LotmaniaK photos

LotmaniaK · Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:31 pm

This night photo of B787 was rejected for Soft & Underexposed :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 88551d3e0f

Is this new edited version better ?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 315bdd171b

Runway28L · Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:16 am

Exposure in the second image looks better. Tough call on sharpening... I would wait for someone else to comment.

airkas1 · Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:32 pm

New one is better in terms of both issues, but also on the yellow side for my liking.

LotmaniaK · Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:28 am

The 787 was rejected again for the same reasons.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 315bdd171b

New edit with increased exposure and sharpness :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 3ddc7bac75

Also I'd like some comments on those recent rejections :

Blurry & Noise & Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8879a8a079

Blurry & Noise & Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 57c863f3ce

Noise & Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d6c9a3be3e

Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8c637b888b

Thank you in advance for your help.

Runway28L · Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:40 pm

Lot B787: Looks a bit OS to me but since the last one was rejected for soft, idk how that could be rejected for OS. Exposure looks ok to me.

C-FENY: Nose area is borderline. I'd say soft at best.
N906DL: Front half of the aircraft looks blurry. Also, seems like there's some sort of blotching near the tail(?)
C-FPDN: Could be brighter
C-GSJB: Same as above^

For the last 4, noise on the aircraft itself isn't too bad, but I would add another 5-10% on the AC A320. The rest I would add some NR to the background.

LotmaniaK · Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:21 pm

In case of sharpness I have prefered the rejected one. Two more night photos that I would like feedback on :

An-26
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 02386d4217

B787
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c3bfb88405

HarryLi · Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:00 pm

Both of An26 and B787 are blurry and soft to me, especially the B787.

LotmaniaK · Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:58 pm

I need some feedback on this one :

787
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f478b36108

Thank you in advance.

airkas1 · Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:17 pm

Looks a little out of focus and soft on the nose and wing and windowline, but otherwise nice.

LotmaniaK · Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:54 pm

Another night shot I would like some comments on :

737 BBJ
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 9bd1f8090d

LotmaniaK · Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:16 pm

I would appreciate some feedback on this photo of A340 :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... b9ba079e10

rpd14 · Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:23 am

LotmaniaK wrote:
I would appreciate some feedback on this photo of A340 :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... b9ba079e10

For me little bit soft on the doors plane. Cheers

airkas1 · Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:22 am

Quality is passable, but definitely high in frame. The houses don't add enough motivation for the off-center.

LotmaniaK · Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:04 pm

Hello, I'd like some feedback on this photo of A330 :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... dcb2197e35

airkas1 · Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:45 am

Could use a bit more brightness and I would personally increase the saturation to make the red and blue colors 'pop' a bit more.

LotmaniaK · Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:41 am

Thanks Kas, is this new edit better ? I changed horizontal position a bit.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e2e8cce219

jelpee · Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:47 pm

LotmaniaK wrote:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e2e8cce219

Looks good to me.

Jehan

airkas1 · Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:22 am

Very nice Maksym!

LotmaniaK · Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:49 pm

I'm glad to hear that, thank you both.I need some feedback on this pic of 787. I'm not sure about nose part.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f748ab8a28

jelpee · Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:02 am

Sky shows some noise at this size. If I were you, I'd try some additional noise reduction on the sky or try a smaller size. The noise is marginal so I think an additional pass on the sky should do it enabling you to maintain the 1600 pixels size. When it comes to static night shots such as this, I tend to hold them to a higher standard since one can shoot at very low ISO's using a tripod. I am more forgiving for a dynamic night shot when very high ISO's. Everything else looks very nice.

Jehan

LotmaniaK · Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:04 am

This photo was taken with tripod at ISO100 as I always do when shooting static night shots. Here is an edit after noise reduction :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a7f52b2ceb

jelpee · Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:35 pm

Looks good Maksym! I sent you a PM as well.

Jehan

LotmaniaK · Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:22 am

Thank you for advices Jehan. I got this 4 photos rejected for Soft. Are they all realy too soft ?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 52dbf327e1

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 9f21b14719

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c16f38375f

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... cf9cdaec79

jelpee · Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:21 am

Hi Maxsym,

Happy new Year!

My thoughts:
1. LOT CRJ: Nose area looks soft. I would apply some selective sharpening and resubmit.
2. Helvetica ERJ: Nose area looks blurry/soft. You could try some sharpening on the nose and see if it helps.Can predict the outcome until I see the edit.
3. Aeroflot A320: Looks passable to me
4. AF A320: Looks passable to me.

Cheers,

Jehan

LotmaniaK · Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:52 pm

Happy 2019 to everyone

Here are the reedited photos with more sharpness :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 373bf3ca6e

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 5c556f5f8f

jelpee · Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:58 am

Hi Maxsym,

The LOT CRJ looks OK for me.
The Helvetica ERJ is a no-go for me. Cockpit windows and nose cone are still blurry. Try it at a smaller size: 1200 pixels or even 1049 pixels wide where the blurriness would not be so visible.

Jehan

airkas1 · Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:44 pm

Both look blurry to me.

LotmaniaK · Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:56 pm

Another two photos for review :

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 3e73a134fb

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 226c050692

jelpee · Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:31 pm

Both look good for me Maksym.

Jehan

airkas1 · Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:24 am

I'm with Jehan.

LotmaniaK · Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:01 pm

Boeing 787 LOT was rejected for CCW Rotation. Any thoughts ?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a7f52b2ceb

Runway28L · Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:23 pm

The link you posted gives me a 404 error.

jelpee · Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:15 am

I opened the image in PSE and checked the level...it could use some CCW rotation. Would have been passable for me since it looked acceptable. Now that it has been pointed out, I recommend that it be corrected and resubmitted.

Cheers

Jehan

LotmaniaK · Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:34 am

Is it alright now ?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 456f7ab09e

LotmaniaK · Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:28 pm

Brussels SSJ 100 was rejected for oversharpened. Then on appeal it was rejected for Noise. Any thoughts ?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 226c050692

JKPhotos · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:22 pm

Sharpening on the Brussels Superjet seems fine to me, but if I understand it right, "oversharpened" was removed upon appeal.
Sky is slightly grainy given the good conditions you shot in, should be an easy fix one slight pass of NR will do it.

jelpee · Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:31 am

Re. the LOT 787, still looks like it needs a bit more CCW. I am using the edge of the grass beyond the apron as my reference.

Re. the rejections for the Brussels Superjet. seems harsh IMO. Upon close scrutiny there's some minor noise on the left side engine that can be fixed.

Jehan

airkas1 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:57 pm

Agree on some CCw on the LOT. Not seeing the noise on the SSJ.

LotmaniaK · Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:29 pm

The Head Screener wrote in personal message that the sky is very noisy.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net