Pre-screening ---Harry

len90 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:31 pm

Middle one might need a slight CCW rotation just judging off the vertical lines from the lights at the far left of the frame.

airkas1 · Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:53 pm

HarryLi wrote:
I edited this one for 2 times with different setting and which one do you think is ok ?
First : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc73958c0c
Second: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 87dfcfa226

I prefer the second one. Still not superb, but might be passable.

1) Looks fine
2) Kinda agree with Len
3) Looks fine

HarryLi · Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:17 am

Thank you for your opinion ! I have deleted the Tianjin from the queue and will revise it later and hope the A6-EFL Rose special livery can be accepted ~ Anyway thanks.

HarryLi · Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:04 am

Hello everyone,
I edited 2 photos today and appreciate your feedback here .
imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/9/4317929.jpg?v=v421b2a986e1 (KLM 738 Retro)

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9581f6d26a (Fedex Express MD-11F)

Thank you for your time.

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:11 pm

airkas1 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
I edited this one for 2 times with different setting and which one do you think is ok ?
First : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc73958c0c
Second: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 87dfcfa226

I prefer the second one. Still not superb, but might be passable.

1) Looks fine
2) Kinda agree with Len
3) Looks fine

Oops, the A6-EFL has rejected by screener with OS and High Contrast but I don't think it has these problems and I appealed it. And now the Head-screener asked for second opinion. Hope it can be passed.

HarryLi · Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:55 pm

And here are 2 more i edited just now :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dea2685911

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 18cada4eab

Appreciate your feedback here ! Thanks a lot.
Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:34 am

KL B738: Looks ok.
FX MD11: Tail logo and left side of "F" of main titles bit OS. Otherwise passable.
B737: Looks ok.
MU B737: Looks OK

HarryLi · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:42 pm

airkas1 wrote:
KL B738: Looks ok.
FX MD11: Tail logo and left side of "F" of main titles bit OS. Otherwise passable.
B737: Looks ok.
MU B737: Looks OK

Hello Kas , thank you for your valuable opinion on these photos and here are some i edited just now would you please help me have a look ? Thanks.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... eb9e7d3c71

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 04a9b7f7d9

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... add456a746

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c7279e4c9a

Best wishes,
Harry

HarryLi · Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:32 pm

And here is one more
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 83c7550854

HarryLi · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:03 pm

2 more photos i edited today ~
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 061b7e3aeb

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9b001b7367

The weather is very nice and i think the photo is ok ?

airkas1 · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:23 pm

Air China: Looks ok.
Xiamen: Bit soft, otherwise ok.
Virgin: Bit high contrast, otherwise ok.
Turkish 3/4: titles bit soft, otherwise ok.
Turkish side on: looks ok (make sure they're not double).
Biman: looks ok.
Air Berlin: looks good.

HarryLi · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:33 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Air China: Looks ok.
Xiamen: Bit soft, otherwise ok.
Virgin: Bit high contrast, otherwise ok.
Turkish 3/4: titles bit soft, otherwise ok.
Turkish side on: looks ok (make sure they're not double).
Biman: looks ok.
Air Berlin: looks good.

Thank you very much Kas !

Besides, how can i recognize whether the contrast is high or low ? :roll:

HarryLi · Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:51 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Air China: Looks ok.
Xiamen: Bit soft, otherwise ok.
Virgin: Bit high contrast, otherwise ok.
Turkish 3/4: titles bit soft, otherwise ok.
Turkish side on: looks ok (make sure they're not double).
Biman: looks ok.
Air Berlin: looks good.

And ... i revise these 2 just now is it ok ?

TK : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 523a748003
(I selected the title and sharped it a little )

VIR : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a655be48cd

Thank you for your time .

airkas1 · Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:06 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Besides, how can i recognize whether the contrast is high or low ?

It's almost pitch black under the wing. Decreasing by a little should be sufficient.

TK: Looks fine.
VS: You brightened the image, not decreased the contrast? The exposure of the previous version was good, now the fuselage looks OE and the contrast is still the same.

HarryLi · Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:53 pm

airkas1 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
Besides, how can i recognize whether the contrast is high or low ?

