On the TAP: I would crop it to the other A330s wingtip. Looks like you already have that one's stabilizer cropped as is so you can bring it in a bit to look a bit more balanced. Exposure is a bit high on this. It's always a bit tough when you have a sun glare/reflection line coming back at the camera like in this instance. Pretty close to an acceptable image!

HarryLi wrote:

CS-TOO looks overexposed to me. I would tend to reduce little bit exposure. Besides, the windows look bit of soft to me ( not bad ). And... why not crop tighter ? ( Right side )

Cheers,
Harry

Hey Harry! I put this crop because of the other TAP a/c in the background. It’s a component from the frame. I tried to crop before but get kind of weird! And thanks for the reply. Totally agree with the overexposure

airkas1 wrote:

A bit overexposed from the titles to the nose and the tail. Otherwise nice.

Hey Kas, thanks for the reply. I will correct a tad the exposure.

len90 wrote:

On the TAP: I would crop it to the other A330s wingtip. Looks like you already have that one's stabilizer cropped as is so you can bring it in a bit to look a bit more balanced. Exposure is a bit high on this. It's always a bit tough when you have a sun glare/reflection line coming back at the camera like in this instance. Pretty close to an acceptable image!

Hey Len90! I crop it until the end of the wingtip from the A330. It’s kind confusing because it’s the same color from the Taxiway! I will correct the exposure as well! Let’s see it will get acceptable! Many thanks for you attention and reply! Hope

Taking the opportunity: What about this one?
https://image.ibb.co/nfd7Pb/EC_LOJ.jpg

Many thanks!

Needs a bit of CCW and contrat, but otherwise nice.

airkas1 wrote:

Needs a bit of CCW and contrat, but otherwise nice.

Kas, many thanks for you reply. I put again the grid and see it really need CCW rotation.

What about this batch of photos?

http://image.ibb.co/ejSgZb/F_GTAE.jpg
http://image.ibb.co/fdKdEb/CS_TOX.jpg
http://image.ibb.co/dgMaub/D_AISP.jpg
http://image.ibb.co/fGyMZb/tarbes.jpg
http://image.ibb.co/iwwaub/CS_TTW.jpg
http://image.ibb.co/dJh4nw/VQ_BTY.jpg
http://image.ibb.co/f01x7w/PR_GGJ.jpg

Many thanks!

Sorry, very late reply.

-GTAE: blurry,quality
-TOX: looks alright
-AISP: bit flat
-Tarbes: dirty left side, otherwise alright (despite lots of blockage)
-TTW: blurry nose, HIF
-BTY: looks nice
-GGJ: HIF, flat

airkas1 wrote:

Sorry, very late reply.

-GTAE: blurry,quality
-TOX: looks alright
-AISP: bit flat
-Tarbes: dirty left side, otherwise alright (despite lots of blockage)
-TTW: blurry nose, HIF
-BTY: looks nice
-GGJ: HIF, flat

Hey Kas, many thanks for you feedback. Really appreciate as always! I uploaded TOX and BTY as you said it's looks ok. About the others, just one question before start editing the photos again: What do you mean when you say the photo is "flat"?

Thanks!

Vinicius

Ah sorry. Flat means low contrast, it's 'slang' we use for screening (and sometimes also outside of it hehe).

airkas1 wrote:

Ah sorry. Flat means low contrast, it's 'slang' we use for screening (and sometimes also outside of it hehe).

Oh, nice! I didn't now that Now I add "flat" to my vocabulary. Haha. Thanks, Kas!

What do you think about this photo? https://image.ibb.co/mn3j9m/F_GJOD1024px_2.jpg I edited days ago using some tips you/Harry/Stefan (spompert)/Len90/Psych gave to me the past weeks. Just search the best balance for the photos (and also best settings for my camera). In this editing I use more levels and curves to adjust.

Many Thanks again!

Vinicius

F-GJOD looks ok to me although i think the sharpness could be increased a little bit .

