pre-post screening spompert

spompert · Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:52 am

airkas1 wrote:
They look OK for me Stefan.

@ PABlokhin, please start your own feedback thread if you wish to ask for feedback.

Thanks for the feedback, I have tried an appeal then. Greets

spompert · Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:16 am

Great, both were accepted. Thanks

spompert · Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:45 am

Rejected for noise, quality, soft and vignetting. The vignetting is very hard rejection if you ask me, barely visible, and it`s not even vignetting but just slightly darker clouds (checked the original, there`s no vignetting at all). Is the sky noisy or the plane itself? And quality? Bit sursprised as the original is very good quality. Love to hear from you, greetings
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3c402cd4a

airkas1 · Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:44 pm

It's passable for me.

spompert · Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:50 pm

Okay Kas, I tried an appeal in this case

spompert · Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:10 am

Great, accepted after appeal. Thanks

spompert · Sat May 12, 2018 8:15 am

I have had a lot of rejections lately of photos I just can`t get right and would like your opinions about it. If a photo looks unfixable I would like to hear:

1. Rejected for Blurry-Compression-Dark-Soft-Low Contrast-Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 67bb43b0c3

2. Rejected for Blurry-Colour-Compression-Quality-Soft-Noise-Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6ce739d673

3. Rejected for Dark-Soft-Low Contrast
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 09c0298ad8

4. Rejected for Noise-Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 75945cceeb

5. Rejected for Dark-Oversharpened-Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7b5e34e91d

6. Rejected for Oversharpened-Noise-Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7aad854c47

Thanks!

HarryLi · Sat May 12, 2018 8:40 am

Airport Overview : I'll let it go since the light condition is very poor and the quality of the whole picture looks poor too. Would be hard to make it i think.
D-AAAY : Sharpness of it looks ok to me. Do not see compression issue from it and the noise looks not bad i think. But the exposure and colour do have problem. Colour is too purple and reddish i think. And it could be brighter.
N669UA : Could be brighter and the also can has bit of morecontrast.Agree with soft.
D-AIHA : Agree with Underexposed but noise looks not bad to me.
PH-BFT : It does look bit of underexposed and dark but the sharpness is not OS to me but bit of soft to me.
KLM 777 : Looks underexposed. Noise looks ok to me. Do not see obvious OS from it .

Cheers,
Harry

spompert · Sun May 13, 2018 9:31 am

Thanks Harry, will try to see what I can fix.

spompert · Fri May 25, 2018 5:14 pm

Hello, this nose shot was rejected for motive (stairs). I agree they block the side but I was not trying to show that side. Being this more a shot from the front where the nose it more the subject can this motive rejection being discussed of no chance?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 21c392ed98

airkas1 · Fri May 25, 2018 8:52 pm

Unfortunately I agree with motive.

spompert · Fri May 25, 2018 10:46 pm

Okay, I understand, not a problem. Thanks for responding.

spompert · Sat Jun 02, 2018 8:38 am

Hi, this one was rejected for blurry, noise, quality and overexposed.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 28c9b2a028

I had a second look at the original photo and discovered some softness but not at all it`s blurry. So I don`t understand the blurry. Also overexposed it is not really right? Maybe some tiny parts at the engine for example but I don`t think that`s a problem. Noise is not more than usual. Which rejection reasons will stand you think and I have to work on? Thanks

dutchspotter1 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:34 pm

Top of fuselage and top of engine look overexposed. Noise seems acceptable. Sharpness is not too bad, but I would add some sharpness on the right engine and "Boeing 787-8" titles.
I would say the main problem is quality, because heathaze is visible (mainly top of the fuselage, leading edge right wing and also the left wing).

spompert · Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:55 pm

dutchspotter1 wrote:
Top of fuselage and top of engine look overexposed. Noise seems acceptable. Sharpness is not too bad, but I would add some sharpness on the right engine and "Boeing 787-8" titles.
I would say the main problem is quality, because heathaze is visible (mainly top of the fuselage, leading edge right wing and also the left wing).

