Post screening Solro

solro · Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:10 pm

Appealed and accepted...

310815 · Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:26 am

Wow, glad to hear that.

A nice & large shot in the db, I am happy to see that.

HarryLi · Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:52 pm

Very beautiful one !!!! Wish it can go to the Top Haha !

solro · Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:29 am

Another discrepancy.

Thsi was rejected for Soft (after HQ1)

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/1/4/4474413.jpg?v=v4b3a5db81b7

And this for oversharpened.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/7/4490751.jpg?v=v44a85af384d

Both look in margins in my opinion...Which one should be appealed?

len90 · Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:33 am

To me they look almost identical. I personally think both have a bit of OS quality towards the nose, especially around that blue wavy line near the nose.

airkas1 · Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:19 am

I would appeal the soft one.

solro · Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:48 am

Hello again

I had one puzzling rejection. This went down for oversharpened and blurry on the same time. I see some jaggies here and there but no motion blur. Does it worth an appeal?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/1/5044161.jpg?v=v487975ff655

I also want pre-screening on this night-shot, mostly on color, exposure and contrast. I think that sharpening and noise are OK.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/9/5054951.jpg?v=v4b6d830fe23

HarryLi · Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:38 am

Regarding to the Mexico, i would tend to use smaller size. IMO, if the OS and blurry appear at the same time, which means that OS compensate the Blurry part.But i'm not quiet sure about this one.
About the Frontier, the colour does have serious problem. It looks pretty red as you can see the ground is very red. Contrast could be reduced some i think.
Cheers,
Harry

solro · Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:38 pm

Thank you Harry. I deleted the Frontier from the queue and I ll upload Aeromexico at 1200px.

airkas1 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:01 am

AM: bit oversharpened, but not blurry to me. I would keep the larger size you initially uploaded it in (but you could always use the reupload feature for that).
Frontier: indeed way too orange and a bit contrasty.

rock45 · Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:47 am

before submitting you must open your image in adobe photo shop and set the image px and save this image again in high resolution if you do this then you can't face image blur and image resolution issue again

solro · Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:22 am

I dumped the Frontier and I uploaded the AM at the same size. Is it OK now?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/9/5066961.jpg?v=v4a476349d04

I also had this rejected as Overexposed and oversharpened. I think that both are really marginal. Does it worth an appeal?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/4/9/5054947.jpg?v=v41460243b9a

Finally I'd appreciate some prescreening on this night pic. I know its probably not going to make it as it is, I just need your advice.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/6/6/5066663.jpg?v=v45bf7db4b61

solro · Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:15 pm

Hello again

Is the motive OK for this pic?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4ns8599y3d6oat/DSC_3491.jpg?dl=0
(dont judge contrast etc itsnt not processed)

And also can the previous and this one both be uploaded, or they will be considered as double?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3gbty8qa4w2gbv0/DSC_3490-2.jpg?dl=0

Thanks in advance.

Miguel1982 · Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:55 am

Uploading both shots would be considered double. I personally would go with the second one, as the crop on the first one leaves me wanting to see more.

solro · Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:45 am

Thanks Miguel, the full view will soon be screened!

Now I want to bring up some rejections.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/6/6/5066663.jpg?v=v45bf7db4b61
Went down for blurry and compression. I know it's a tough pic, but I want an opinion if it can be saved.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/4/3/5068341.jpg?v=v4aeb96e2c42
This was rejected after HQ1 and 2 SOs for
- CCW Rotation
- High in Frame
- Personal Message
- Quality
and the message saying to reduce size

All I want to know for the above pic is if the quality is there, and the rest are easily fixable.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/4/5/5074545.jpg?v=v4edc1bb839d
Went down for
- Blurry
- Quality
- Halos
- Noise

I aknowledge that there are some Halos around the fuselage but I dont an blurry part at all. Is it worth trying to fix the halos?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/7/3/5077373.jpg?v=v4da8fffdc5f
Finally this was rejected for oversharpened ad blury, except for the left winglet being a bit soft I can't see anything else. Does it worth an appeal?

dutchspotter1 · Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:02 pm

I tend to agree with the screener on all four photos.
First one, can't be saved.
Second one, personally I wouldn't bother
Third one, nose looks blurry
Fourth one, looks oversharped (jaggies), but apart from the windows which are low-contrast I don't see any blur

airkas1 · Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:26 pm

1: agree.
2: can be saved. Centering is not far off as-is.
3: nose is very soft at best.
4: blurry nose/nosegear and winglet. Other sharpness passable for me

solro · Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:39 am

Thanks for the replies!