It's almost pitch black under the wing. Decreasing by a little should be sufficient.

TK: Looks fine.
VS: You brightened the image, not decreased the contrast? The exposure of the previous version was good, now the fuselage looks OE and the contrast is still the same.

Hello Kas, I used Ps to decreas -20 in this photo. Is it ok ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c99bcb016e

HarryLi · Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:56 pm

I re-edited this 744 again what do u think ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7c6bf722c8

airkas1 · Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:09 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hello Kas, I used Ps to decreas -20 in this photo. Is it ok ?

Yeah, I guess so.
The 744 looks ok for me.

HarryLi · Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:14 pm

airkas1 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
Hello Kas, I used Ps to decreas -20 in this photo. Is it ok ?

Yeah, I guess so.
The 744 looks ok for me.

Thanks Kas !

HarryLi · Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:07 pm

I edited 2 more just now
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 93f5de3768

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b6333d4edc

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:19 pm

Hello guys,
I returned from Macau today and i got a DC-3 there hope it can be accepted . So appreciate your feedback here !
Thank you for your time

.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4eee109dba

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:20 pm

I edited another DC-3 just now , which one do you consider is better to upload ? :shock:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6c0c40a5db

HarryLi · Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:16 am

Actually i like this one best ,and i used smaller size, is it passable ?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ce906c55fc

airkas1 · Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:45 am

BA: nice quality, but feels CCW and better to include the whoel windowframe and letter "H" on the right side.
KL: passable for me.
DC3: Alls 3 DC-3 photos are passable for me. But remember that they are doubles, so be sure to only upload your favorite photo.

HarryLi · Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:58 am

airkas1 wrote:
BA: nice quality, but feels CCW and better to include the whoel windowframe and letter "H" on the right side.
KL: passable for me.
DC3: Alls 3 DC-3 photos are passable for me. But remember that they are doubles, so be sure to only upload your favorite photo.

Ok, thank you kas i will choose my favorite to upload. But i am curious that if i upload this one

and this one

is it still double ?
Regarding to the BA...because i don't have any sign for me to reference at the original photo so i am not very clear about that. I will delete it from the queue and revise it.Thanks .

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:04 am

Yes, those 2 DC-3 photos are double. Same day, same side, same photographer, both photos of a taxi sequence.
Regarding the BA, if you level the wheels of the tug, it should be OK I think.

HarryLi · Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:06 am

airkas1 wrote:
Yes, those 2 DC-3 photos are double. Same day, same side, same photographer, both photos of a taxi sequence.
Regarding the BA, if you level the wheels of the tug, it should be OK I think.

Got ! Thanks .

HarryLi · Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:35 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Yes, those 2 DC-3 photos are double. Same day, same side, same photographer, both photos of a taxi sequence.
Regarding the BA, if you level the wheels of the tug, it should be OK I think.

Hello Kas,
Is it acceptable like this ? :roll:

airkas1 · Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:54 pm

Will likely get motive.

HarryLi · Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:03 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Will likely get motive.

Well, i guess so...

HarryLi · Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:30 am

Hi guys,i edited a B787 just now is it ok ? https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 303c36f539

Besides, 2 of mine was rejected this afternoon but i don't consider that it has these problems,
1. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 523a748003 (TK)
2. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9b001b7367 (CA)

Both of them were rejected for one reason ------- Soft
But i think it is not soft then i appealed it hope it can pass. What do you think ?

HarryLi · Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:36 pm

And here one more ~

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a0ea36b633

airkas1 · Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:27 am

The CZ and Sichuan look ok to me.

HarryLi · Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:05 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The CZ and Sichuan look ok to me.

