Pre-screening ---Harry

airkas1 · Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:03 am

GA: looks ok
GAA: looks ok
Polar: Looks ok
Aero: Softish titles & tail
KE: Low in frame
CI: Softish

HarryLi · Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:35 am

airkas1 wrote:
GA: looks ok
GAA: looks ok
Polar: Looks ok
Aero: Softish titles & tail
KE: Low in frame
CI: Softish

Thank i for your opinions Kas. I would like to give up the CI I think as the quality of its original photo is too bad a little bit blurry.
Regarding to the KE 748 , I wonder that how to center this kind of pic ? Because when i move it upward the wings make me feel unbalanced.

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:24 pm

And here are 2 more i edited before :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3f6b6f8593 ( CX A359 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1b3d85969b ( CX B748F )

HarryLi · Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:09 am

Hi guys,
I edited 4 photos just now and appreciated your opinions here ~
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f7df9ff4d8 ( CZ 77F )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dd3073966b ( CA 757F )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c0cd745ef7 ( Dragon A333 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1ff487eb84 ( EMS 734F )

Thank you for your time !
Cheers,
Harry

YQZ380 · Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:14 pm

CZ 777F: Looks okay
CA 757F: Harsh contrast
Dragon A333: A tad oversharpened on the titles
EMS 734F: Looks okay

Cheers,
Yang

HarryLi · Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:29 pm

YQZ380 wrote:
CZ 777F: Looks okay
CA 757F: Harsh contrast
Dragon A333: A tad oversharpened on the titles
EMS 734F: Looks okay

Cheers,
Yang

Thank you for your opinion Yang ! I decide to delete the CA757 from the queue and try to re-edit the Dragon A333. Thanks.

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:57 pm

Here is the Re-edit Version of Dragon :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7bc421dc04

HarryLi · Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:07 pm

Hello guys, i edited some photos this night and some of them i am not quite sure. Thus , i appreciate your opinions here ! Thank you very much !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 12ed0a3160 ( MU B738 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fa7855c77f ( CZ A320 )

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:44 am

And here are 4 more :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 05b0c673c5
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3735d8b4d
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 94070e4e4e
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7480928761
Well, i think these 4 are ok for me but also appreciate your opinions here ! Thank you for your valuable time !
Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:24 pm

airkas1 wrote:
GA: looks ok
GAA: looks ok
Polar: Looks ok
Aero: Softish titles & tail
KE: Low in frame
CI: Softish

Hello Kas,
The screener rejected the GAA with Blurry and OS ... i don't consider that is OS and IT ISN'T BLURRY at all i think even in the original one.
Link : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5a8c2d39ef
And the polar also got rejected with OS and High Contrast ....
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7b90944886
And i apealed them just now ... is it passable i am worried about them.

len90 · Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:34 am

Agree with the Polar. It was OS when I initially saw it.

SF 752: Looks a little OS. Cheat lines near the reg are jaggy
Ethiopian Cargo: Slight OS but probably passable
Mahan: Looks fine
Dragon: looks fine
China Southern: Looks okay
China Eastern: Little too much contrast

HarryLi · Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:15 am

len90 wrote:
Agree with the Polar. It was OS when I initially saw it.

SF 752: Looks a little OS. Cheat lines near the reg are jaggy
Ethiopian Cargo: Slight OS but probably passable
Mahan: Looks fine
Dragon: looks fine
China Southern: Looks okay
China Eastern: Little too much contrast

Thank u for your Opinions.
Actually , I am not sure about the polar but i think is ok for me. Ragarding to the B752 of SF I have already used Eraser to erase the Cheat lines after sharpening so I think it should be ok I guess.

The MU B738 I reduced about 10 in Contrast after editing and , actually i think maybe is the light condition causes this situation which makes people feel high contrast as the sunlight only on the aircraft and Background and forward without light or weak light. I guess.

airkas1 · Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:45 pm

Dragon re-edit: dirty in middle sky under fuselage
MU 738: looks ok
CZ 320: looks ok
Dragon 330: looks ok
Mahan: looks ok
ET: looks ok
SF: looks ok

HarryLi · Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:34 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Dragon re-edit: dirty in middle sky under fuselage
MU 738: looks ok
CZ 320: looks ok
Dragon 330: looks ok
Mahan: looks ok
ET: looks ok
SF: looks ok

Thank you for your valuable opinions Kas !
And i have 2 photos in Appeal Queue recently which do not process yet.Wish they are fine.