Hello Vinicius.

That photo of Oscar Delta looks good to me overall. I think sharpening is very difficult for such a photo, because a livery like this, with thin dark lines on a white fuselage is going to give jaggies very quickly, so there is a very fine line between softness and it suddenly looking oversharpened with jaggies. I would be content with this edit if it were mine. It could probably take a little more contrast if you wished - the port engine in view almost merges with the white fuselage.

Good luck with it.

Paul

The tail feels a little blurryish, but I'd accept it as-is.

HarryLi wrote:

F-GJOD looks ok to me although i think the sharpness could be increased a little bit .

I did a little bit more sharpness and looks better now. Thanks for the help!

Psych wrote:

Hello Vinicius.

That photo of Oscar Delta looks good to me overall. I think sharpening is very difficult for such a photo, because a livery like this, with thin dark lines on a white fuselage is going to give jaggies very quickly, so there is a very fine line between softness and it suddenly looking oversharpened with jaggies. I would be content with this edit if it were mine. It could probably take a little more contrast if you wished - the port engine in view almost merges with the white fuselage.

Good luck with it.

Paul

I really have to agree with you! I just adjusted a little bit the constrast using curves. Now looks better! Thanks, Paul!

airkas1 wrote:

The tail feels a little blurryish, but I'd accept it as-is.

Kas, I took a second look and really looks a little bit blurryish, but I increased the sharpness a litle bit and now the tail looks better. I think the tail needs more sharpness and I did not see! Now with all the opinions from you, Paul and Harry I will upload now the new version adjusted!

Taking the opportunity: Today I had some time at 6am (lol) to take some shots. I really need some advices, principal in the first one. I had a direct sunrise light into the aircraft, which put the terrain darker than my subject. I liked the colors and the composition, but the question is: this kind of shot is acceptable to A.net standards?

#1 https://image.ibb.co/djrk0R/PR_SDM.jpg
#2 https://image.ibb.co/iz3nEm/PR_MHF.jpg

Many thanks!

Hi,

the Sideral Looks a bit unlevelled, sure it is rolling down a bridge, but the light post on the left, as well as others on the right assume it needs clockwise rotation. Otherwise I personally find the fence in the foreground a bit distracting and think that a view where the aircraft is on the bridge would be more interesting and less than 50% of the gear should be covered. But this probably won't be a rejection reason.

The TAM is nice, but the fuselage is rather soft, doesn't look to be the sharpest. It would definitely need more sharpening.

Regards,
Julien

Hello again Vinicius.

Regarding the two images you have recently posted, I agree with Julien that 'SDM' does need further leveling. Too much in the photo suggests that the photo is leaning down slightly from right to left. I would use the far edge of the taxiway, behind the wheels, as my leveling reference. I took your photo into PS to have a closer look and, doing that, resulted in about 0.7 degree clockwise rotation. That doesn't sound much, but it helped, and didn't really affect the verticals of the foreground fence. The aircraft itself is very bright, and I wonder whether you are too worried about how the foreground looks. For me those areas should look darker, so would benefit from more contrast. Have you lifted the lighting in those areas? I would be very happy to do an edit for you to show you what I mean if you would find this helpful. Just let me know if you would like that.

As for 'MHF', I do like these kinds of shots, but this one is definitely soft as it stands. The nose/flightdeck area is the real giveaway for that, but it's apparent throughout, such as the cabin windows and the right engine cowling/wing leading edge.

Again - if you need any help with an edit I would be very happy to help.

Take care.

Paul

JKPhotos wrote:

Hi,

the Sideral Looks a bit unlevelled, sure it is rolling down a bridge, but the light post on the left, as well as others on the right assume it needs clockwise rotation. Otherwise I personally find the fence in the foreground a bit distracting and think that a view where the aircraft is on the bridge would be more interesting and less than 50% of the gear should be covered. But this probably won't be a rejection reason.

