re: Appeal

Is this the same photo that’s been in the Top 5 for the last few hours or am I missing something? To keep it on the facts: The photographer appealed and it was added on appeal. I personally think that is right, as on my editing monitor I could see them (only after a really close look after equalisi...

Re: Pre-Screening DL747

Colours on the Xiamen look okay, but it is a bit soft and could use some sharpening, especially towards the back.
The 757 looks good to me.
I would advice to give some (careful) shadow lifting to your KC-46, It will improve things a bit.

Re: Appeal

Hi Craig, to share an image you need to open it in your photographers corner, right click - > copy image adress and then share the link Here is your shot: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/6/8/5833863.jpg?v=v479a794c960 It was rejected for Halos. I have to say I don't really see them,...

Re: Pre Screen Feedback Please

Well other than being flat and hazy it's very toplit for a very common plane. I would let this one go.

Because it would need quite a boost in contrast which then accentuates the shadows. Try to shoot in better light / circumstances.

Re: 'Newbie' - Basic Quality Comparison Question

My argument is always "there is something in-between", so I could only encourage you to maybe try something at 1.400px first. Looking at your newest shots I don't see why they should not have made it at 1.400px for example. I just don't see the need for these ultra-small sizes. If people w...

Re: 'Newbie' - Basic Quality Comparison Question

Sorry but it’s almost 2020 cameras have 25-30mp as standard and I don’t like when people are still talked into very small sizes. I agree that 1.920px is not ideal for beginners, but as your feedback thread shows you can very well go for 1.400. - 1.600 px. No need for these ultra small ones unless yo...

Re: 'Newbie' - Basic Quality Comparison Question

Well, anet Images that fill the screen and a MacBook Pro tells me there must be something wrong. A MacBook Pro has a 2880*1800 resolution as far as I know, anet shots can be maximimum 1.920 px wide, and (unfortunately) only small minority gets uploaded at that size. So at best any image could fill 2...

Re: Pre/post screen - Runway28L

Sharpness looks okay to me, but the underside is too dark -> too much contrast.Try to lift shadows a bit, everything else won't help.

Re: Post-Screening photos - fsx98

I opened it in Photoshop against a bright background and yet couldn't see anything.....

Re: Post Screening

Well, we typically allow fence to cover maximum a third of the shot vertically (as a rough guideline - in certain cases less also less than a third can be distracting), in your case it is clearly more. So as Jehan and Kas noted, nothing you can do.

Re: New camera decision - would like some feedback on what others have.

I would go with the 5D MKIV and the 100-400L II. It is a very sharp and fast combo. I do sports, too and it is very suited for that. I shot at an nordic ski event earlier this year and was really satisfied with the results, somehow on my sports shots I feel the fullframe upgrade more than on aviatio...

Re: Prescreening

You would neet to fix the way you are linking your images first and foremost, as they are not visible.
Either choose and external image hoster or put the shots in your upload queue, open them there, right click on the image and chose -> copy image adress -> insert that link here.

Re: Pre-screening: JakTrax

Hi Karl, first very nice shot! Excellent conditions. I always struggle with flickr links with the real sizes as it shows me several. The right one (by just accessing your flickr page without the kink, then it works fine) looks fine sharpening-wise.Would be an instant add for me. Would be nice if you...

Re: Pre-screening Rene Wendt

Stefan is right. A "dark" aircraft against a bright background is not a good point to start with. The aircraft would need some more exposure but then the sky will be blown out. In terms of a.net as Stefan said not really fixable, sorry to say. I can see the noise as well (for the record). ...

Re: Pablo's pre and post screening photos

Yes, looks fine in every aspect for me!

Re: Rejection changed from "underexposed" to "poor sun angle"

Well what a fitting comment. In this case actually 3 screeners say the same (poor sun angle/ underexposed) and yet you claim it came down to a personal liking? That makes sense. Otherwise screening criteria also changed / evolved over the years. And yes crops are subjective. You can cite me as much ...

Re: Pablo's pre and post screening photos

Hi, easy to say, because the tail is part of the aircraft, too and you should take that into account for the framing. Your shots are just centered by fuselage. That can work on very long planes with small tails, but otherwise it will look unbalanced. Especially on the first plane there is quite some...

Re: Rejection changed from "underexposed" to "poor sun angle"

Hi Mark, I am sorry to say and I didn't have anything to do with your rejection (obviously as I am not a headscreener), but I fully agree that the sun angle is poor and due to the very high sun the underside will always look underexposed so that goes in-line for me. Overall the shot has a dark feeli...