HarryLi · Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:56 pm

Hey guys,
I edited 4 more photos today and i didn't upload them yet and appreciate your opinions.
Well, my first time use Flicker to upload photos so i am not so familiar to it if the links do not work please tell me .
https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( SZ B738 )
https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( 3U A321 )
https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( CZ B738 )
https://www.flickr.com/photos/153041003 ... ed-public/ ( SH B763 )

I think maybe you need to download the origianl photos ?

Cheers,
Harry

len90 · Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:28 am

First off... great to see your Global Africa Aviation has made it to the cover. Also looks like the Polar went through on appeal. Nice.

As for these four.... They look okay. The SZ 738 and the 3U A321 look to have some slight grain in the sky, but it could just be I'm still on my work computer.

HarryLi · Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:15 am

len90 wrote:
First off... great to see your Global Africa Aviation has made it to the cover. Also looks like the Polar went through on appeal. Nice.

As for these four.... They look okay. The SZ 738 and the 3U A321 look to have some slight grain in the sky, but it could just be I'm still on my work computer.

Thank you for your opinions Len !

HarryLi · Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:03 pm

Hi everyone,
I got this rejected this morning.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1b3d85969b
Reason : Noise
And the screener left a comment " Noisy in shadows"
Is it very serious ? If it is i will fix it an upload again well, if it is ok i think i will upload it again directly.

airkas1 · Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:28 pm

The 767 is a bit nosiy, the rest looks ok.

HarryLi wrote:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/2/4460281.jpg?v=v41b3d85969b
Reason : Noise

Looks blurry to me as well.

HarryLi · Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:57 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The 767 is a bit nosiy, the rest looks ok.

HarryLi wrote:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/2/4460281.jpg?v=v41b3d85969b
Reason : Noise

Looks blurry to me as well.

Oops, well, giving up maybe ... and the light condition also not so good.

HarryLi · Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:04 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The 767 is a bit nosiy, the rest looks ok.

HarryLi wrote:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/2/4460281.jpg?v=v41b3d85969b
Reason : Noise

Looks blurry to me as well.

I reduced a little bit noise to the 767. And here is the latest version, is it ok now ? :roll:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2267a404a0

airkas1 · Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 pm

Better, yes.

HarryLi · Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:35 am

airkas1 wrote:
Better, yes.

Thank you Kas i have already uploaded it. Well, there is a thing surprised me !! Screener rejected my photos at the same time just now and the reasons are almost the same.
These 2 photos were rejected with Level problem and soft. They got same issues.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 94070e4e4e ET 77F
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3735d8b4d Mahan 346

I really don't consider they have these problems and as you said before they are passable :crying:

https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4468737 This one only for one reason which is Oversharpened..... i can't tell from it actually :cry2:

And this one .... i can't believe that screener gave me Heat Haze reason also has Soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 05b0c673c5

I can't see Heat Haze from it even in the Original one :hissyfit:

I think i am going to appeal them ,what do u think ? :white:

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:44 am

The fifth ..... rejected also is Heat Haze and soft ... i can't figure out ...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 12ed0a3160

YQZ380 · Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:46 am

Ethiopian and Mahan need some counter-clockwise rotation. Softness does not seem to be an issue to me.

HarryLi wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4468737 This one only for one reason which is Oversharpened..... i can't tell from it actually

Can't seem to see the photo for this one.

Dragonair seems fine to me while China Southern is soft on the windows and towards the rear of the fuselage. Neither photo appears to be heat hazed.

Cheers,
Yang

HarryLi · Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:12 am

YQZ380 wrote:
Ethiopian and Mahan need some counter-clockwise rotation. Softness does not seem to be an issue to me.

