Post screening Solro

solro · Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:32 pm

Hello guys for one more time.

I just had this image rejected for these reasons:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/1/6/3912611-v2455637ae1a-11jpg

- Blurry
- Overexposed
- Personal
- Soft

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Portions of the AC are soft / blurry."

I 'm OK with the overexposed but I can find anything blurry.

I uploaded a corrected (almost oversharpened) version. Does it lok OK???

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/0/3928029-v2cf28b7c722-11jpg

solro · Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:02 pm

Another rejection

This image:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/0/4/3919401.jpg?v=v49328684f50
was rejected for:
- Noise
- Quality
- Soft

While the taxiway seems to be noisy that's exactly how it looks like in reality.
I can't see any softness too.

I uploaded a new edit. Does it look acceptable?
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/9/0/3936091.jpg?v=v48559e58c4b

airkas1 · Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:44 pm

Photo 1 (Cessna): The tail is blurry in both photos. The overexposed is fixed in your re-edit. Also seems heathazed too.
Photo 2 (Nordwind): It looks soft/blurry/OOF. Insufficient Quality for that size. Not sure if this one can be fixed.

solro · Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:47 am

Thanks Kas! I uploaded both at 1200px!

Can anybody give some prescreening on this Transaero 747?
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/7/8/3936877.jpg?v=v47bb0b57e2f
It's the first time to edit a photo like this, so any view and advice will be highly appreciated!

airkas1 · Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:58 pm

solro wrote:
I uploaded both at 1200px!

I opened both photos in Photoshop and reduced them to 1200px and the above still stands. But there could be that quality error from the photo corner. If you can link the 1200px versions from another upload source, we can compare and come to a final decision.

solro wrote:
Can anybody give some prescreening on this Transaero 747?

Blurry & soft.

solro · Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:19 pm

I downloaded both photos from the photo corner and they are absolutely the same with the ones I uploaded! So, the problem with the photo-corner is fixed!

These are the 2 1200px versions:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/4/2/3936245.jpg?v=v4ce094ced8a
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/2/3936237.jpg?v=v41589baf669

I sharpened the 747 and uploaded at 1200px. Btw, does it look allright in terms of contrast, exposure and motive?
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/8/5/3937585.jpg?v=v4d39382a55f

airkas1 · Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:09 pm

solro wrote:
I sharpened the 747 and uploaded at 1200px. Btw, does it look allright in terms of contrast, exposure and motive?
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/8/5/3937585.jpg?v=v4d39382a55f

Sorry, but it still looks blurry. No amount of sharpening will fix that. Motive is fine, the underside is a bit dark though. Contrast looks ok too.

solro · Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:50 am

Hello again,

I need prescreening for this "cloudy" photo. I am mostly concerned about the contrast of the photo.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/3/9/4020933.jpg?v=v42d2326cbe8

Thanks in advance!

jelpee · Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:04 pm

Contrast seems OK to me. However, the image looks a bit soft and almost blurry (towards the rear of the aircraft).

Jehan

solro · Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:27 pm

There is no blurriness at all at any part of the original. A little more sharpening was beneficial!
Thanks...

airkas1 · Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:58 pm

A little kick of sharpening on the fuselage would be good yes, but otherwise the image looks fine.

solro · Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:35 pm

Merry Christmas and happy New Year!!!!
I need presreening on this France Air Force C-160
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/1/0/4143017.jpg?v=v4eaa493de18
This photo was made with a compact camera, unfortunately. So I want to know if it stands a chance...

spompert · Wed Dec 28, 2016 4:03 pm

Hello, it has a slight feeling of high in frame, maybe because of the position of the wings. Not sure if this can cause a rejection. The left propeller (in front) looks a bit oversharpened to me. Greets

jelpee · Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:50 am

Merry Christmas (belated) and a Happy New Year to you as well! The front of the aircraft looks a bit soft. You also an orange cone obstructing the main landing gear (avoidable by shooting from a different angle). Some leniency may be allowed depending on how rare this airframe is in the database.

Jehan

solro · Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:28 pm

Thanks for your responses!
Unfortunately the cone is present at all frames. The last photo of this a/c is dated back in 2010, with the same basic livery but without the odd bits of paint that are present in my image. So, I hope this can compensate the cone.
I sharpened a bit to make the front more clear and I brought the plane a little down. This is the new frame.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/4/1/4146147.jpg?v=v41ebb583909

This image was rejected for overexposed, contrast and blurry.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/0/0/4135003.jpg?v=v4df4f5c35b5
I tried to fix them and I re-uploaded. Is this passable at this size or I have to consider something smaller?
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/1/2/4146213.jpg?v=v413ed59c6ce

airkas1 · Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:19 pm

C160: If I didn't know any better I'd think it's graphic art

But looks passable.
A321: New edit is indeed better and looks alright to me (although the windowline may benefit from some selective sharpening).

solro · Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:47 pm

Hello! It's been a while...

