Pre-screening ---Harry

HarryLi · Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:03 pm

airkas1 wrote:
CA: Softish and OS in places, bit marginal quality for what I'm guessing is a common frame.
CZ: Blurry, heathaze (blurry at the nose, tail).
CV: Paintings look a bit soft, otherwise passable I guess.
EK: Still looks blurry/soft.
DL: Looks ok.
LH: Looks ok.
LH: Looks ok.
TG: Looks passable.
VS: Looks ok.

Ok, thank you very much. I think maybe is time to give up EK and CZ. But I still want to struggle the CA I will revise it later .

HarryLi · Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:05 pm

airkas1 wrote:
CA: Softish and OS in places, bit marginal quality for what I'm guessing is a common frame.
CZ: Blurry, heathaze (blurry at the nose, tail).
CV: Paintings look a bit soft, otherwise passable I guess.
EK: Still looks blurry/soft.
DL: Looks ok.
LH: Looks ok.
LH: Looks ok.
TG: Looks passable.
VS: Looks ok.

Oh ! Besides , what about the ET MD11? https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 90bb20f901

HarryLi · Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:35 pm

CA: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8efc8e14a6 (Revised)
LX: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8efc8e14a6 (Revised)
LOT: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ffa0ee811f
Hope can get your opinions on these photos ~ Thank you for your valuable time .

Cheers ,
Harry

airkas1 · Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:41 pm

I will try to look later, but you linked the CA 747 twice.

HarryLi · Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:56 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I will try to look later, but you linked the CA 747 twice.

Oops , sorry about that. :beady:

Ah...Here is the LX link: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9d5ea85aa1
Thank you very much !

HarryLi · Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:04 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I will try to look later, but you linked the CA 747 twice.

Oh , Please don't forget to help me have a look the ET MD11 haha, besides , i am not sure the LX is sharp enough...

HarryLi · Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:26 pm

HarryLi wrote:
airkas1 wrote:
I will try to look later, but you linked the CA 747 twice.

Oops , sorry about that.
Ah...Here is the LX link: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9d5ea85aa1
Thank you very much !

....I think maybe use 1200px might be better ? Then i restarted it again and sharp it more ...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 14f896855e Here is ~

HarryLi · Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:23 am

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 802e55e919
Martin Md11f here

HarryLi · Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:09 pm

HarryLi wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
airkas1 wrote:
I will try to look later, but you linked the CA 747 twice.

Oops , sorry about that.
Ah...Here is the LX link: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9d5ea85aa1
Thank you very much !

....I think maybe use 1200px might be better ? Then i restarted it again and sharp it more ...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 14f896855e Here is ~

....well actually ... i don't know which one is better your opinion ?

airkas1 · Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:33 pm

ET: looks passable
CA: marginal, common
LO: looks passable
CV: looks passable (also the bigger one)
MP: marginal, common

HarryLi · Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:07 pm

airkas1 wrote:
ET: looks passable
CA: marginal, common
LO: looks passable
CV: looks passable (also the bigger one)
MP: marginal, common

Ok,thank you for your valuable opinion on these photos.Glad to hear from you

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:52 pm

Hi, i edited 2 special livery just now and i appreciate your feedback here ~
KN : imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/5/7/4280753.jpg?v=v4a37776e9ef
3U : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 87b282bdca
Thank you for your valuable time

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:13 pm

Well, i think these is fine to me ~ is it OS or Soft ? I can sure that there is no blurry ~

HarryLi · Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:31 pm

Hi， guys i edited 4more today and i filled the queue full.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1c77e0ddd3

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0a428c4316

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1b08bc0ca7

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2d80fb67ab

I am looking forward to hearing your opinion ~ Thanks

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:34 pm

Sichuan: Some soft parts, but passable for me.
CUA: Tail looks blurry.
El Al: Soft, sommon.
Titan: Looks ok.
Transavia: Looks ok.
SAS: Blurryish lower nose(gear), but all things considered passable for me.

HarryLi · Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:46 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Sichuan: Some soft parts, but passable for me.
CUA: Tail looks blurry.
El Al: Soft, sommon.
Titan: Looks ok.
Transavia: Looks ok.
SAS: Blurryish lower nose(gear), but all things considered passable for me.

Got it ! Thank you very much.

HarryLi · Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:10 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Sichuan: Some soft parts, but passable for me.
CUA: Tail looks blurry.
El Al: Soft, sommon.
Titan: Looks ok.
Transavia: Looks ok.
SAS: Blurryish lower nose(gear), but all things considered passable for me.

Good evening Kas , :shock:

I edited two more photos to replace the EI AI and CUA , what do you think about these two pics ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... eb39bc849c

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5a8bc4140c
Thanks.
Cheers ,
Harry

airkas1 · Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:37 pm

Transavia: the fuselage (except registration & wing) could be a bit sharper.
Avianca: Looks slightly blurry and soft Avianca titles.

