Pre-screen

airkas1 · Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:27 am

- TFI: blurry, heat haze, quality. Aft section mostly affected.
- 8115: blurry, quality.
- IBB: passable.
-PLN: backlit, marginal light, may be passable depending on rarity (if applicable)
-MNC: blurry, high in frame, underexposed

darazarbaf · Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:49 pm

Hi Kas,

Do you think that the MNC is not salvageable or should I try to fix it?

Cheers.

airkas1 · Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:07 pm

I would let it go, sorry.

darazarbaf · Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:57 pm

Hey guys,
This one got rejected for blurry, I appealed it, then got rejected for low contrast. Please tell me what do you think about it:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... liners.jpg

And please give me your feedback on this one:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... ners-1.jpg

Regard,
Dara

HarryLi · Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:54 pm

Hi Dara,
Regarding to the ASA : The contrast seems not bad to me although it could be improved a bit of. However,i do agree with the opinions from the first screener, the windows seem Blurry to me or Too soft .

For the MNA , the size of the photo is too big and the quality of it is insufficient i think. The whole aircraft seems very soft especially the cockpit part and the wing also the title. i doubt that it would be rejected for Blurry because of Soft especially the cockpit.

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:51 am

The 727 looks a bit hazed, with the Aseman titles a bit sharp. Contrast is actually fine for me.
Blurry, soft and backlit for the 747 unfortunately.

darazarbaf · Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:49 am

Any hopes for the 727?

HarryLi · Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:14 pm

For me,if i have photo that has Haze problem i will let it go unless that plane is very rare to me or that is the last time or the only time i can see and i will struggle for it. But if the Problem is serious i will still let it go to become my personal collection.
For this one, i would try to re-size it to 1000px or 1024px and then see the result. I will also select some parts to sharpen in order to avoide making other parts become OS but as Kas mentioned that the title seems bit of OS.
Neverthelss, for consrvative aspect,i will recommed you to choose another one which doesn't have haze problem or maybe you can get another chance to take it again ?

Cheers,
Harry

darazarbaf · Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:18 am

Hey guys,
IBB got rejected. I guess the screeners are just focusing on the negative sides. I’m getting a bit confused.

Psych · Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:37 am

Hello Dara.

What was/were the rejection reasons for 'IBB'? From the feedback above that looks like it is a very marginal decision.

Paul

darazarbaf · Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:59 am

Hi Paul,

The reason was "Vignetting, Noise and Common". I appealed it, after that it got accepted.

Best regards,
Dara

Psych · Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:29 pm

That's good news.

I had some recent rejections which included vignetting. I saw nothing at all, nor did the Head who accepted my appeals. Make me wonder about a screener's monitor, or something like that.

Paul

darazarbaf · Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:13 pm

Hey guys,
Today I went out to test my new lens, I'd be happy if I can have your feedback on these shots:

https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... IEF-A3.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... CPM-A2.jpg

Regards,
Dara

airkas1 · Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:39 pm

I would add both of them.

darazarbaf · Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:54 pm

Wow thanks Kas. After I had your viewpoint on the 70-200L, I decided to buy the 70-300L to have the 300 range.
Best regards,
Dara

darazarbaf · Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:47 pm

Hi guys,
I gave some of my old shots another go and used another technique for the post processing in Photoshop. I'd be so glad if I can have your feedback on them.

https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 30-MMO.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 16-LCJ.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 49-FQG.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 58-LCI.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 66-TTA.jpg

Best regards,
Dara

HarryLi · Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:39 pm

Hi Dara,
I have to say that these photos are much better in "Blurry" issue than beofore. But there is another problem i think. After seeing these five in my PS. I found that most of them are suffering from " Halo ". And then i used "Equalize" to have a check in order to confirm. And here is the result :

As you see, those are suffering from Halo. Actually, without using Equalize i can see it obviously but using it can make it more apparent to observe. Maybe the Halo was formed by your editing process like Highlight and shadow. You can check the original which is without any editing version to see whether they have Halo or not. BTW, if you are using Nikon Camera i would like to recommend you to turn the "D-LIGHTING " off because as i know that this function will lead to Halo problem in the orgin. But if you are not Nikon user it would be ok.
In addition, the EP-LCI looks better than these and it seems that it was't suffered from Halo. The Mahan can have little bit more contrast. And it seems that some of them are having "Dirty" problem you can use Equalize to check it again.
Cheers,
Harry

darazarbaf · Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:04 pm

Hi Harry,
I guess I pushed the highlights bar a bit too far to the negative side. I will work on them again tomorrow. The positive thing is that the blurry issue is gone with the new sharpening and noise reduction technique. I'll upload the new ones tomorrow and will be happy if you can check them back.
Cheers,
Dara

darazarbaf · Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:06 am

I did manage to make the halo problem a bit better on these shots but I don't know if it's in the acceptable range or not. Do you think it's better now or more editing should be done on them?

https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... -MMO-1.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... -LCJ-1.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... -FQG-1.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... -TTA-1.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... -CPZ-1.jpg

Best regards,
Dara

HarryLi · Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:37 pm

The situation of Halo seems better than before but some of them i still cna recognize halo without using Equalize. Besides, i think the sharpness is iffy to me. Recommend you to wait more answers !