Re: Photo rejected for personal message??

The rejection mail says: "The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:..." -> That is the Personal message. I can see that this "Here's why your photo was rejected: Personal Message Soft" might be confusing. But even with that one can see the screener message I mentioned fir...

Re: Photo rejected for personal message??

I am sorry to say, but it is very hard for us to understand what you don't get about the personal messsage and which personal message you mean. First you got the following personal message: "Tip of horizontal stabilizer is cropped out of the frame on the right side." Obviously you understo...

Re: Pre Screen Feedback Please

Well as Jehan and Stefan have noted the quality is not there. Heat haze is all over. Again, I would recommend to not shoot at times when the sun is at the highest, this will lead to not really nice light and also heat-haze, especially at a larger distance. So in the warmer month I would recommend to...

Re: Feedback on my photos.

Hi,
well softness means the shot requires more sharpening on post processing. How you do that is depending on the programm you are using.
I was suspect the shot was also rejected for overexposed as highlights are blown out. So I would reduce exposure / tonw down highlights as well.

Julien

Re: Photo(s) that made you go WOW!

Very glad that this one made it:

Re: Pre-screening photos - fsx98

Hi, please consider that blurry is generally not fixable, especially if its allover like in this case. If you only have a small part that is blurry like the tail or so one might be able to mask it by applying quite some sharpening or chosing a very small sizes. Again this is rather masking than fixi...

Re: Prescreening - PHXA332

Hey, The Volaris isn't far off, might be even acceptable as it is. To make sure I would recommend to sharpen the "window-line" more. I think with some more sharpening and Contrast the PSA would be acceptable as well. Same for the Asiana if you add some exposure and sharpening. They are rea...

Re: Post-screening gh6912

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....

Re: Prescreening - PHXA332

Hi,

Delta 763: Blurry, soft. Not fixable.
Asiana 380: a bit underexposed, soft
KE380: passable
Volaris 320: Would sharpen the windows more
AA / PSA: Soft / flat (low contrast)

Julien

Re: Is the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM as good as the reviews claim?

Stefan, for what's it worth I think you can get acceptances / acceptable shots with every DSLR lense outthere. I don't think it's the point for Karl, that does not even upload at the moment. The question is more: will these shots have sufficient quality for someone that is used to an L-Lense quality...

Re: upload ban, The screener's logic is not well understood

I can only echo Kas, if there is a language barrier, please ask us for help either here or per mail. Uploading the same shot over and over isn't a good idea, neither for you, nor for us. It is lose-lose. Next time: ask us. As said before, we have chinese team members who are surely willing to help ...

Re: upload ban, The screener's logic is not well understood

I can only echo Kas, if there is a language barrier, please ask us for help either here or per mail. Uploading the same shot over and over isn't a good idea, neither for you, nor for us. It is lose-lose. Next time: ask us. As said before, we have chinese team members who are surely willing to help a...

Re: Pre-Screening DL747

airkas1 wrote:

JKPhotos wrote:

[...]

Re: Is the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM as good as the reviews claim?

I have used the non STM version as well, while it is solid and you can get good results until 200mm, it is nowhere near any L lense I have used. Honestly mate, I get your problem, but I would struggle having to use it again. Knowing that you are quite picky with your shots as well, not sure if it's ...

Re: Pre-Screening JFK Jets (Vincenzo)

You are welcome to post some for pre-screening here.

Re: Pre-Screen KPDX

You are welcome. Would be a worthy addition IMO.

Re: upload ban, The screener's logic is not well understood

We cannot even delete shots as screeners. You can see them all under your Photographer's Corner -> rejected shots. Please stay to the facts, before claiming stuff like this. Let me post the shots for you, as apparently you are keen on making this public: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliner...

Re: upload ban, The screener's logic is not well understood

Apparently you uploaded / reuploaded shots withou the necessary changes. If you feel like this is unjustified you can post your shots here and wel'll have a look. Otherwise how should we tell if you made the changes or not? Otherwise I can see that you have already received a warning recently for re...

Re: Pre-Screening DL747

I like the crop...very imposing! OK for me as well. Jehan Let me clarify, nothing wrong with the crop generally . I like it as well. My point was not about the crop itself just about the fact it is very tightly cut. I just prefer it a bit wider. I started in the non-digital era, and still prefer a ...

Re: Pre-Screen KPDX

Still a bit OS maybe, but would be passable for me. Nice shot!

Julien

Re: Pre-Screening DL747

Hi, looks acceptable to me.