I had 2 rejections lately that puzzled me a bit.

This SAS A320neo was rejected for low contrast and underexposed (after an HQ1)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/7/4315729.jpg?v=v4f3f5041dbe

I tried to fix it but the result looks worse in my eyes.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/9/9/4328997.jpg?v=v4f8aa871fd2
Should I leave this in the queue or appeal the other?

This Ryanair 738 was rejected as blurry. I can see a minor softness at parts but no bluriness.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/4/4311437.jpg?v=v48b5f5ecc23

Thanks in advance!

airkas1 · Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:12 pm

SAS: The re-edit is definitely an improvement to me, so I would leave that one in.
RYR: The nose & cockpit do look a little blurry, but otherwise looks fine.

solro · Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:03 pm

Thanks a lot Kas!

I tried to add some selective sharpness on the Ryanair image. I think that the problem is gone!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/6/4329629.jpg?v=v439a3d9f129

This photo is my first try with low-light shots. Please comment.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/3/5/4329539.jpg?v=v431cfe42b7d

jelpee · Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:13 pm

The Ryan Air still looks a bit sift to me and could use some contrast. I would also try it at a smaller size (say 1024 pixels). Quality is not there for 1600 pix.
The Condor is under exposed and is showing some noise: both fixable IMO

Jehan

solro · Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:36 pm

Thank you Jehan!
I uploaded the Ryanair at 1200!

This the corrected version of the Condor. Do you see it passable?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/8/7/4330783.jpg?v=v4c0d23f44e4

Another rejction that I think is questionable is this:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/9/8/4328899.jpg?v=v4c4566c5bf8

- Oversharpened
- Personal Message
- Quality

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"better smaller"

I see that it is oversharpened, especially on the titles. The other "problem" could be the reflections all over the leading edge of the wing, I can do anything about them.
Should I reduce sharpening and upload at the same size?
I also edited another frame of the sequence, but I prefer to see the first one uploaded.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/6/8/4330865.jpg?v=v487e42a1ba6

jelpee · Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:41 pm

The Condor 757 still looks underexposed. I checked the historgram and it shows that you can increase the brightness a lot more, This being taken at the "Blue Hour" allows for a brighter image than if it were taken during hours of full darkness. I would also boost the contrast a bit as well as apply some sharpening to the aircraft. Finally, I would select the areas in the deep shadows and apply a pass of noise reduction. PM me your email address and I'll send you a quick edit that I did. Can't guarantee acceptance, but I think it is passable.

The Royal Flight 757 definitely lacks quality for 1600 pixels. I don't see oversharpening. On the contrary, the image looks soft at this size.

Jehan

Jehan

airkas1 · Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:32 am

I agree that the Condor can be much brighter. Plus another pass of sharpening for the fuselage.

In my opinion the 757 doesn't look that bad at 1600px. The windowline looks a bit sharp, but looks nice other than that. Should definitely make it at around 1400px.

solro · Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:03 am

airkas1 wrote:
In my opinion the 757 doesn't look that bad at 1600px. The windowline looks a bit sharp, but looks nice other than that. Should definitely make it at around 1400px.

Do you think that it can make it at 1600px after I fix sharpening? Now I am thinking to re-edit this frame and kick this out of the queue, which is inferior in terms of composition.

The Condor was brightened enough with the valuable help of jelpee! Here it is:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/3/2/4334233.jpg?v=v4e7c53e14e6

airkas1 · Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:12 am

solro wrote:
Do you think that it can make it at 1600px after I fix sharpening? Now I am thinking to re-edit this frame and kick this out of the queue, which is inferior in terms of composition.

Maybe, but I wouldn't gamble it since it already got rejected for that size. I would give it a go at 1400px.

The condor is oversharpened and could perhaps still be a bit brighter. Tough shot to edit though, I'll give you that.

airkas1 · Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:13 am

solro · Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:51 pm

Hello again.

I just had two very confusing rejections

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/3/4459329.jpg?v=v4a00a0ec885

- Colour
- Personal Message
- Quality
- Soft

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"lacks quality at such a large size/soft for size, yellow cast"

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/4/3/4459341.jpg?v=v4026bd84f49

- Noise
- Personal Message
- Quality
- Soft

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"lacks quality at such a large size"

What confuses me is that I have multiples shots under these condition on the database most of them at 1600px. Is it so bad? Should I appeal any of them?

len90 · Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:37 am

jetairfly: Not seeing much of a cast. Looks more like sun angle. Soft around the nose where the plane name is

Dart: Not seeing noise. Soft around the window line.