HarryLi · Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:05 am

airkas1 wrote:
Transavia: the fuselage (except registration & wing) could be a bit sharper.
Avianca: Looks slightly blurry and soft Avianca titles.

I revised Transavia and use Air transat to replace the Avianca.

Transavia : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 470b3ad1f4
Is it ok now ?

Air Transat : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fd68f1f71b

Thanks
Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:24 pm

4 more ~ PS: I don't know does the link work to you if it doesn't work please tell me i will change another thank you for your time.
http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... UBAAAAAAAA

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... kBAAAAAAAA

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... gBAAAAAAAA

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... kBAAAAAAAA

Cheers,
Harry Lee

HarryLi · Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:11 am

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... 4BAAAAAAAA (cx747)

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... sBAAAAAAAA (Skycargo 747)

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... UAAAAAAAAA (CX343)

3 MORE

Cheers ,
Harry

HarryLi · Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:48 pm

HarryLi wrote:
airkas1 wrote:
CA: Softish and OS in places, bit marginal quality for what I'm guessing is a common frame.
CZ: Blurry, heathaze (blurry at the nose, tail).
CV: Paintings look a bit soft, otherwise passable I guess.
EK: Still looks blurry/soft.
DL: Looks ok.
LH: Looks ok.
LH: Looks ok.
TG: Looks passable.
VS: Looks ok.

Oh ! Besides , what about the ET MD11? https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 90bb20f901

Hello , I am very curious that the screener has rejected my ET MD-11 with Blurry and Quality also with Oversharpened. However, I didn't see Any Blurry here and I didn't see the Jaggy.

HarryLi · Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:47 pm

Hello guys, i don't want to give up my Qantas 744 yet ...so i choose another photo to edit , very appreciate your feedback here because this is my first time to edit this kind of photo i mean this kind of views.

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... 8AAAAAAAAA

Thank you for your valuable time ~

Best wishes,
Harry

HarryLi · Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:19 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hello guys, i don't want to give up my Qantas 744 yet ...so i choose another photo to edit , very appreciate your feedback here because this is my first time to edit this kind of photo i mean this kind of views.

http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... 8AAAAAAAAA

Thank you for your valuable time ~
Best wishes,
Harry

I think this one ...should CW Rotation and here is the new one http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... EBAAAAAAAA

Besides, the CX343 B-HXJ i edited it again
http://r.photo.store.qq.com/psb?/V13nQP ... 4BAAAAAAAA
Hope can hear from you ~
Cheers

ArnSpotter · Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:28 pm

Hi,

I would appreciate feedback on the following image:

Thanks in advance

airkas1 · Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:13 pm

ArnSpotter wrote:
Hi,

I would appreciate feedback on the following image:

Please create your own thread for feedback. Don't hijack someone elses.

HarryLi · Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:21 am

Hello guys,
I have appealed a photo which was rejected by Screener with "Blurry" but i cannot find any blurry in this photo even in the Original Photo so what is your opinion on it ? Appreciate your feedback and i am waiting for the Headscreener's Decision hope can pass !

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c289fa0775

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:37 am

airkas1 wrote:
ArnSpotter wrote:
Hi,

I would appreciate feedback on the following image:

Please create your own thread for feedback. Don't hijack someone elses.

Hello Kas ，
If you are free would you like to share your opinion on the above photo ? I think your opinions are very helpful for me ! Thank you .
Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:48 am

I won't be at my screening PC until Monday, so can't help you at the moment.

HarryLi · Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:00 am

airkas1 wrote:
I won't be at my screening PC until Monday, so can't help you at the moment.

Oops. Sorry about that I don't know it before.

airkas1 · Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:51 pm

No problem. I saw that the LH MD-11 was accepted on appeal, nice.

HarryLi · Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:36 pm

airkas1 wrote:
No problem. I saw that the LH MD-11 was accepted on appeal, nice.

Oh yes ! Thank you. But i am considering if i should elevate the Blue saturability. What do you think ? :roll:

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:43 pm

airkas1 wrote:
No problem. I saw that the LH MD-11 was accepted on appeal, nice.

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:04 pm

airkas1 wrote:
No problem. I saw that the LH MD-11 was accepted on appeal, nice.