Hello Kas,
This is my first time crop like this is it passable ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c6de1b0895

HarryLi · Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:27 pm

And here are four more :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b7853f12c1

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e42a7f7e67

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 37fbc508c7

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2ae55c34c0

Thank you very much.
Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:13 pm

2 more i edited just now , also appreciate your opinions here !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6cf15ee1e0

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b1ca2eab10

len90 · Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:16 pm

Overall seeing a bit of noise in the sky
China Eastern: Not sure about the level but looks okay
Air China: Glare line will cause issues with sharpening
Hainan: Window line looks blurry. Some OS towards the registration near that glare
China Southern: Think it is okay, maybe slight red/magenta tint
China Southern rotation: Soft window lines
Qatar: Looks okay

HarryLi · Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:46 am

Thank you for your feedback Len !
And i have revised the CZ B787 , reduce some red there, https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 50e5e7c03c
I think it is better than before.
Besides, regarding to the Air China B789, although the glare will cause issues with sharpening i still consider that this one don't have problem because the window line and the title and other parts look sharp enough.
And about the HU A333 , i have checked my original photo in PS, i didn't see any blurry there and in this one i also do not see. So ... is it really Blurry ?

HarryLi · Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:42 pm

Here is one more , https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a636a22978

len90 · Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:38 pm

CZ 787 better now with that redo of the colors.
HU A333 I'm just not liking that area between doors L1 and L2. Maybe it is just really soft there that makes it look a bit blurry to me.
Air China: I've had similar type of issues where the glare line right along the window line led to acceptance woes.

China Airlines 747: did you add any saturation or vibrancy to it?

HarryLi · Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:52 pm

len90 wrote:
CZ 787 better now with that redo of the colors.
HU A333 I'm just not liking that area between doors L1 and L2. Maybe it is just really soft there that makes it look a bit blurry to me.
Air China: I've had similar type of issues where the glare line right along the window line led to acceptance woes.

China Airlines 747: did you add any saturation or vibrancy to it?

Yeah, i can understand the CA B789, I have the same issues before but ... i think i can't avoid all of the photos there have glare like this i think it is ok.Maybe. i guess.
Regarding to the CI 744 , I didn't add any saturation or vibrancy to it and i used Standard mode. But the time is very late , is the dawn i remembered.

HarryLi · Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:14 am

Hi , i edited 4 more today , and here are the links :
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4bfd14df30 (MU B738)

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 388df6ba5d (HU B738)

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 34382e2f6c (CZ A333)

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4af3bc5ee5 (CZ A332)

Thank you for your time !

len90 · Mon May 01, 2017 12:34 am

MU 738 looks to be OS overall. The rest look okay to me.

As for that CI 744 OS towards the nose. Looks like you might have done a bit more sharpening to cover an original that is softer or has a little blur?

HarryLi · Mon May 01, 2017 2:17 am

len90 wrote:
MU 738 looks to be OS overall. The rest look okay to me.

As for that CI 744 OS towards the nose. Looks like you might have done a bit more sharpening to cover an original that is softer or has a little blur?

Thanks Len , i have deleted the MU 738 from the queue, i think is very hard for me to judge the sharpness like this kind of photo ( has glare near the window ) because the glare makes me hard to judge the window line , so i sharp a little more than normal, i think i should re-edit it again. What about other photos above ?

Regarding to the CI 744 , I just want to cover an original softer instead of blur. If this one is OS i will edit it later. Besides, i am hesitating that whether i should choose Dusk of this photo ?

Thanks a lot !

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Mon May 01, 2017 4:54 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The CZ and Sichuan look ok to me.

Hello Kas,
I wonder that is it passable if i crop like this ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c6de1b0895

airkas1 · Mon May 01, 2017 5:01 pm

HarryLi · Mon May 01, 2017 5:13 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Yes

Thanks , so what problems do you think this one has ? Is it ok ?

airkas1 · Mon May 01, 2017 6:02 pm

The windowline looks slightly OS, but otherwise fine.

HarryLi · Fri May 05, 2017 11:32 am

Hello guys, one of my photo was rejected by both Headscreener and screener with "High in Frame" and they only give me this reason. The Headscreener also left me a Personal Message :" Please consider the tail also part of the aircraft."
Is it really high in frame ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b7853f12c1

spompert · Fri May 05, 2017 1:27 pm

Hmm, I would say it`s borderline. The fuselage is centered but because of the horizontal position of the plane (taxiing) the tail really is high in frame. It has a slight high in frame feeling to me as well. Greets

airkas1 · Fri May 05, 2017 1:30 pm

Centering is fine. Any lower will be low in frame.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net