HarryLi wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4468737 This one only for one reason which is Oversharpened..... i can't tell from it actually

Can't seem to see the photo for this one.

Dragonair seems fine to me while China Southern is soft on the windows and towards the rear of the fuselage. Neither photo appears to be heat hazed.

Cheers,
Yang

Sorry to the wrong Link , here is the correction : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7480928761

As you said ... i can't see any heat haze from them either. And the sharpness of them seem to be ok , all of them should be ok i think.
Well, regarding to the level of that 2 photos i think they should be ok too. Seeing the sticks in the Background is vertical and the line of the Taxi way under these pictures are level.... well, also i have uploaded some photos which were taken from the same location and i used the same standard to edit and they got accepted

. Anyway , thank you for your opinions Yang !
Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:21 pm

Hello guys,
I got a special livery yesterday. And i am looking forward to hearing your opinions here about it ! Thank you very much !

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b8a93a4cd

Cheers,
Harry

YQZ380 · Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:30 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Sorry to the wrong Link , here is the correction : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7480928761

Yup, I can see the link now! The SF 757 does look oversharpened, especially on the cockpit windows and the cheatlines on the aircraft.

Regarding the special livery, the shot looks slightly grainy/noisy and the cockpit windows are oversharpened.

Cheers,
Yang

HarryLi · Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:53 pm

YQZ380 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
Sorry to the wrong Link , here is the correction : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7480928761

Yup, I can see the link now! The SF 757 does look oversharpened, especially on the cockpit windows and the cheatlines on the aircraft.

Regarding the special livery, the shot looks slightly grainy/noisy and the cockpit windows are oversharpened.

Cheers,
Yang

Thank u for your opinions Yang , very appreciate it.

HarryLi · Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:27 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hello guys,
I got a special livery yesterday. And i am looking forward to hearing your opinions here about it ! Thank you very much !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b8a93a4cd

Cheers,
Harry

Are there anyone can provide more opinions to it ? Very appreciate !

len90 · Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:51 am

Agree with Yang on that special. Also doesn't help you with that glare.

HarryLi · Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:48 pm

len90 wrote:
Agree with Yang on that special. Also doesn't help you with that glare.

Thank you for your opinion Len ! I will wait for the result as the queue is very short recently .

HarryLi · Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:22 pm

Hi guys,
I edited 2 cargo today. And appreciate your opinions here ! Thx.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 51b1974c71 ( CA B757F )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0f2b959382 ( CZ B77F)

And there are some explanation to these 2 photos.
1. Regarding to CA 757 , you can see there is a kind of grey light above the aircraft and it covers a little bit of the plane. It is not the erasing trace but the water line which from the wings due to the moist weather.
2. Regarding to CZ B77F , if you use Equalize to check the dirty point or Halo issue. You will see there is a white dye between the body and the aircraft, above the aircraft. It is not the Halo but the Water above the airplane also due to moist weather.

I have explained it in the comment to the screener.

Thanks again ! :rotfl:

Best wishes,
Harry

HarryLi · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:39 am

Hello guys,
I visited Beijing recently and i went spotting today here are some of my pics. Appreciate your opinions here !

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 04f015eb83 ( SF B734F )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0d35b0d9d9 ( CQ A320 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 655133b597 (MU A332 ST )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 91ab2fd9db ( LH A346 1 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2af72866e2 ( LH A346 2 )

Thank you for your valuable time !

Best wishes,
Harry

airkas1 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:44 am

LH2 seems a bit iffy (blurryish/hazed). The rest is ok for me.

HarryLi · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:55 am

airkas1 wrote:
LH2 seems a bit iffy (blurryish/hazed). The rest is ok for me.

All right , it seems that i can't hide the slight heat haze by using Smaller size ~ I will delete it from the queue later !
Thank you for your immediate reply Kas !

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:37 pm

Here are more, they cost me a couple ours to edit ~ Appreciate opinions too !

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7c917b3a30 (VN B787 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2e29571460 (MU B737)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af0d89da10 (GA B77W)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cd5c52730e (KE B738)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 66e132f438 (SF B763)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4ad7c19af9 (EMS B733F)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5b658eb0fa (HU B789)

Thank u for your valuable time to have a look !!!