Hi, thanks. I agree on the heathaze. I saw some in the original so I decided to edit in a smaller size. I still don`t really see the overexposure but to be sure I added a bit less brightness. Let`s see what happens. Greets

310815 · Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:14 am

Hey Stefan,

the harsh light doesn't help. You either have an overexposed top or a dark fuselage. I would generally recommend to shoot there in times with lower sun (= winter only).
Otherwise the sky is quite blotchy / grainy. Sharpness seems allright to me.

I guess due to the first reasons it will be difficult to get in, so I wouldn't spend too much time on it.

Julien

spompert · Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:20 pm

Hello, some new rejections which I am not really sure about. Can somebody confirm or help me out a bit more:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/8/8/5255885.jpg?v=v4da21999588
Rejected for oversharpened and high contrast

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/7/8/5255873.jpg?v=v48599b9e52b
Rejected for oversharpened and noise

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/6/8/5255869.jpg?v=v476f4db91a2
Rejected for oversharpened, high contrast and noise

Thanks
Stefan

Runway28L · Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:39 pm

Top of the fuselage and parts of the tail are the biggest indicators of OS on all three IMO.

The two BA B772s, I'm seeing noise being an issue with the bottom part of the fuselage. Maybe a bit more NR could fix that problem.

Contrast looks a little high for the VS A333 IMO. Looks ok to me on G-YMME.

airkas1 · Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:47 pm

Virgin looks alright for me.
BA 777-1 doesn't look OS, but can slightly agree to blotchy-ish sky. Bit picky though. Please also check the sky above the left wing for a possible dust spot that I'm seeing.
BA 777-2 clearer case of blotchy sky, but not OS and contrasty for me.

spompert · Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:35 am

Thanks both, I will appeal the Virgin and fix the BA's with advice from both.

spompert · Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:17 pm

Hi there, had a rejection for blurry and low contrast. I wonder what you think of it because the original was pretty okay. Thanks

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 3c238bdd66

jelpee · Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:06 pm

Blurry toward the front (nose and titles). Image looks hazy which likely makes it look flat.

Jehan

airkas1 · Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:21 am

I tend to agree with Jehan.

spompert · Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:00 pm

Thank you

spompert · Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:49 pm

New rejection. Overexposed and noise. There is a small glare on the first door but I thought it would be acceptable. Noise is perhaps slightly visible in the air but is it unacceptable?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c7e0dcc1e8

And this one for low in frame and soft. Technically it`s not low in frame (center is on the windowline and there is the tail in the upper half). Can somebody point out the soft parts, thank you
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 436ca9f68b

This was rejected for noise and underexposed. Light was low at the time. For this small size too much noise?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 01bdafd51e

fsx98 · Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 pm

The Emirates A380 does look a bit overexposed to me; as for noise, I would further reduce noise in the sky.
The HOP ERJ looks soft on the Air France titles, as well as on the cockpit windows; I would apply an extra kick of sharpness for these areas; also a bit low in frame to me.
The Etihad A330 doesn't look underexposed to me, but I would wait for a few other screeners who might disagree on my opinion; sky looks noisy.

airkas1 · Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:30 pm

EK isn't that overexposed.
HOP not that bad, but on the flat side.
EY seems passable.

spompert · Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:35 am

Thank you both

spompert · Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:04 am

Hello, this overview of some gates at Schiphol was rejected this morning for oversharpened, underexposed and motive. The first two I might be able to fix but I don`t understand the motive rejection. Anyone has ideas about this? Are the subjects to far away perhaps? Hopefully it is acceptable and I can start trying to fix the other issues.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c0676d2048

jelpee · Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:40 pm

I would have called a "Motive" rejection on this on account of too many obstructions to the aircraft. Also even though you have included the tower (right side of the frame), there is too much dead space between the last aircraft and the tower. If there were no obstructions to the aircraft, that would be a Motice rejection for me as well/