I dumped #1 and #4 and I re uploaded the other two.

This was rejected again for underexposed and low contrast.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/3/7/5214735.jpg?v=v401732d2f63
Should I appeal?

Can you also give a bit of pre screening at this LH 330.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/2/5226281.jpg?v=v4260eb968c6

fsx98 · Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:47 am

I wouldn't bother appealing the Amerijet 767 photo; the photo does look a little flat and underexposed.
As for the LH A330, the photo also appears underexposed.

I'm not good of a screener, but these are my best opinions of those photos; I'll let other screeners have a look and decide of these photos.

solro · Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:45 am

Hello...

I had a ton of rejection lately...Some more puzzling than others

Southwest winglet.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/3/8/5385833.jpg?v=v4317e78455b
Rejected for "banding"

I understand that such large color gradient cant be perfectly smooth. The only way to reduce it is to add gradual filter, but I guess it's prohibited.
Should I appeal or reduce the size to 800x1200px and give it one last chance?

Southwest 737-1
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/2/1/5391121.jpg?v=v46a2f6ab9e9

One of my first tries at 1920px. It was rejected for soft. Is it worth an appeal or I should downsize to 1600px. I think I cant add more sharpening.

Delta 717
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/1/5391129.jpg?v=v4fe9021fa2f

Distance shot, rejected for soft. Is it worth another pass of sharpening?

Soutthwest 737-2
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/9/5/5400593.jpg?v=v4ee9e4256b4

Another 1920px try. Rejected for oversharpened and underexposed. I see some jaggies indeed, but the exposure is more than ok for me.

Volaris
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/6/5/5393569.jpg?v=v4c09eb97966

The most puzzling rejection. Rejected for blurry. I can't see anything blurry. Should I appeal?

Thanks in advance
Solon

HarryLi · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:24 pm

Hello Solro,
The Winglet shot's background has visible banding effect which can't not solved by reducing the size. Appealing it will not be successful IMO. The effect could be made by many factors. One of the efficient way is to re-edit it and see if it will become better also do a check for the original before editing to make sure your original photos do not have it.

N968WN: The sharpness actually seems not bad IMO. However, using such a large size requires very high quality to some extent. In this case, the nose and the tail seem to be bit of soft at this size. Would be better smaller IMO.

DELTA 717 : Not quiet bad for me but does look soft at some parts like the title.

SW B737 : Marginal light for me actually. Exposure looks not bad IMO.

Volaris : Do not see obvious blurry from this one but the light condition looks not great.

Regards,
Harry

solro · Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:29 pm

Thanks for your advice Harry

Volaris appealed and accepted!

jelpee · Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:45 am

SW 737-1 looks fine for me as well
DL 717 looks soft and could use around of sharpening
SW 737-2 looks acceptable for me.

Jehan

solro · Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:52 am

Thanks Jehan!

I ll defenitely re-edit the 717 and upload it again.

As for the two SW I appealed them both...

Now one more rejection

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/3/8/5394839.jpg?v=v4f66c741562

This is some kind of overview. I understand that the United and the buildings behind are heat-hazed, but I don't think that Southwest and mostly Westjet (which the "ariplane" of the pic) are heat-hazed. Is this a way to save it, even at 1000px?

jelpee · Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:40 pm

Hi Solro,

I would pass on the airport overview shot. The lighting is not the best. and there is not a strong motive. i.e. the emphasis is split between some aircraft, the sky line, etc. The aircraft are blurry as well. Also, the OOF foreground (wall?) is a bit distracting to my eyes. IMO, too many issues to overcome. If I were you, I'd save this for my private collection. :smile:

Hope the 2 SW 737's are successful on appeal!

Jehan

solro · Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:00 pm

Youprovided enough reasoning to dump that pic!

The two Southwests were accepted after the appeal!

jelpee · Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:10 pm

Glad the SW appeals were successful!

Jehan

solro · Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:12 am

Another puzzling rejection

This pic was rejected for "Low in frame"

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/8/5398837.jpg?v=v430a14e8751

I understand that the empty space above the plane is bigger, But the center is right on the window line. Should I appeal?

JakTrax · Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:15 am

Does look a bit low in frame to me, so I wouldn't appeal it.

Karl

ChrisLait · Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am

This is a nice pic :-)

IMO, I would do both. Appeal and re-edit the shot slightly to move the aircraft up just in case the appeal failed so you could re-upload. I think what I like about the image is the mountains in the background and if you move the aircraft up slightly, you may get more of the mountains in which I don't think would detract from the image at all.

