Airliners.net

airkas1 wrote:

CZ: quite yellow, otherwise passable
QF: better

Yes i can tell from the picture but ,,,if i low down the K ...i think the color will be strange so i didn't and i choose Dawn ,,,Will it be rejected ?

You could try to selectively remove some of the saturation of the yellow color. You can find that option in the 3rd or 4th tab of the raw converter. 'Dawn' should not be applicable, it's too light for that. I would reject the image for yellow cast to be honest.

airkas1 wrote:

You could try to selectively remove some of the saturation of the yellow color. You can find that option in the 3rd or 4th tab of the raw converter. 'Dawn' should not be applicable, it's too light for that. I would reject the image for yellow cast to be honest.

Ok ! Let me have a try that option.

airkas1 wrote:

You could try to selectively remove some of the saturation of the yellow color. You can find that option in the 3rd or 4th tab of the raw converter. 'Dawn' should not be applicable, it's too light for that. I would reject the image for yellow cast to be honest.

Uh...i removed 50% yellow color and here is the photo is it acceptable ?

HarryLi wrote:

airkas1 wrote:

You could try to selectively remove some of the saturation of the yellow color. You can find that option in the 3rd or 4th tab of the raw converter. 'Dawn' should not be applicable, it's too light for that. I would reject the image for yellow cast to be honest.

Uh...i removed 50% yellow color and here is the photo is it acceptable ?

I think this might be better ?

I finished some pictures i took few years ago and uploaded them . Is it ok ?












Hope can get your opinions here ~ Thank you guys .
Cheers ,
Junjie Lee

airkas1 wrote:

You could try to selectively remove some of the saturation of the yellow color. You can find that option in the 3rd or 4th tab of the raw converter. 'Dawn' should not be applicable, it's too light for that. I would reject the image for yellow cast to be honest.

Hello Kas , the MD-11F was rejected by screeners today with OS reason . But i am still struggling to this image now.I revised it with your way just now ...I compare it with before i think it is better that before what your opinion ?
This is the photo that i revised just now :

This is the photo that was rejected by screeners today :


Is it passable now ? Hope can get your answer here soon THANK YOU FOR YOUR VALUABLE TIME !

Cheers ,
Junjie Lee

All the photos you posted in your previous post look fine to me.
Regarding the LH MD11, your new version is better (less oversharpened), but still shows heat haze. You can try, but don't get your hopes up.

airkas1 wrote:

Reply #37, first photo is better.
The second one looks more yellow and I prefer the color to be cooler. So I pick #2. But both should be passable. So up to your preference really.

Hello Kas ,
The China Airlines has rejected by screener today with Soft and Noise but i don't consider that the photo has significant noise and it is not soft ,... and i appealed it ...

Hello guys ,
I uploaded a CZ B772 today but i am not sure it can be passable because the sharpeness seems very poor but i try my best to sharpen it and clean the jaggy....Is it passable ? I don't want to give up this beautiful view of it.However , if it cannot be acceptable i think maybe is time to let it go .

Thank you for your valuable time .
Best wishes,
Junjie Lee

Isn't that a motive rejection for cutting the engine on the left hand side?

spompert wrote:

Isn't that a motive rejection for cutting the engine on the left hand side?

A very obvious one.

airkas1 wrote:

spompert wrote:

Isn't that a motive rejection for cutting the engine on the left hand side?

A very obvious one.

Oops ， i will crop it again later.

airkas1 wrote:

spompert wrote:

Isn't that a motive rejection for cutting the engine on the left hand side?

A very obvious one.

Hello Kas good evening . What do you think about this one ?

airkas1 wrote:

spompert wrote:

Isn't that a motive rejection for cutting the engine on the left hand side?

A very obvious one.

And is it passable of this MD-11F ? This is my first time to crop a tail .

Thx
Cheers,
Junjie Lee

Hello guys ,
Would you please help me have a look the following photos ? I uploaded today .








Thank you for your valuable time .
Cheers ,
Junjie Lee

Junjie,

Flypigs B737: Quite soft. Nose is a little blurry
AB B737: Blurry (titles)
RJ: A319: Soft.
KLM B737: Soft. Lighting is quite harsh as well and looks like heat hazed to me as well.

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

Junjie,

Flypigs B737: Quite soft. Nose is a little blurry
AB B737: Blurry (titles)
RJ: A319: Soft.
KLM B737: Soft. Lighting is quite harsh as well and looks like heat hazed to me as well.

Jehan

Thank you for your comment ! I will upload them after revising . And what about these ?

Here are the photos that i uploaded just now ~ Is it passible?





