airkas1 wrote:

KE: soft fuselage
Rest looks ok

SQ: seems ok
KE: soft front fuselage
OZ: soft front fuselage

Hello Kas,
The SQ got rejected with ... Blurry & Soft also with Common. Well, i indeed can not see Blurry and soft here. And the quality or light condition isn't bad i can't figure out where is the problem.... Hope the appealing result could be ok. Is it really have these issues ???
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 299252e28e

Hi guys, i edited some photos just now , and these 3 i am not pretty sure.Thus, appreciate your opinions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( Austrian B772 )

https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( Asiana A333 )
[ This one was considered soft toward fuselage last time by Kas here ,so this is the Revision ]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( CA B757F )
[ Regarding to this one, i am not quite sure about the sharpness , the tail seems soft due to Glare i think but not sure. All of the photos of this aircraft have glare so this one should be the best one . ]

Thank u for your time !

Cheers,
Harry

Hello guys , i got some rejected recently and some of them i am confusing.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d6810425a1
[ MU A332 , It was rejected with CCW Rotation &Color. Also , the screener left a message said that " Yellow/green ". Well, but in my screen,no matter phone or Computer i can't see any color problem..]

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b120fa98e7
[Delta A332 . Reasons : 1.CCW Rotation 2. Blurry 3. OS. To be honest, i can't see any blurry from it even in the origin one i can't see.]

The above 2 pics are waiting to the Appealing Result.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d48d3508d4
[KE B744. Finally, it also was rejected with Soft and after appealing also is soft and plus Common to me. I think the sharpness of it is ok. ]

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f72e12fd43
[MU A333. Reason : CCW Rotation. After appealing : CCW Rotation. ]

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b5e5543cd5
[EY B789. Reason : Soft. I haven't appeal it yet.]

According to the above pics ,one of the biggest problems for me is the Level problem, i used the same standard and same way to adjust level of the photos which were taken from the same place and some of them were accepted. And i also checked the database for some photos which come from same spotting location and i don't think they have big issue.
Like this one :
I edited this one with same way and standard to adjust level.
Thus, appreciate your opinions here. If u agree with the decisions. Would you please tell me what reference can be the best choice for me to adjust level ?
Thank you very much !!

Cheers,
Harry

MU332: agree with the CCW. What I am using is the vertical lines of the building (window lines). Those look like .25 - .5 degrees off. As for the color cast, not seeing that on my display.
DL332: Looks like a blurry with OS to compensate. You have the original or a full size to share? The level on this one is not really that bad. Vertical lines on the building seem to line up.
KE 744: sharpen the windows from the wing on back, nose of the plane and cockpit windows. The rest looks passable for sharpness. I seriously hate the "common" rejection reason as it serves no purpose on its own.
MU333: Level can be judged by the above stated method
EY789: I don't see it as soft.

Your accepted Hainan photo, might actually need a slight CCW as well. Could be screener variances.

len90 wrote:

MU332: agree with the CCW. What I am using is the vertical lines of the building (window lines). Those look like .25 - .5 degrees off. As for the color cast, not seeing that on my display.
DL332: Looks like a blurry with OS to compensate. You have the original or a full size to share? The level on this one is not really that bad. Vertical lines on the building seem to line up.
KE 744: sharpen the windows from the wing on back, nose of the plane and cockpit windows. The rest looks passable for sharpness. I seriously hate the "common" rejection reason as it serves no purpose on its own.
MU333: Level can be judged by the above stated method
EY789: I don't see it as soft.

Your accepted Hainan photo, might actually need a slight CCW as well. Could be screener variances.

Thank u for your instruction Len. Very appreciate . I will re-edit them later and show the result here again. Thanks.
Well , this is my first time went to this location for spotting so no experience here.
Yeah , I agree with u that ...the "Common" reason has no purpose. I got it for twice recently.

Cheers,
Harry

Finally , after appealing the Delta A332 was rejected with Soft and CCW Rotation.
Here is the revision of Delta A332 : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ba35052829
And here is KE B744 Revision : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3ebbe6f322
KE 744 last time edited version : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d48d3508d4
Which one is better ?

Thanks again !

Cheers,
Harry

DL332: still looks identical to the reject on level. Borderline OS to me on the titles.
KE 744: window line looks better now.

I don't see a difference in the KE.
The Delta still looks like it needs CCW. The bottom of the plane seems a bit hazed actually?

airkas1 wrote:

I don't see a difference in the KE.
The Delta still looks like it needs CCW. The bottom of the plane seems a bit hazed actually?

I didn't add too much to it as i afraid it becomes OS. But is it passable ? To be honest , the sharpness is ok to me.
Regarding to the Delta ....i think it indeed needs some CCW i will edit it later.
Here is the origin one of Delta A332 : https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/

And i re-edited the EY B789 today as the last one was rejected with Soft finally.Thus , i changed another one to edit.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9ff1079268

Both edits of the KE 744 look passable to me. Agree with Kas that the Delta still needs CCW rotation, while the front of the jet is slightly oversharpened.

airkas1 wrote:

The bottom of the plane seems a bit hazed actually?