The TAM is nice, but the fuselage is rather soft, doesn't look to be the sharpest. It would definitely need more sharpening.

Regards,
Julien

Hi, Julien! Many thanks for you answer. For the SDM I use the pillar from the bridge (right side). But I take a second look after your reply and really agree with you! I will see if the others photos looks better (maybe use a 16:9 ratio will help to remove some of the fence?)

I agree about the TAM and put some sharpness (see the link in the final)

Psych wrote:

Hello again Vinicius.

Regarding the two images you have recently posted, I agree with Julien that 'SDM' does need further leveling. Too much in the photo suggests that the photo is leaning down slightly from right to left. I would use the far edge of the taxiway, behind the wheels, as my leveling reference. I took your photo into PS to have a closer look and, doing that, resulted in about 0.7 degree clockwise rotation. That doesn't sound much, but it helped, and didn't really affect the verticals of the foreground fence. The aircraft itself is very bright, and I wonder whether you are too worried about how the foreground looks. For me those areas should look darker, so would benefit from more contrast. Have you lifted the lighting in those areas? I would be very happy to do an edit for you to show you what I mean if you would find this helpful. Just let me know if you would like that.

As for 'MHF', I do like these kinds of shots, but this one is definitely soft as it stands. The nose/flightdeck area is the real giveaway for that, but it's apparent throughout, such as the cabin windows and the right engine cowling/wing leading edge.

Again - if you need any help with an edit I would be very happy to help.

Take care.

Paul

Hi Paul!

Agree with you too, it really need CW rotation! In the SDM photo, I really like the darker foreground because this stand out the aircraft, the brightness is natural (there is some trees behind that just allow sun to where the aircraft passes, lucky day and sun).

I really want your help and some editing tips (new ideias and parameters are aways welcome!). Can I send a PM with the original RAW file?

About the MHF, it`s really soft. I did some sharpness with new parameters using Nik Collection. What you (and Julien and any other member) think about it? I can send this file too, always good to have some ideias and help as I said!.

https://image.ibb.co/m8P0kR/PR_MHF.jpg

Many thanks, Julien and Paul!

MHF is not only very soft, but also blurry. Won't be salvagabe, sorry.
SDM needs a bit of CW, but should otherwise be alright.

airkas1 wrote:

MHF is not only very soft, but also blurry. Won't be salvagabe, sorry.
SDM needs a bit of CW, but should otherwise be alright.

Kas, did you see this new link from the MHF that I`ve posted to Paul and Julien? Do you think this one is blurried too?

Vinicius

Yes, the link you posted in your post above mine. It's quite blurry.

airkas1 wrote:

Yes, the link you posted in your post above mine. It's quite blurry.

Nice, I will edit another shot from the same angle and it see it`s not blurried! Thanks, Kas!

vcruvinel wrote:

I really want your help and some editing tips (new ideias and parameters are aways welcome!). Can I send a PM with the original RAW file?

Hello. I have sent you a PM on the site. Very happy to help in any way I can.

Cheers.

Paul

Psych wrote:

vcruvinel wrote:

I really want your help and some editing tips (new ideias and parameters are aways welcome!). Can I send a PM with the original RAW file?

Hello. I have sent you a PM on the site. Very happy to help in any way I can.

Cheers.

Paul

Thanks Paul. Just sent you a PM.

I've submitted the correction for you this time, but please keep in mind that an aircraft without any titles needs to be listed as "Untitled" in the airline field. Not "Private".

airkas1 wrote:

I've submitted the correction for you this time, but please keep in mind that an aircraft without any titles needs to be listed as "Untitled" in the airline field. Not "Private".

Kas, even if I know the owner of the aircraft I need to put "Untitled" because the a/c has no titles? Just to know this because I have another shots from the same company. In this one I put "Private (Eagle Express Aviation)". Tell me which is the best way to fill the field and I will do in the next shots!

