pre-post screening spompert

jelpee · Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:05 am

Definitely has a pink cast, but passable for me for late day lighting. If you don't already do so, it helps to include a comment to the screeners about color casts due to early or late day lighting. Sometimes one can tell due to angle of the shadows, but on this one, it's not so obvious. As I said, the image is passable for me...you could try an appeal on this one.

Cheers,

Jehan

spompert · Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:05 pm

Good feedback Jehan, it was accepted after appeal. Thanks.

jelpee · Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:07 am

Yes, I see that it was added on appeal. Glad it worked out!

Jehan.

spompert · Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:18 am

Hi, this one was rejected for too much contrast and oversharpened. I agree contrast is a bit high but it gives an impression of the light at that time of the day. Should I indeed lower the contrast (because I had a similar photo lately rejected for low contrast). And which parts are oversharpened?

310815 · Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:00 am

Hi Stefan,
oversharpening seems pretty minor to me, visible on the smaller titles but otherwise I struggle to see it.
But for my personal liking the shot is way too contrasty, so I agree with the rejection. It is very "black" as it is if you see what I mean, would look better with less contrast, surely lightening the midtones would help.
Generally the angle is problematic with the sun coming from the back, something side-on or more form the back would be more suited for this light.

Julien

spompert · Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:10 pm

Thanks Julien,

I think you are right and I should improve the image. I`ll re-upload it.

spompert · Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:39 pm

Hello guys, I now improved the image by reducing the contrast. But now it`s rejected for red color cast and soft front. I appreciate the personal comment from the screener but it sounds a bit strange that now it`s suddenly soft. And the red color cast is due to the low light/end of the day if you ask me. Is it worth to try an appeal or should I fix it? If you click on the photo below you can see it real size.

HarryLi · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:12 pm

spompert wrote:
Hello guys, I now improved the image by reducing the contrast. But now it`s rejected for red color cast and soft front. I appreciate the personal comment from the screener but it sounds a bit strange that now it`s suddenly soft. And the red color cast is due to the low light/end of the day if you ask me. Is it worth to try an appeal or should I fix it? If you click on the photo below you can see it real size.

Hello，I looked your photo just now and i don't consider that it is soft i think the sharpen is ok for me ...and also should be passable..but i am not sure the color problem.If it was taken under the low light situation i think it could be passable....but i am not Screener so i don't know their standard and i haven't uploaded the low light photos yet so not sure it .

Cheers,
Junjie LEE

jelpee · Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:24 pm

Stefan,

Due to the angle of the light, this image has an underexposed appearance to it especially with the nose and cockpit windows in the shadows. Sharpness seems OK on the full sized image. The image has a yellow cast to it but that is acceptable for me given the time of day. The image could use some CW rotation though: The light pole on the left as well as the tower on the right appear to be leaning to the left.

Jehan

spompert · Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:06 pm

Is this one really soft? Which parts exactly?

310815 · Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:08 pm

Hi Stefan,

sharpening seems okay to me.

Julien

airkas1 · Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:28 pm

I wouldn't say it's soft.

spompert · Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:59 pm

Thanks, I`ll try an appeal this time.

spompert · Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:43 pm

This one was rejected for soft. At last the lightning seems to be passable but which parts should be sharpened more?

jelpee · Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:09 am

The tail looks a little soft, but is acceptable for me. It is worth an appeal.

Jehan

spompert · Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:52 am

Hi there, I was able to make a banking shot for the first time. It was rejected for low contrast and noise (in the air the screener told me). Now it has been rejected again for quality, noise and underexposed. The quality gives me an idea that it`s not salvageable. Is this right? I am hoping it can be added so hopefully the noise is the only problem now. Hope to hear from you. Thanks.

310815 · Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:14 am

Hi Stefan,

I am not on my editing monitor, so I can't judge quality properly. Quality doesn't automatically mean that it isn't salvagable and without seeing the original that would be hard to tell generally unless a shot is really bad.
What I can say is that the sky is definitely grainy.
If you want to send me the original I can have a look and try an edit. It is a nice shot!

See you
Julien

airkas1 · Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:26 pm

Hi Stefan,

Like Julien said, the sky is definitely noisy. Exposure is fine for me. Unfortunately I also agree that the quality is marginal. It looks a bit hazed/OS, especially towards the rear.

spompert · Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:17 am

Thanks both! Julien had a look at the original and thinks it might have a chance. So we'll keep trying. Greets

spompert · Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:46 am

Another banking shot, this time a 777-200. It was rejected for noise and oversharpened. The oversharpened was not mentioned before and I didn`t really sharpen it after resizing. Which parts should be taken care of? I see a little on the cheatline but it looks minor (and before not seen by the other screener also). And the noise I thought I had removed it as much as I could. When equalized I can`t see that much in the air. So any ideas, appeal has a chance? Greets

airkas1 · Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:58 pm

Quality looks kinda marginal to be honest. It looks slightly oversharpened in general, maybe a bit hazed in areas. But the fuselage from the engine forward looks soft.

spompert · Mon May 01, 2017 3:49 pm

Thanks Kas, next image I took with difficult lightning. It`s a special scheme and would like to add it. Is it passable? Please click for full size image. Thanks

airkas1 · Mon May 01, 2017 4:08 pm

Honest opinion? I'd wait to get it in better light.

But if you're hellbent on trying this one; it feels a bit blurry towards the back, especially the tail. As you say, light is marginal and I wouldn't get my hopes up.