Thank you for your valuable time !
Cheers,
Junjie LEE

And here are tow more ~

All right the last one .

One more ..although the light is not very good but it is fine for me ....is it acceptable ? I hope it can be accepted because it has retired.~

I am not sure the Fedex ...Is it soft ?

LH: seems passable.
LH: seems passable.
LH: soft windowline & Star Alliance titles.
AA: seems passable (although titles look very slightly OS).
AA: seems passable (although titles look very slightly OS).
LG: seems passable.
LH: seems passable.
KL: fuselage looks a bit soft.
EY: seems a bit hazed, 50/50.
GF: fuselage and tail quite soft.
FX: a bit soft, especially the titles. The rest will develop jaggies when sharpening them more. So you can use the eraser on those to get rid of any jaggies.

airkas1 wrote:

LH: seems passable.
LH: seems passable.
LH: soft windowline & Star Alliance titles.
AA: seems passable (although titles look very slightly OS).
AA: seems passable (although titles look very slightly OS).
LG: seems passable.
LH: seems passable.
KL: fuselage looks a bit soft.
EY: seems a bit hazed, 50/50.
GF: fuselage and tail quite soft.
FX: a bit soft, especially the titles. The rest will develop jaggies when sharpening them more. So you can use the eraser on those to get rid of any jaggies.

Hello Kas ! I am very glad to hear form you and also thank you for your valuable opinions ! I deal with 2 more photos today but one of them ..i think it is soft .i am not sure and i don't know how to sharpen it in correctly way .

This A7-BAE is the photo which i feel a little soft ...and i have use the smallest size

This one i think is passable ... ..only is my personal perspective.Hope can get your advice.
Thanks again !
Cheers ,
Junjie Li

Here will be the last one because my queue is full ~

Happy to hear from you soon ~

I like it very much but ,,, is it passable to accept it ?

Hello guys ,
This time i wonder that is it possible apper Blurry after using Eraser to clean Jaggy? Because i uploaded photos recently most of them were rejected with Blurry i am very curious about it ~
Cheers ,
Junjie Lee

QR: Blurry, soft. Especially the front part.
CA: Nosegear and titles are a bit sharp/jaggy, rest seems passable.
BA: slightly blurry/oversharpened.
VS: Front half seems a little soft, otherwise passable.
Dragonair: Bit low in frame, otherwise passable.
FX: Bit marginal, titles look somewhat soft, but I can easily see them getting oversharpened if sharpness is increased. Perhaps that's a sign of some haze.
EK: blurryish/haze. Most noticeably in the tail.

HarryLi wrote:

This time i wonder that is it possible apper Blurry after using Eraser to clean Jaggy? Because i uploaded photos recently most of them were rejected with Blurry i am very curious about it

That shouldn't happen, no. It just erases all the work you did on a photo. It doesn't touch the original. Can you write down your workflow in Photoshop?

airkas1 wrote:

QR: Blurry, soft. Especially the front part.
CA: Nosegear and titles are a bit sharp/jaggy, rest seems passable.
BA: slightly blurry/oversharpened.
VS: Front half seems a little soft, otherwise passable.
Dragonair: Bit low in frame, otherwise passable.
FX: Bit marginal, titles look somewhat soft, but I can easily see them getting oversharpened if sharpness is increased. Perhaps that's a sign of some haze.
EK: blurryish/haze. Most noticeably in the tail.

HarryLi wrote:

This time i wonder that is it possible apper Blurry after using Eraser to clean Jaggy? Because i uploaded photos recently most of them were rejected with Blurry i am very curious about it

That shouldn't happen, no. It just erases all the work you did on a photo. It doesn't touch the original. Can you write down your workflow in Photoshop?

All right , Ah...My workflow is
1.crop it and alter the level
2.Use Vaelur
3.Using Curve to revise brightness and revise color
4.Compress with appropriate size
5.use Magic Tool to circle the area i want to sharpen
6.duplicate a layer then use smart sharpeness to sharpen it
7.use eraser to clean the jaggy which appear after sharpening.
8.Combine the layer then saves.

And here are photos that i finished just now

This one i used eraser to clean jaggy .Especially the titles.

And this one i didn't use eraser because i think it is ok.
Cheers ,
Harry Lee

Could you please just post the links and not embed them? Because now I copy and paste the URL in another window, to make sure I always have the correct size photo. When you only post the link, it makes my life a lot easier when giving feedback (especially when posting multiple photos). Thanks!

ET: Soft and perhaps a little blurry (nose & tail).
AF: Passable for me.
BR: Passable for me.
CA: Nosegear looks iffy, otherwise passable for me.

airkas1 wrote:

Could you please just post the links and not embed them? Because now I copy and paste the URL in another window, to make sure I always have the correct size photo. When you only post the link, it makes my life a lot easier when giving feedback (especially when posting multiple photos). Thanks!