Cheers,

Jehan

spompert · Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:12 pm

jelpee wrote:
I would have called a "Motive" rejection on this on account of too many obstructions to the aircraft. Also even though you have included the tower (right side of the frame), there is too much dead space between the last aircraft and the tower. If there were no obstructions to the aircraft, that would be a Motice rejection for me as well/

Cheers,

Jehan

I forgot to say thanks Jehan. I`ll leave the photo and move on to other shots, greets!

spompert · Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:52 pm

Hello all, this photo keeps getting rejected for magenta cast but to be honest I can`t really see it, somebody has advice which colors to change (red, blue or green) and how much? Thanks
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 9ccff8af7b

JakTrax · Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:27 pm

I do see a slight pinkish hue (particularly in the grey part of the underside) but I've seen worse accepted. Removing just a touch of red should do it.

Karl

airkas1 · Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:43 pm

Add some green and it should be fine.

spompert · Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:15 pm

Thanks Karl and Kas, adding green was not the first idea I had but it seems to work.

spompert · Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:32 pm

Hello,

I had this rejection for quality and underexposed (common) after a HQ1 first. Any ideas if it`s fixable?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4b179dca1b

Thanks
Stefan

jelpee · Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:16 am

I think if you bump up the brightness it should be fine. Can't see any quality issues with it.

Jehan

spompert · Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:57 am

Thank you Jehan,

I will re-upload brighter.

spompert · Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:53 am

Hello, this one was rejected for underexposed, low contrast and colour (not mentioned which).
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e958e4761d
Any ideas if they are correct rejections and which colour?

310815 · Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:15 pm

Hi Stefan,

the fuselage has a red cast. The shot has a rather dark feeling overall (partly due to the position of the sun with the prominent shadows), so I agree with underexposed as it would look better brighter.

Julien

jelpee · Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:36 pm

What Julien said....

Jehan

spompert · Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:46 pm

Thanks Jehan and Julien

spompert · Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:14 am

Just wondering if a crop like this is appreciated here, perhaps under creative crop or should I have included more surrounding space like the full houses and grass?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... ecabc448fb

jelpee · Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:16 am

Hi Stefan,

The building definitely adds some drama to the composition. For me, though the building is somewhat unsightly (apologies to the owners) and also slightly out of focus...and therefore distracting. IMO, to be part of the composition, I would want the building to at least be in focus. Unrelated to the composition, it looks like the image could use some CCW?

Cheers,

Jehan

spompert · Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:07 pm

Thanks Jehan,

I`ll leave it for me personal collection

Next time I`ll be at the famous spotting location on Myrtle Ave I`ll try another composition.

airkas1 · Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:30 pm

FWIW, for me it also has a 'net niet' feeling. I've been trying similar photos as well, but have so far come up empty. Perhaps experimenting with the proximity to the house and including the whole house, etc. Plus of course the luck factor.

spompert · Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:30 pm

You are right Kas, the good thing is that there is so much to improve which is nice. I also have another question. I appealed a photo five days ago but it seems to get stuck now. Will it be seen sooner or later or is there a chance it will be overlooked from now on? Thanks

airkas1 · Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:56 am

It's probably still in the appeal queue and just hasn't been processed yet. What's the ID?

spompert · Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:03 am

airkas1 wrote:
It's probably still in the appeal queue and just hasn't been processed yet. What's the ID?

Thanks for looking in to it. The ID is 5485451.

spompert · Thu May 02, 2019 8:40 pm

I have some doubtful/picky rejections if you ask me. Can somebody confirm these?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2cad7db8ed
Rejected for magenta cast and overexposed

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c34ffa4511
Rejected for low in frame and underexposed

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... aa3b761ca9
Rejected for underexposed

Regards
Stefan

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net