And here is one more.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 481bd5e156

airkas1 · Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:32 pm

SA: Noisyish, overexposed top of fuselage, marginal
Saudia: Looks fine
CZ A320: Looks fine
MU: Titles are on the sharp side 50/50, otherwise seems passable
BR: Looks fine
CZ A330: Looks fine
QF: Bad glare on the nose, but otherwise passable I'd say
CX: Looks fine
CUA: Blurry nose

HarryLi · Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:15 am

airkas1 wrote:
SA: Noisyish, overexposed top of fuselage, marginal
Saudia: Looks fine
CZ A320: Looks fine
MU: Titles are on the sharp side 50/50, otherwise seems passable
BR: Looks fine
CZ A330: Looks fine
QF: Bad glare on the nose, but otherwise passable I'd say
CX: Looks fine
CUA: Blurry nose

Thank you for your valuable opinion Kas !
Well i deleted the SA from the queue maybe can get a better one next time. But i still confuse some problems.
First , i am not very understand what is the " Sharp side " means.
Second is regarding to the QF .Is it passable if the glare is there because i don't know how to reduce it or avoid it .
Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Tue Apr 04, 2017 5:29 am

airkas1 wrote:
SA: Noisyish, overexposed top of fuselage, marginal
Saudia: Looks fine
CZ A320: Looks fine
MU: Titles are on the sharp side 50/50, otherwise seems passable
BR: Looks fine
CZ A330: Looks fine
QF: Bad glare on the nose, but otherwise passable I'd say
CX: Looks fine
CUA: Blurry nose

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7ef9ab1d4d
I got this one today is it ok?

HarryLi · Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:30 am

airkas1 wrote:
SA: Noisyish, overexposed top of fuselage, marginal
Saudia: Looks fine
CZ A320: Looks fine
MU: Titles are on the sharp side 50/50, otherwise seems passable
BR: Looks fine
CZ A330: Looks fine
QF: Bad glare on the nose, but otherwise passable I'd say
CX: Looks fine
CUA: Blurry nose

Regarding to the MU 737 i edited it again and used Eraser to edit the the title after i sharping it. Is it ok now?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8e7b7e4cf3

And there are some photos which i uploaded this afternoon what do you think ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ddd17ed010

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fa6a40c66f

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6b784ce4ce

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b09c676a6e

Best wishes,
Harry

HarryLi · Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:48 pm

The last one here
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 208a5fd7dc (3U A321)

HarryLi · Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:28 pm

airkas1 wrote:
SA: Noisyish, overexposed top of fuselage, marginal
Saudia: Looks fine
CZ A320: Looks fine
MU: Titles are on the sharp side 50/50, otherwise seems passable
BR: Looks fine
CZ A330: Looks fine
QF: Bad glare on the nose, but otherwise passable I'd say
CX: Looks fine
CUA: Blurry nose

Hello kas , do you have a minute to help me have a look the above photos ? Thanks a lot.
Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:46 pm

EK 777: Looks hazed
3U 321: Looks passable
CZ: 737: Looks passable
MU 737: Looks passable
CUA: Looks passable
Shenzen: Looks passable

HarryLi · Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:25 pm

airkas1 wrote:
EK 777: Looks hazed
3U 321: Looks passable
CZ: 737: Looks passable
MU 737: Looks passable
CUA: Looks passable
Shenzen: Looks passable

Very appreciate your help! I think maybe the EK 77F just slightly hazed and it still passable ? Because I have seen my friend's A6-EFL Was accepted so I guessed this one maybe can be passable too ?

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:59 am

airkas1 wrote:
EK 777: Looks hazed
3U 321: Looks passable
CZ: 737: Looks passable
MU 737: Looks passable
CUA: Looks passable
Shenzen: Looks passable

Oops my ET MD11 was rejected with Soft only this reason ... but i don't consider that this photo is soft ... I would like to appeal this photo but i don't know is it passable ..i remember that you said it is passable and i think so . Well i think i should have a try so i appealed just now .hope it can be accepted.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c9fa59a3b6

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:57 am

Hello guys, this photo was rejected by screener with -Soft . But i think it is ok ? What do you think ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9bcc5227ea

And i have appealed, hope it can be accepted.

HarryLi · Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:58 pm

Hello guys,
The A6-EFL which i showed here last time was rejected by Head-screener with Heat Haze and OS so i want to give up that one and i edited another one just now.And this one is much better than that one because this one is much closer so there is no Heat Haze. And also appreciate your opinion on it.Thanks.
The link : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7420ec1c23

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:30 pm

It's a bit too sharp, but better than the previous hazed version.

HarryLi · Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:36 pm

airkas1 wrote:
It's a bit too sharp, but better than the previous hazed version.

Oops ~ which Parts have jaggy ?

HarryLi · Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:55 pm

airkas1 wrote:
It's a bit too sharp, but better than the previous hazed version.

Hi Kas,
I re-edited this one again and use bigger size 1200 and sharped it less.Is it ok now ?
Link : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc73958c0c

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi · Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:55 am

airkas1 wrote:
It's a bit too sharp, but better than the previous hazed version.

Hi, Kas
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

Thank you for your time again!
Best wishes,
Harry

HarryLi · Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:49 pm

And i edited 3 photos tonight what do you think ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6d17147114

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 824a7f764a

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fb97c7a42d

Thank you for your time !
Cheers,
Harry

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net