Judging from the original, I do not think the bottom of the plane is heat hazed. However, the gear does seem to have some jaggies surrounding them, and I have had non-heat hazed shots rejected due to oversharpening.

The EY 789 seems good to me.

Cheers,
Yang

The EY is a little HIF for my taste, but otherwise I fully agree with Yang.

Thank you for all of you ! EY and the KE were accepted few days ago!
And i edited some recently , and this one KLM B789 i am not quiet sure. Thus , hope can get your opinions here !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a44d992299

Thank u for your time !

Cheers,
Harry

The KLM 789 looks grainy in the sky, but otherwise it is passable for me. By the way, where in Beijing Capital did you take that shot?

Cheers,
Yang

YQZ380 wrote:

The KLM 789 looks grainy in the sky, but otherwise it is passable for me. By the way, where in Beijing Capital did you take that shot?

Cheers,
Yang

Thanks Yang .
I took this shot from a Hotel which is located beside Terminal 1 and also has good view to RWY 36L. The name of this hotel is Gree Tree.
There is a post in Photography Forum. They have talked about this hotel before and i posted some there. You can have a look if you are interested to it.
( viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1340489 ) This is the link to that post.

Cheers,
Harry

Blurry, hazy, quality on my screen. Sorry.

airkas1 wrote:

Blurry, hazy, quality on my screen. Sorry.

Ok , i will give up it and edit some other better shots. Thanks.

Hello, guys
I got a rare special livery yesterday. And i hope it could be accepted !
Appreciate your opinions here !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6ff5c00b9c ( HZ-AK28 )
THANK YOU FOR YOUR VALUABLE TIME !

Cheers,
Harry

Hi ,
I edited 2 united B777 ,and also hope get your opinions on these 2 and the AK28. Thanks again !!!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 97b99851d3 ( Star )

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3db953fec2 (N796UA)

Cheers,
Harry

Hello guys,
I am not quiet sure about the exposure about this B738 , is it underexposed or dark ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 987cb5d43c

Thanks.
Best wishes,
Harry

Hi guys,
I edited some photos that i got today and hope get your opinions.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 492198c56e ( Scoot A320 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 50da7a8fd2 ( West Air A320 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 79eb129edf ( EMS B757F )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... de329e8b86 ( KA A333 )

Thank u for your time !
Cheers,
Harry

I am not quiet sure about the Scoot A320... maybe give up it ? the glace places and front gear seem to be soft i think?
And i edited another CZ333 to replace it :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5d911e8bb1

The Uniteds are ok.
The 738 is passable, although it could be a bit brigther (the sky mostly)

Scoot: hazed & soft tail, soft fuselage due to glare. Don't think it will make it.
West Air: ok
EMS: hazed-ish tail
Dragon: ok

CZ A330 looks ok

airkas1 wrote:

The Uniteds are ok.
The 738 is passable, although it could be a bit brigther (the sky mostly)

Scoot: hazed & soft tail, soft fuselage due to glare. Don't think it will make it.
West Air: ok
EMS: hazed-ish tail
Dragon: ok

CZ A330 looks ok

Thanks for your opinions Kas.
I have re-edited another EMS here :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ef0987d7eb
And i didn't see haze in the origin one .

I also edited an A343 of MK. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 88968735d8
What do u think ?

Cheers,
Harry

the EMS tail still look a bit hazed, but could be passable. If the original doesn't have it, then I don't know.
The MK looks fine, although I personally think you could use a pop more saturation to make the reds pop more.

airkas1 wrote:

the EMS tail still look a bit hazed, but could be passable. If the original doesn't have it, then I don't know.
The MK looks fine, although I personally think you could use a pop more saturation to make the reds pop more.

Hello Kas,
Thank you for your time ti reply my post
Here is the origin one of EMS :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/
Actually, i can't see heat-haze there.
Besides, i edited 4 LHR photos which i took 3 yrs ago. I am also appreciate your opinions on them !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3184c3e1a5 ( CZ B788 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a055fed413 ( Egypt A333 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3c977351fe ( DL B763 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dd7b0e4ab2 ( SAS A320 )
Thank you for your time !
In addition, i found that the speed of screening photos is very fast recently !!!

Cheers,
Harry

The original of the EMS seems fine and so do the 4 LHR photos.

Hi guys,
I edited 6 more today ~ And i am also looking forward to seeing your opinions ! Thank you for your time !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7fb1bdf94c ( JAL B788 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4dd8c95b89 ( BA A320 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 73e8bd6421 ( A7 A332 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ee01a629fe ( JY A310 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bd5bd38b0d ( SAS B736 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 053475bfd6 ( DHL AB6 )

Cheers,
Harry

And here are 4 more that i am not quiet sure~
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 03f88c3a1e ( Transaero B737 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1639e18aeb ( BA A388 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c285b6672e ( VS A343 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d578dc19f1 ( ANA B77W )

The last one of this week :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9f0cc2672b

Some of them which i took in Europe have some Blurry so i took lots of them and picked the best one to edit. But still not quiet sure about it. I think it might be the problem of my UV filter because when i changed another one it became better.