HarryLi · Mon May 01, 2017 4:11 pm

Hi , i am curious that if you add some highlight will it be better ?

airkas1 · Mon May 01, 2017 4:24 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hi , i am curious that if you add some highlight will it be better ?

Nope, that will not fix this.

HarryLi · Mon May 01, 2017 4:37 pm

airkas1 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
Hi , i am curious that if you add some highlight will it be better ?

Nope, that will not fix this.

oK.. it is very hard to edit bad weather i think.

310815 · Tue May 02, 2017 7:57 am

Hi Stefan,
I can only echo Kas, wait until you get in good / better light (it seems to be in AMS everyday- so you'll possibly get it sooner or later). The problem is the sky is brighter than the airplane, so it will be tough to have a properly lit airplane without the sky looking blown out.

Using the shadow / highlight tool is rarely a solution if you ask me.

spompert · Tue May 02, 2017 7:04 pm

Hi Kas and Julien, you are right. I better try it next time with better light.

spompert · Sat May 06, 2017 11:16 am

Rejected for dark, low contrast and soft. I can`t really see all three. Anybody agrees?

HarryLi · Sat May 06, 2017 11:59 am

spompert wrote:
Rejected for dark, low contrast and soft. I can`t really see all three. Anybody agrees?

Hello, i think this one indeed need some contrast and can be brighter .The sharpness is ok for me .
And i download your photo and have a quick edit in PS i saw the his Histogram it indeed can brighter than this. And here is i edited one.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/957x6 ... gGxKJc.jpg

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Sat May 06, 2017 5:40 pm

It actually looks blurry.

spompert · Sun May 07, 2017 2:12 pm

Thank you Harry and Kas, I might leave this one because I had a look at the original and noted indeed it was not sharp enough. Had to take it from some distance.Next time better.

spompert · Sun May 14, 2017 8:46 pm

Hi, rejected for oversharpened. Where? The Wamos text or more overall? Click to see full size. Thanks

HarryLi · Tue May 16, 2017 7:12 am

The title seems a little bit OS i guess.

310815 · Tue May 16, 2017 7:21 am

Hi Stefan,

yes the tiles are slightly oversharpened, otherwise the aircraft is fine.

If you are doing another edit, I would correct the lense distortion as well, would look better in my opinion. Though it is not a rejection reason of course.

Julien

spompert · Tue May 16, 2017 6:58 pm

Thanks Harry and Julien, I`ll retry. Unfortunately there is for distortion no option to choose standard lenses in PSE so I need to see how I can fix that in future times. Greets

airkas1 · Tue May 16, 2017 7:09 pm

There is a function in the RAW converter.

310815 · Thu May 18, 2017 7:45 am

airkas1 wrote:
There is a function in the RAW converter.

True. Otherwise I could do it for you as well, Stefan. It takes a few seconds in CS6, send me a mail if you want

See you

Julien

spompert · Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:37 pm

Hi there, I was on holiday in Azerbaijan last week and made a photo of the new terminal. It`s not in the database yet. Unfortunately I have noticed reflections in the photo because of the lights. Is there any way I can get rid of them in PS? Somebody has advice to save it from the bin? What would be a good method to avoid them next time while shooting in dark conditions? Could there be some leniency maybe because it`s the only photo of the terminal on the site? Thanks Stefan

310815 · Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:29 am

Hi Stefan,

there is no legal way (concerning a.net rules) to get rid of such reflections, as the only options would mean either cloning or selectively editing, so I think this would be something for your own gallery (no need to bin it, it is a nice shot!)

Filters can avoid such reflections.

Julien

airkas1 · Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:46 pm

Yeah, the flares kinda kill it unfortunately. The only way I can think of is to clone them out, but from experience it will be next to impossible to achieve that without leaving any signs of doing so. A nice photo for the collection, but unfrotunately not for A.net in this state.

spompert · Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:34 am

Thanks Kas and JK! This photo was rejected some days ago for banding and oversharpened. Can`t see both of them to be honest. The sky is maybe a bit more blue in the top than below but there is no real banding going on in my opinion. And the oversharpened parts, are they on the wing or in the background? Can`t see significant jaggies. Thanks Stefan

HarryLi · Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:39 pm

Hello,
I can't see the Banding issue through this one even using the equalize to check it. But the " FlyUIA.com" looks bit of OS i think.Not very bad.

Cheers,
Harry

spompert · Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:52 am

Thanks Harry, nice of you that you respond so I have some feedback on this. I might try an appeal. I wonder if others agree o that I should fix the titles first.

Miguel1982 · Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:22 am

Hi Stefan, I can't see the banding or the oversharpening either. Typically the slots in the flaps tend to show jaggies quite easily, but that's not the case here either. Titles look also fine for me. And regarding the sky, it's completely normal that the upper part is darker than the horizon, it only needs to be a smooth gradient, as it is in this case (IMO).

airkas1 · Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:18 am

Looks ok to me.

HarryLi · Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:03 pm

Congratulation ! I saw it was accepted just now. And i think it might be the 400th photos of yours in A.net !

spompert · Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:46 pm

Thanks Miguel, Harry and Kas!

spompert · Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:39 pm

Hello there, today this shot was rejected for oversharpened. I have some problems seeing the jaggies. Anyone can point them out for me?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 087eb1b2f5

len90 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:28 am

The colors of the tail scheme. The worst on my display is the red especially near the rhino.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net