HarryLi · Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:12 pm

Jet Air Fly : The color seems ok for me not so yellow. Nose seems a little bit soft i think and other parts look ok.
Dart : Noise shoud be ok for me and the soft toward the nose and windows have a little bit i think.

airkas1 · Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:37 pm

Jetairfly: nose looks blurry/soft at this size, otherwise passable
Dart: looks fine to me.

solro · Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:23 am

Thanks a lot all of you! I will appeal the Dart and re upload the Jetair.

Now how bad is this

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/1/1/4462115.jpg?v=v4a516362b19

I know its somewhat over exposed but the sun did not help. I got these reasons:

- Heat Haze
- Overexposed
- Quality
- Soft

HarryLi · Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:26 am

Hi , Solro
The heat haze is ok for me i think as i don't see obvious heat haze from this one. Regarding to the soft, the upper windows look pretty soft and the nose & Title have a little bit soft too.Besides, it indeed has overexposed issue but not that serious i think.
In addition to these problems, i found that the whole aircraft is too low in the frame as you can see the space above the aircraft and the space under tha aircraft is unbalance. Also, i can see slight vignetting at the top right of the picture , not quiet sure about this issue.
Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:40 pm

The top of the fuselage (especially the forward section of the hump looks a bit overexposed. The titles look soft. I'd also say it's low in frame.

len90 · Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:05 pm

That glare is going to give you an exposure issue. Do you have any other shots from the sequence where that glare is not so bad? The glare is also leading to soft appearance of the windows on the second deck as well as a bit in the titles.
It is definitely low in frame. I'm usually a slight bit high in frame with my images though

solro · Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:25 pm

Thanks for the feedback.

The Dart passed the appeal!!!
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Dart-Airlines/Airbus-A320-212/4459341

I reuploaded the Jetair giving a push on sharpening and denoise, also lowered the white balance a bit. I think it's OK now.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/3/4476337.jpg?v=v4c7d7728525

Regarding the Transaero I choose a different frame with significantly less glare. How do you see it?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/9/3/4477397.jpg?v=v4faaeaf5bb8

HarryLi · Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:18 am

Jet Air seems better than before.Bue the Transaero still seems soft for me especially the windows in front of the plane and the windows at the uppler deck. I think you can resize the size of Transaero to a smaller size.

solro · Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:33 pm

Weird things are happening...Remember the Jetair?
This was the first try:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/3/4459329.jpg?v=v4a00a0ec885

- Colour
- Personal Message
- Quality
- Soft

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"lacks quality at such a large size/soft for size, yellow cast"

Then I corrcted it and it was rejected for the exactly opossite reasons

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/3/4476337.jpg?v=v4c7d7728525

- Colour
- Oversharpened
- Personal Message

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"cyan"

This the biggest sreening discrepansy since I ve been here, and what makes me mad is that the photo is nothing difficult or special.
Should I appeal the second version?

airkas1 · Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:45 pm

solro wrote:
Should I appeal the second version?

Yes.

solro · Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:25 am

The Jetair went right through after the appeal!

Now I have three (tough) pics for prescreening

Smartwings after sunset, low ISO pic
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/9/7/4487797.jpg?v=v4db4f409b05

Eurowings in weird light sunset again
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/7/9/4489977.jpg?v=v42a3e203b6d

and...Thomson 789 complete darkness, handheld shot while taxiing. (ISO2500)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/3/8/4489835.jpg?v=v4e0cff68a3f

Feel free to judge...

310815 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:19 am

Hi,

1.) the Smartwings tooks allright to me, excellent shot!

2.) I kind of like the atmosphere, but I'd say for a.net it would Need to be brighter.

3.) Looks partly blurry and still rather blotchy from the NR, so something for the personal collection I'd say.

HarryLi · Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:29 pm

Hello,
The Smartwings looks ok for me. Impressive night shot.
Europe looks a little bit dark i think and the .. REG looks bit of OS for me.
The B787 i think will reject with Quality. And some parts of it look blurry. I agree with JK that is a good photo for collection !
Cheers,
Harry

solro · Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:30 am

Thanks for your feedback!
I brightened a bit the Eurowings...I think it's good now.

https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-corner/photo/4491937

I leave the 787 in queue but I don't have any hopes

Now I had a rather weird rejection...