Cheers,
Harry

They all look OK to me, except the Biman (too yellow).

airkas1 wrote:

They all look OK to me, except the Biman (too yellow).

Thank u so much Kas. I have reduced some yellow for the Biaman B77W. Here is the result :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 494a01bf4e

Cheers,
Harry

Hello,
These two finally got rejected this morning with Overexposed and oversharpened ( A310 ) ; High contrast and HIF ( A380 ).
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1639e18aeb : A380 first time uploaded version
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d682267e1b : Re-editing version to reduce some contrast.
To be honest , i think the contrast is passable for myself and does't HIF.
A310F:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ee01a629fe : First time uploaded version.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1ce2a43b93 : Re-editing version to reduce some exposure.
I think the sharpness of this one should be ok so i just revised the exposure.

Regarding to these 2 , is it better to upload the re-editing version or uploaded the photos that i uploaded last time again. Hope get your opinions !!!
Thank you for your time !

Cheers,
Harry

The new edits do look better. I would advise to never upload an edit that has been rejected. A reupload can get you a warning and/or ban (when done more often).

[url][/url]

airkas1 wrote:

The new edits do look better. I would advise to never upload an edit that has been rejected. A reupload can get you a warning and/or ban (when done more often).

I see ~ Thank u Kas. I have uploaded the new version.

Hello guys,
I edited some photos recently, and one of them i am not quiet sure and hope you can show your opinions here ! Thank u very much.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 170c2bcb06 ( CI B744 )

I was taken it at the late of afternoon. Almost sunset so sunshine is pretty beautiful . But i am not sure that if i should choose the " Night/Dusk/Dawn " option.
And if you have any suggestion to this photo. Welcome to say !!!

Cheers,
Harry

Hello guys,
I got a special livery today and i would like to hear your opinions on it !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9f750d7447 ( Tianjin A321 )

Thank you for your time to read and reply !

Cheers,
Harry

Seems a bit CW needed, but otherwise fine.
The CI looks passable, but doesn't go with DARK category. That's only for when the sun is below the horizon.

airkas1 wrote:

Seems a bit CW needed, but otherwise fine.
The CI looks passable,but doesn't go with DARK category. That's only for when the sun is below the horizon.

Thank you for your reply Kas
I have re-edited the A321 again and after measuring it in PS it indeed needs little bit CW rotation. And here is the result :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 405a4412aa
What do u think ?

And regarding to the CI B744, it was rejected for Oversharpened and Common last time Do you think i should upload it again or change another one to upload ? Actually , i have uploaded another one few days ago and here is : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d300c426bb
This one without glare in the tail. Do you think is ok ?

,but doesn't go with DARK category. That's only for when the sun is below the horizon.

Also thank you for your explanation , i have checked the uploaded guide again that day and understood it !

Thanks Again.

Cheers,
Harry

The Tianjin seems fine, the B744 may need some selective sharpening on the tail (it looks soft). Otherwise fine.

airkas1 wrote:

The Tianjin seems fine, the B744 may need some selective sharpening on the tail (it looks soft). Otherwise fine.

Thanks Kas , i think i will try to upload the last one and see the result.( Of course i will reduce little bit exposure to it in order to avoid "Reupload" )
And here is another one that i am not sure about thesharpness, and hope you can have a look ~
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fcb13bbfbe
I think should be ok. But ... not sure

Cheers,
Harry

Looks fine to me.

airkas1 wrote:

Looks fine to me.

Thanks Kas !

Hi guys,
I edited some today and these 2 i am not quiet sure. Hope can hear from your opinions !! Thanks.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9328b78ec7 ( CZ A320 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 02a5a8c019 (9C A320 )

Thank you for your time !

Cheers,
Harry

What about the contrast of this one ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 09d6697c61 ( CUA B738 )

And the exposure of this one ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a3f5be08ef ( CZ B788 )

Thanks again !
Cheers,
Harry

I have re-edited that CUA B738 and here is the re-editing version :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 27e3f36f40

And i am not quiet sure about the sharpness of this one neither :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 69bd95056d

Thank u guys !

Cheers,
Harry

And the final one : https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4619775 (CZ A333 ) not sure about the exposure~

Hi guys,
The CI 744 ( B-18210 ) was rejected again for Blurry , Oversharpened , and common again. And i put it to the Appealing queue now will see the result soon.
BTW, i edited another CI 744 of another day. And i think the light is better than B-18210 and hope can get your opinions ! Thanks guys.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 97444ee00f ( B-18208 CI 744 )

Cheers,
Harry

Hi guys, could anyone help me have a look the CI 18208 ? As i hope it could be acepted because CI is going to change the aricraft 77w TO FLY this route next month and it might be the last time for me to see it as they are retiring 744 now.Thanks again !

I am worrying about that would be too red and bit of underexposed. Thus, i added some exposure and reduce bit of Mangeta.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ad69e3ff35