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:09 pm

The Qeshm needs more contrast, but the others are OK for me.

darazarbaf · Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:02 pm

It's great to hear that Kas. These were the shots that were considered earlier as blurry so I guess I was following a wrong workflow.
I did work on some of my other shots earlier today that I thought didn't have even a slight chance previously; but now I guess some of them might have a chance with the new workflow ( or maybe not ;-)

len90 · Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:52 pm

-APH: blurry or something around the nose, might be heat haze
-IDF: Sky is a bit grainy
-FQJ: may be a bit OS, especially on the registration
-APJ: a bit OS looks jagged on the cheat lines
-TFI: looks good
-APP: Might be a bit blurry from cockpit windows to door L1 and OS on the cheat lines
-ASU: looks good
-MMO: Looks good
-ITA: Looks a bit high in frame

HarryLi · Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:37 pm

EP-APH : Looks blurry especially the parts that in front of the Wing.
EP-IDF : Looks not bad to me. The title looks iffy.Nose looks bit of Soft.
EP-FQJ : The sharpness looks not balance. Some parts have jaggys and some looks soft or blurry.
EP-APJ : Agree with Len that the cheat line looks jagged.Especially the in the back of the line.Besides, it also looks bit of Underexposed to me. Could be brighter i think.
EP-TFI : Looks ok to me.
EP-APP: Windows look soft / Blurry.Nose part also looks blurry maybe is heat haze.
EP-ASU : Bit of underexposed could be brighter. Otherwise, looks ok to me.
Mahan : Looks ok to me.
EP-ITA : High In frame. Besides, it looks soft which make me feel some parts look like blurry . And the also could be brighter i think .

Cheers,
Harry

darazarbaf · Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:30 pm

Thanks guys for the comments. It seems that some of them does actually have a chance here and it’s great news for me because these shots were from the second day of my plane spotting with a DSLR and without a very good lens. Will work on the jaggy ones and let the blurred ones go.
Cheers,
Dara

darazarbaf · Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:36 am

Hi guys,

The same thing happened again for me and the Mahan Air EP-MMO got rejected for "Blurry (?!) and Oversharpened": https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... -MMO-1.jpg
And this one also got rejected for "Oversharpened and High Contrast": https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 31-AJH.jpg

It's so difficult to have a queue limit of 2 and wait for 4 days to get your photos screened and get the pre-screened photos rejected over and over again. Please tell me what do you think about the screener's decision on these two photos and what are the options for me in the future. Thanks for your valuable time.

Best regards,
Dara

HarryLi · Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:39 am

Hi DARA,
I can't see obvious Blurry and OS in the Mahan.
Regarding to the EP-AJH, it is Iffy to me but the contrast looks ok to me.

Psych · Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:33 pm

Hello Dara.

I have just had a look at your shot of EP-MMO in Photoshop, and with some little extra sharpening it looks good. That does lead to some oversharpening of the titles/reg, but it is possible to erase this and I believe this leaves the overall shot looking good and less likely for some to think it might be a little on the soft side (which clearly happened in screening).

I would be very happy to do an edit of the original for you if this would help you - I am confident you can get this one accepted. Just let me know if you want any more help.

Cheers.

Paul

airkas1 · Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:47 am

darazarbaf wrote:
It's so difficult to have a queue limit of 2 and wait for 4 days to get your photos screened and get the pre-screened photos rejected over and over again. Please tell me what do you think about the screener's decision on these two photos and what are the options for me in the future. Thanks for your valuable time.

The developer is working on some other issues at the moment, but will ask him again to take care of the incorrect slot allocation after that.

darazarbaf · Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:25 pm

Thanks Kas.

Psych · Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:24 pm

Hi Dara.

Check your PM - I have an edit for you. I would be confident with it

Cheers.

Paul

darazarbaf · Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:56 pm

Hi guys,

The same scenario happened again for me. I had two photos in the queue, both got rejected.
First one, F-50:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 91-TFI.jpg
Rejected for "Soft". It was a pre-screened shot and I don't see any softness in it. Do you think I should appeal?