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/9/9/4482999.jpg?v=v44451ade7c2

This Transaero 747 (the Tiger one) was rejected for

- Blurry
- Motive
- Personal Message
- Quality

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Cropped main landing ear on left side of frame. Blurry at this size. Would be better at 1200 pixels."

My main concern is the motive rejection. I alligned the crop at the second door ,and the engine, so the viewer focuses on the titles and the Tiger. I don't see the reason I should include all the gear. After all its almost total black, and if I do it will create loose space on the left.

Regarding the "blurry" maybe the titles are a bit soft but a pic of a plane taxiing while shot at 1/2000 cant be blurry.
Should I appeal?

HarryLi · Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:05 am

Hi ,
I am sorry I don't have computer right now so I can't judge the B747 now. But the link of the Europe Wing seems wrong. It's the Photo-corner Link.
Cheers,
Harry

310815 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:55 am

Regarding the Transaero. It doesn't look blurry to me, the big Transaero letters look partially a bit soft, but that's it.

Concerning the motive it would be fine for me personally, but this is very subjective. Would be interesting to have a screener's opinion here.
If it was my shot I wouldn't appeal is all I can say to your question.

airkas1 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:28 pm

- Tui 787: underexposed, blurry (looks like lots of noise reduction used), quality and oversharpened edges of wing & hor.stab. Sorry, but I don't think that one will make it.
- Smartwings looks OK.
- Can't see the new edit of the Eurowings.
- Transaero 747 looks fine to me (incl. motive). Not all (head)screeners will agree with me on that though, so up to you whether you want to appeal.

Miguel1982 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:39 pm

Hi,

With regards to the cropping, in general it's advisable to avoid cutting individual parts of an aircraft. That means not cutting the gear in half (even if it's not the main subject of the photo), not cutting windows or doors, engines, stuff like that. That is a general rule, and I think you will find examples of accepted shots that do not follow it, but in that case there has to be a reason.

On your shot, I would prefer to see the complete front bogie of the main landing gear. I don't think it will create that much of dead space on the left, if anything it will leave a bit more air for the Transaero logo.

Can't comment about the (lack of) blurryness right now, as I'm not on my home PC.

Cheers,
M.

310815 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:27 pm

Miguel1982 wrote:
Hi,

With regards to the cropping, in general it's advisable to avoid cutting individual parts of an aircraft. That means not cutting the gear in half (even if it's not the main subject of the photo), not cutting windows or doors, engines, stuff like that. That is a general rule, and I think you will find examples of accepted shots that do not follow it, but in that case there has to be a reason.

On your shot, I would prefer to see the complete front bogie of the main landing gear. I don't think it will create that much of dead space on the left, if anything it will leave a bit more air for the Transaero logo.

Can't comment about the (lack of) blurryness right now, as I'm not on my home PC.

Cheers,
M.

With all respect to your opinion Miguel, as you say there are plenty of examples with cut parts in the db.
I agree with Solro's opinion that the wheels are so dark that it doesn't matter motive-wise. They don't catch one's eye. I think it is a nice ending with the lettering and the door included. but this is my subjective opinion.

Miguel1982 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:03 pm

JKPhotos wrote:
With all respect to your opinion Miguel, as you say there are plenty of examples with cut parts in the db.
I agree with Solro's opinion that the wheels are so dark that it doesn't matter motive-wise. They don't catch one's eye. I think it is a nice ending with the lettering and the door included. but this is my subjective opinion.

Very respectable, of course. To my eye it would look better with a bit more space between the door and the edge of the frame, but it's an absolutely subjective opinion, of course

Checking for 747 side-ons, it appears that one cannot include the full front bogie without including as well part of the outer engine. Imagine the crop on the photos below:

In my opinion that is a solid reason to crop the gear. I would rather see a cropped gear than an engine appearing out of nowhere

310815 · Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:29 pm

Miguel1982 wrote:

In my opinion that is a solid reason to crop the gear. I would rather see a cropped gear than an engine appearing out of nowhere

In the end we end up with the same opinion (what rarely happens ;-)

).

Joking aside, fully agree.

solro · Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:40 pm

This is the correct link for the Eurowings!

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/9/4491937.jpg?v=v4f70dc92716

Well, Miguel that image is not a precise side on as the ones you showed us. Thus the boogies overlap each other. What you see in my pic is a bit of the left front gear and a part of a right gear. If I include the whole right gear a part of the left back gear will appear along with a half wheel door. I doubt if this black area will look better...
So I will appeal and see what happens.

I will remove the 789 from the queue...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net