About the SDM, Paul start help me and give some tips to improve my workflow. What about this version?

https://image.ibb.co/hXMbUm/DSC_0039_1200_0_25_edit.jpg

Thanks!

Vinicius

vcruvinel wrote:

Kas, even if I know the owner of the aircraft I need to put "Untitled" because the a/c has no titles?

Correct.

vcruvinel wrote:

In this one I put "Private (Eagle Express Aviation)".

Only the 'Private' part is wrong. Any untitled aircraft should have "Untitled" as airline 1 and the operator/owner in airline 2 or 3. So in this case, it should've been "Untitled (Eagle Express Aviation)".

vcruvinel wrote:

About the SDM, Paul start help me and give some tips to improve my workflow. What about this version?

Looks alright.

airkas1 wrote:

vcruvinel wrote:

Kas, even if I know the owner of the aircraft I need to put "Untitled" because the a/c has no titles?

Correct.

vcruvinel wrote:

In this one I put "Private (Eagle Express Aviation)".

Only the 'Private' part is wrong. Any untitled aircraft should have "Untitled" as airline 1 and the operator/owner in airline 2 or 3. So in this case, it should've been "Untitled (Eagle Express Aviation)".

vcruvinel wrote:

About the SDM, Paul start help me and give some tips to improve my workflow. What about this version?

Looks alright.

Hey Kas, many thanks for all your detailed explanation! For sure I will do right in the next ones!

I just upload the SDM (I put priority because it`s a new paiting scheme for the Sideral Fleet with no photos in the database with the new paiting scheme).

And...merry christmas for you, Paul, Harry, Len, Steve and all others friends that support and give their time to help each other in this forum and A.net community!

What about this one?

http://image.ibb.co/hx2gGb/DSC_0953_PMedit.jpg

Thanks!

vcruvinel wrote:

What about this one?

http://image.ibb.co/hx2gGb/DSC_0953_PMedit.jpg

Thanks!

Hi, looks noisy (especially below the wing) and aft section. Portugal title looks oversharpened. Windowline looks soft. To me quality looks poor, I think the original is heathazed (look at the horizontal stabilizer, upper fuselage and edge of the wing). I might be wrong but just seems to be a bit hazed. Greets

Hi,
Regarding to your portugal A330. There are some problems i think.
- Bit of Underexposed
- Color is not quiet correct i think.(Looks blue)
- Title ( Portugal)looks Oversharpened as there are some jaggys which is very obvious.
- Soft to the Windows especially the center part.
- Also doubt that it looks Heat Haze to me.( Judge from the upper part of the plane and stabilizer and the wing ( Flap ). )
- Quality is quiet Iffy.
Noise looks not bad the fuselage has some obvious noise.

Cheers,
Harry

Stefan and Harry, many thanks for you replies!

Can I have some comments/opinions in this one?

https://image.ibb.co/dg9de6/PR_MYB.jpg

Thanks!

I'd go for 1600px and that shopuld look fine.

airkas1 wrote:

I'd go for 1600px and that shopuld look fine.

Kas, I reduced the file to 1600px as you suggested. What do you think now?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/0/0/4787009.jpg?v=v4e25f4a05e6

Just taking the opportunity to ask you another question as I got rejected and also a negative appeal (both quality, soft underexposed, noise) in this shot:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/6/6/4773663.jpg?v=v4c21582dc45

Normally I receive a message from the screener describe in which aspects the photo needs improvement, but this time I got no messages. So I really in doubt what I can improve in this shot as I don`t see noise, the histogram is quite balanced, maybe quality (?) and even in my monitor the a/c in not soft. Can you please help me with some advices in this one?

Thanks!

Yeah, this looks better. The tail is somewhat soft, hence the smaller is better comment.

The TAP isn't that bad, but could benefit from an increase in brightness (mostly the bottom half of the photo). I would advise you to play with the sliders a bit until you get the right result. Maybe some extra noise reduction to go with it, but other than that it looks passable. In any case it doesn't look for to me.

airkas1 wrote:

Yeah, this looks better. The tail is somewhat soft, hence the smaller is better comment.