ET: Soft and perhaps a little blurry (nose & tail).
AF: Passable for me.
BR: Passable for me.
CA: Nosegear looks iffy, otherwise passable for me.

Ok I will post links next time. What do you mean Iffy ?

airkas1 wrote:

Could you please just post the links and not embed them? Because now I copy and paste the URL in another window, to make sure I always have the correct size photo. When you only post the link, it makes my life a lot easier when giving feedback (especially when posting multiple photos). Thanks!

ET: Soft and perhaps a little blurry (nose & tail).
AF: Passable for me.
BR: Passable for me.
CA: Nosegear looks iffy, otherwise passable for me.

I revised the ET here :https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/4/9/4271945.jpg?v=v490bb20f901
I have to say that i checked the original photo again and i didn't see blurry. In addition , i don't understand what problem does CA have ?
Cheers ,
Harry Lee

airkas1 wrote:

Could you please just post the links and not embed them? Because now I copy and paste the URL in another window, to make sure I always have the correct size photo. When you only post the link, it makes my life a lot easier when giving feedback (especially when posting multiple photos). Thanks!

ET: Soft and perhaps a little blurry (nose & tail).
AF: Passable for me.
BR: Passable for me.
CA: Nosegear looks iffy, otherwise passable for me.

Well , i restart the CA again is it ok now ? https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c601967cbb

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 555b0300f8
A cz 757

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a5b8c7236d
I finished one just now but .... after using eraser to clean the jaggy in the title .... the title becomes soft ? Is it soft now ? I am not sure.

airkas1 wrote:

QR: Blurry, soft. Especially the front part.
CA: Nosegear and titles are a bit sharp/jaggy, rest seems passable.
BA: slightly blurry/oversharpened.
VS: Front half seems a little soft, otherwise passable.
Dragonair: Bit low in frame, otherwise passable.
FX: Bit marginal, titles look somewhat soft, but I can easily see them getting oversharpened if sharpness is increased. Perhaps that's a sign of some haze.
EK: blurryish/haze. Most noticeably in the tail.

HarryLi wrote:

This time i wonder that is it possible apper Blurry after using Eraser to clean Jaggy? Because i uploaded photos recently most of them were rejected with Blurry i am very curious about it

That shouldn't happen, no. It just erases all the work you did on a photo. It doesn't touch the original. Can you write down your workflow in Photoshop?

Hi , i don't want to give up the EK it is so beautiful....i restarted it again...Is it possible to pass?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af7d541e75

I deal with a beautiful Delta here ... is it possible to pass ?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b0b89d1f0

Well. I restarted 2 MD-11 hope it can pass ....
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c289fa0775
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1f4be26bf

Loof forward to your opinion.

Hi Harry, about the Delta: the windowline looks a bit soft somehow, while other parts look oversharpened/jaggie. Like the wheels, titles and cheatline.
The EK looks oversharpened too, especially the back part, tail.
The MD-11`s look stunning. Maybe overexposed parts, not sure. Greets

spompert wrote:

Hi Harry, about the Delta: the windowline looks a bit soft somehow, while other parts look oversharpened/jaggie. Like the wheels, titles and cheatline.
The EK looks oversharpened too, especially the back part, tail.
The MD-11`s look stunning. Maybe overexposed parts, not sure. Greets

Well...maybe i should give up EK and Delta because i struggle to it for a long time...but i still hope MD-11S can pass ...is it possible?

HarryLi wrote:

Well. I restarted 2 MD-11 hope it can pass ....
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c289fa0775
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1f4be26bf

Loof forward to your opinion.

Hello , I wonder that is it OVerexposed or something else problems of it ... ?

HarryLi wrote:

HarryLi wrote:

Well. I restarted 2 MD-11 hope it can pass ....
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c289fa0775
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1f4be26bf

Loof forward to your opinion.

Hello , I wonder that is it OVerexposed or something else problems of it ... ?

Hi, I would say the long overexposed stroke along the fuselage is not acceptable. But I am not sure about it.

spompert wrote:

HarryLi wrote:

HarryLi wrote:

Well. I restarted 2 MD-11 hope it can pass ....
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c289fa0775
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1f4be26bf

Loof forward to your opinion.

Hello , I wonder that is it OVerexposed or something else problems of it ... ?

Hi, I would say the long overexposed stroke along the fuselage is not acceptable. But I am not sure about it.

Ok , anyway thank you for your reply.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ac6d96010e
A new one here ~

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.