Hope you manage to get this one accepted.

Chris

airkas1 · Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:31 am

Maybe a tiny bit low, but passable for me.

solro · Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:14 pm

Thanks. I appealed it.

solro · Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:11 am

This Delta 738 was rejected as "Soft" and the screener added "This shot does not support such a large size. Try 1200 pix or below"

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/5/5408529.jpg?v=v4b69c652878

I understand that the conditions are not ideal but should I upload at the same size (or 1600) after I sharpen it more?

solro · Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:40 am

Another pair of rejections...

This was rejected for soft.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/8/3/5414385.jpg?v=v475279ae435

Then I added some sharpening and it was rejected for oversparpened and CCW.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/2/5422261.jpg?v=v4d73d249db9

Should I appeal any of these?

jelpee · Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:33 pm

The DL 738: Should be OK at a smaller size. I don;t see a softness issue that is fatal.
SW B737: On the original submission, the nose is soft. The second version looks OK for me. have to agree with the CCW though. That building in the middle does convey a right tilt impression. Also would be better at 1200 pixels due to noise in the sky. Lighting is not the best, and at this size, flaws get magnified. I would not appeal.

Jehan

airkas1 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:58 pm

I hardly see the difference between the 2 version, but the latter one looks alright to me regarding sharpening. I compared the verticals of the buildings against the edge of my screen and it is passable for me. Maybe it does need some CCW, but the amount is too marginal for me to want to reject for it. In the lower sky there is some noise, but that can be fixed. 1600px wide should work in the end.

solro · Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:00 pm

Thanks both of you! I ll do some fine-tuning and re-upload...

jelpee · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:12 pm

I see your SW (N720WN) got accepted...glad it worked out!

Cheers,

Jehan

solro · Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:51 am

Third time was the charm indeed!

Now this was rejected after appealing for high in frame.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/0/4/5414403.jpg?v=v4bc8c51947e

I also have two more pics accepted with the same composition.

Should I upload the same one again with this remark, or I have to put the airplane in the center?

fsx98 · Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:59 am

For the rejected photo, I'm guessing it's worth an appeal with this remark, as this very interesting composition is very similar to the two that got accepted.

jelpee · Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:57 am

Personally, I don't think there is enough motive to place the aircraft high in the frame primarily because the objects at the bottom of the frame are quite blurry and/or heat hazed. Therefore, for me, they do not add much to the composition. If it was already rejected on appeal, then unfortunately, you are out of options. If I were you, I would center the aircraft and resubmit it.

Jehan

solro · Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:55 am

I ve reuploaded it, and now hoping for the best.

Double Southwest Rejection
I uploaded first this at 1920 px and was rejected for soft and blurry. Soft, maybe on the back, but I cant see any blurryness.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/3/7/5449731.jpg?v=v4e460b41e29
After this I resized to 1600px and uploaded it again. This time it went down for "underexposed" and cyan cast.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/2/1/5451125.jpg?v=v4581f91f924

Should I appeal any of these, or just re-edit the second one?

HarryLi · Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:55 am

Hi Solro,
The exposure for both images does look underexposed to some extent, maybe due to the light angle at that time i think. Nevertheless, i checked this A/C in our DB and found that yours is would be the first image for this livery/paint in the DB ; )

Regards,
Harry

jelpee · Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:37 pm

Hi Solro,

That was me that rejected the image. Both issues are minor and together gave me enough motivation to decline the image. As Harry mentioned, the image is somewhat underexposed. The larger issue for me was the color cast which is visible in the white color of the airline title. I did consider that it was the first time this registration appears in the current SW livery, but again felt these were both easy fixes. If I were you I'd try that instead of an appeal.

Cheers,

Jehan

solro · Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:23 pm

I understand your claims Jehan. I ll spend some time to re-edit.

Thanks
Solon

solro · Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:30 am

I want some pre-screening on this Travel Service 738. Do you think its OK for that size. Is the glare killing this pic?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/4/2/5453249.jpg?v=v49ef969ba61

Thanks
Solon

jelpee · Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:57 am

Hi Solon,

I am not on my screening monitor, but the nose appears blurry. I do not see any issues with glare.

Cheers,

Jehan

solro · Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:52 am

Hello Jehan.

I closely examined the original and I couldnt see any "motion". I think it's just softnes. I applied a bit of selective sharpening at the front. I think it's Ok now.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/4/5/5454543.jpg?v=v4a93fc32a86

airkas1 · Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:21 am

Passable for me.

solro · Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:54 pm

Thanks Kas! Let's see how it goes

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net