The TAP isn't that bad, but could benefit from an increase in brightness (mostly the bottom half of the photo). I would advise you to play with the sliders a bit until you get the right result. Maybe some extra noise reduction to go with it, but other than that it looks passable. In any case it doesn't look for to me.

Kas, many thanks for you reply and help. I will edit the Stopover again and follow the points you listed to get a better result. I also edit more two shots with Paul`s help and put in the queue, let`s see what happen this time, with a better workflow!

Many Thanks,

Vinicius

Hey guys! I`m back here Can any member/screener/team/friend please provide some feedback in this shots?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/8/4828837.jpg?v=v42232266b00
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/8/4/4826489.jpg?v=v4b53563cd3c

Thanks!

Hi,
The window view looks very pretty ! But the window looks very dirty ? And the dirty seems to affect the whole picture as i can see the black trace among the picture. I am not sure if that would be accepted.
The second one is not sure for the composition and the light condition. But the level of it loosk not so great to me. I think you can give little bit CW to it.

Cheers,
Harry

HarryLi wrote:

The window view looks very pretty ! But the window looks very dirty ? And the dirty seems to affect the whole picture as i can see the black trace among the picture. I am not sure if that would be accepted.

I agree with this. There are vertical marks of a dirty window visible.

The Sideral is OS, has lens flare over the hor.stab. and is quite distant (although I understand why). It's not a great photo in terms of quality.

Hey Harry and Kas, many thanks for the feedback!

About the window view: It's not dirty as it appear. It's just some fog from a fire in a forest near the city. I took many others shots from this day inside the aircraft from the windows, see one of them in this link (same position in the seat, window and light conditions)

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/4/7/4829747.jpg?v=v4f2a3c41cbe.

Vinicius

Hey guys! Good to be back here.

I got some tips from Paul and try to improve my workflow this last weeks, principal about sharpness.

Can I have some opinion in this shot? Unfortunately I got some reflection in the left...but I don't know if it's passable or not. I also accpeted comments about the others aspects from the photo

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/1/8/4862819.jpg?v=v4938449eb93

Many Thanks!

The name on the nose is oversharpened and I would try to reuce the highlights. The sun glare is quite dominant.you could try to add whites if the fuselage becomes too underexposed.

airkas1 wrote:

The name on the nose is oversharpened and I would try to reuce the highlights. The sun glare is quite dominant.you could try to add whites if the fuselage becomes too underexposed.

Kas, many thanks for you quick reply! I will try to edit the photo again and using tips.

What do you think about this one?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/4/0/4863045.jpg?v=v40144b2a89d

Thanks!

Hi!

Hope everything doing well with all. Need some opinions about this shots!

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/3/8/4887831.jpg?v=v40b7dd7959e
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/4/8/4887843.jpg?v=v44d34756c02
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/6/8/4887869.jpg?v=v4dad8a979bd
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/8/4887881.jpg?v=v476acb38637

Many thanks!

Hi guys,

Can anyone please give some feedback in this shot?

http://image.ibb.co/bDK1Kc/CS_TTN.jpg

Thanks!

It's a bit high in frame but otherwise passable I guess. May I ask why you choose a 4:3 crop? It makes for a lot of empty space for no real reason in my opinion.
Do you still need an opinion on those 4 you posted a week ago?

airkas1 wrote:

It's a bit high in frame but otherwise passable I guess. May I ask why you choose a 4:3 crop? It makes for a lot of empty space for no real reason in my opinion.
Do you still need an opinion on those 4 you posted a week ago?

Nice, Kas. I will upload this shot. Answering your question: I tried to crop as 16:9 ratio but when I tried to do this the, tail got very close to the top of the frame and look a bit strange..so I decided to do a 4:3 ratio crop. But you're a right, if I crop in 4:3 I also got a lot of empty space. But in your opinion, it's better to crop in 16:9 even if the tail got close to the top of the frame? I can do a new version in this dimension.