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:29 pm

And here are 3 more ~
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 299252e28e ( SQ B773 SA)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... acebbd0a5f ( KE B744 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d530a3f204 ( Asiana A333)

Thank u very much !
Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:37 am

KE: soft fuselage
Rest looks ok

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

HarryLi · Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:52 pm

airkas1 wrote:
KE: soft fuselage
Rest looks ok

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

Thank u Kas i have already removed them from queue and will re-edit them when i return home. So interesting that all Korean have problems haha :lol:

. And i uploaded another 2 photos. Wish can get your advice too.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8ded4ea100 ( Capital A333 )
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0894ee2594 ( Air France B77W )

Also appreciate others' opinons !!! :wideeyed:

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:14 pm

And a Lucky Air here :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d6f16761bd

airkas1 · Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:03 pm

Capital: hazed gears, but could be ok. I'd leave a bit more space on the right next time.
Air France: passable
Lucky: blurry nose & tail

HarryLi · Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:57 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Capital: hazed gears, but could be ok. I'd leave a bit more space on the right next time.
Air France: passable
Lucky: blurry nose & tail

Thanks Kas I will pay attention to it next time.
Regarding to the Lucky Air , the distance is long for
My 70-200 to get so the original indeed a little bit blurry.

HarryLi · Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:42 am

airkas1 wrote:
KE: soft fuselage
Rest looks ok

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

Hi kas,
I re-edited the KE B744 again and here is the result. Is it ok now ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d48d3508d4

HarryLi · Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:45 am

YQZ380 · Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:42 am

KE 744: Seems okay
MF 788: Red/pink cast, overexposed
CA Inner Mongolia 738: Soft/blurry towards the front
EY 789: Seems okay
JS Tu-204: Looks good to me.
HU 789 Panda: Seems okay
MU 333 Mickey Mouse: Heavy green/yellow cast on the underbelly. Would that be due to reflections of grass?
MU 333 Xinhua Net: A little overexposed at the top of the fuselage, somewhat grainy too
LH A380: Looks good. Whatever happened to that tail?

Cheers,
Yang

HarryLi · Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:21 pm

YQZ380 wrote:
KE 744: Seems okay
MF 788: Red/pink cast, overexposed
CA Inner Mongolia 738: Soft/blurry towards the front
EY 789: Seems okay
JS Tu-204: Looks good to me.
HU 789 Panda: Seems okay
MU 333 Mickey Mouse: Heavy green/yellow cast on the underbelly. Would that be due to reflections of grass?
MU 333 Xinhua Net: A little overexposed at the top of the fuselage, somewhat grainy too
LH A380: Looks good. Whatever happened to that tail?

Cheers,
Yang

Thank u for your reply Yang !

MU 333 Mickey Mouse: Heavy green/yellow cast on the underbelly. Would that be due to reflections of grass?

Yes, that is the reflection of the grass because there a piece of grass and tress under there.Is it a serious issue ?

And the exposure of the MF B787 looks ok in my screen. CA B738 ... well, i am not sure the sharpness but in the origin one i can't see blurry.
Thanks.

Cheers
Harry

airkas1 · Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:27 pm

HarryLi wrote:
I re-edited the KE B744 again and here is the result. Is it ok now ?

Yes.

HarryLi · Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:56 pm

airkas1 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
I re-edited the KE B744 again and here is the result. Is it ok now ?

Yes.

Great ! Thanks Kas.

If u have have time , would u please help me have a look the above photos ~ Very appreciate !

HarryLi · Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:08 pm

Hi, i edited one new here :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 48dd55fd6b

And regarding to this one i have a problem of it. When i use equalize to check dust spot of it the upper sky seems a little bit darker than the lower sky i think it is because the color of upper sky is more blue than the lower so it becomes like this. Thus, i wonder that is it possible lead screeners to think it has Vignette Problem? Many of my photos which took that day morning have the same phenomenon.
Appreciate your opinions !

Best wishes,
Harry

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net