About the others four photos unfortunately I got rejected in all of them (I upload 5 but the last was accepted). But yes, considerer that they got rejected I will really appreciate your opinion in how can I improve each photo.

1. Rejected: Overexposed
2. Rejected: Quality, Size, Soft
3. Rejected: High Contrast, Underexposed
4. Rejected: CCW Rotation

Many thanks!

Best Regards,

Vinicius Cruvinel

vcruvinel wrote:

airkas1 wrote:

It's a bit high in frame but otherwise passable I guess. May I ask why you choose a 4:3 crop? It makes for a lot of empty space for no real reason in my opinion.
Do you still need an opinion on those 4 you posted a week ago?

Nice, Kas. I will upload this shot. Answering your question: I tried to crop as 16:9 ratio but when I tried to do this the, tail got very close to the top of the frame and look a bit strange..so I decided to do a 4:3 ratio crop. But you're a right, if I crop in 4:3 I also got a lot of empty space. But in your opinion, it's better to crop in 16:9 even if the tail got close to the top of the frame? I can do a new version in this dimension.

I use 3:2 on almost all of my photos, I find it's a nice balance between 4:3 and 16:9. The challenge with your photo will be where the top of the frame aligns with the buildings... can be awkward if only a little sky is showing.

Ultimately the crop is up to the photographer and we wouldn't reject for it, but in such cases I'm sorry to say that I find 4:3 ugly (personal taste though)
3:2 would already work much better for that photo.

1: Passable for me
2: Soft tail, nose. Would like work in 1600px
3: Passable for me
4: Looks fine to me as well

Kaphias wrote:

vcruvinel wrote:

airkas1 wrote:

It's a bit high in frame but otherwise passable I guess. May I ask why you choose a 4:3 crop? It makes for a lot of empty space for no real reason in my opinion.
Do you still need an opinion on those 4 you posted a week ago?

Nice, Kas. I will upload this shot. Answering your question: I tried to crop as 16:9 ratio but when I tried to do this the, tail got very close to the top of the frame and look a bit strange..so I decided to do a 4:3 ratio crop. But you're a right, if I crop in 4:3 I also got a lot of empty space. But in your opinion, it's better to crop in 16:9 even if the tail got close to the top of the frame? I can do a new version in this dimension.

I use 3:2 on almost all of my photos, I find it's a nice balance between 4:3 and 16:9. The challenge with your photo will be where the top of the frame aligns with the buildings... can be awkward if only a little sky is showing.

Matthew, thanks for your reply! In most of the cases I use 16:9 ratio for my photos but this time I use 4:3 exactly because of the point you listed, that looks a little awkward with just a little band from the sky in the top (also the tail will be closer to the top of the frame). In the next times I will test with 3:2 ratio as you and Kas suggested!

Many thanks!

airkas1 wrote:

Ultimately the crop is up to the photographer and we wouldn't reject for it, but in such cases I'm sorry to say that I find 4:3 ugly (personal taste though)
3:2 would already work much better for that photo.

1: Passable for me
2: Soft tail, nose. Would like work in 1600px
3: Passable for me
4: Looks fine to me as well

Hahahaha I really have to agree with you, Kas! I just test the 3:2 ratio suggested by you and Matthew and as you said...4:3 ratio really looks a bit ugly now! hahahaha!

About the rejected photos, thanks for your reply too! I will correct number #2 and upload again, but do you think worth an appeal for numbers #1, #3 and #4 as they look ok?

Thanks,

Vinicius Cruvinel

Yeah, you can appeal, let me know when you've done so.

airkas1 wrote:

Yeah, you can appeal, let me know when you've done so.

Just did the appeal for two photos (the system only allow two per time). The last I will appeal after the result of the firsts.

Thanks, Kas!