The second one, Qatar Airways:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 03-AEI.jpg
Rejected to "Blurry, Compression & Underexposed". Again I can't see any blurriness in that shot. Maybe a bit under.

I'd be happy if I can have your opinion on these two.
Best regards,
Dara

HarryLi · Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:38 am

Hi Dara,
Regarding to the QR A330, it indeed looks bit of underexposed to me. I suppose that it could be brighter.
And the F-50, looks not bad to me but ....it indeed could be more sharpen but please take care of the jaggys if you want to add some sharpen.

Cheers,
Harry

darazarbaf · Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:27 pm

It's getting very funny, appealed the Falcon and got rejected for Oversharpened (?!), Blurry(?!) and Quality. I guess the problem is with the website's bug that shows I have 0 photos in the database. The screeners look at the 0 and reject the shot right away. Now what do you think guys? Oversharpened? Really?

Psych · Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:37 pm

darazarbaf wrote:
The screeners look at the 0 and reject the shot right away. Now what do you think guys?

Hi Dara.

If I were to believe that this was true there would be no point at all in me spending more time with the site. So for my own sake I have to believe that this cannot be the case. If someone has no shots accepted yet the screeners should be going out of their way to give a really fair verdict on the image, and helping out with as much detailed feedback as time allows.

For me these decisions are harsh. It's almost impossible to get a perfect image, especially when it is so reduced in size when compared to the original. Issues of softness versus oversharpening are always going to be fine lines, even in a very well edited photo that had no flaws in the original. I have looked at your Falcon image again and again - the lettering in English/Arabic could be a tad sharper, but it would be so easy to add a little more to that and the next person will say you have oversharpened that. Unless you look at the original I would reserve judgement on 'blurry' for that. The edges of that blue sweep towards the No. 2 engine do have slight jaggies, but if you sharpened that any less some might say it was soft. Any dark line, especially at an angle, on a white background will have jaggies when sharpened and reduced significantly in size.

This is a horribly difficult line to judge and I don't think the sky would fall in if that shot was simply accepted. 99% of those who view it (in my humble opinion) wouldn't notice an issue.

I am quite shocked by the 'quality' verdict'. That looks to have perfectly nice quality on my screen.

Good luck!

Paul

jelpee · Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:43 am

Hi Dara,
The Falcon is more blurry (nose section) than soft. I see blur in the cockpit windows and the nose gear. The oversharpening is sometimes a result of sharpening applied to compensate for blur. So I agree with the outcome of the appeal.
The QR could use some brightness (check histogram). I also see a red color cast on it which can be easily corrected.
FYI, I do not look at the number of accepted shots to determine if an image should be accepted or rejected. I'd be shocked if my colleagues on the screening team do it either.
Hoping to see your first shot accepted soon!

Jehan

darazarbaf · Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:09 am

Dear Jehan,

I will work on the QR and upload it later here. I do agree with you on the red color cast. Actually I have 12 accepted photos but as mentioned before, there's a bug with the website that shows I have none.

Cheers,
Dara

darazarbaf · Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:12 pm

Hey guys,

I just edited the Falcon again as it's a shot that I really like. Do you see any improvements in it?
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 0_edit.jpg

I also worked on some new shots, I'd be happy if I can have your comments on them:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 28-MMB.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 23-FDZ.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 69-MNF.jpg

Have a nice day,
Dara

HarryLi · Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:37 pm

Hi Dara,
The sharpness of the Falcon seems could be more sharpen for me. Besides, it also seems darker than the last one.And i found another issue for the latest version. The latest one seems low in frame to me.If you compare it to the last version you will see it is lower than last one i think.
The another three new editings seem not bad to me some aspects are better than before especially the sharpness looks ok to me. But those seem to have slight halo around the aircraft although it is not obvious.

Cheers,
Harry

darazarbaf · Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:16 pm

Hi Harry,

Thanks for your feedback, the other three are taken by a new lens and the improvement is mostly because of that. I will wait for some other comments and decide what to do with them.

Have a nice day,
Dara

Psych · Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:08 pm

Hello Dara.

The new Falcon looks pretty good to me - I do see an improvement. I really don't think this is worthy of a 'soft' rejection. I certainly see nothing that even starts to point at quality issues. Also, the centring works for me. I don't like to see photos where the fuselage may be perfectly in the centre of frame, but the tip of a tail fin looks too close to the top - that doesn't feel like a good balance in my book.

On to your others:

Whilst I don't fing this the most flattering of angles, I think you have some very decent images here, with no major flaws.

MMB - Looks good overall to me. Nice contrast and nothing that looks soft.

FDZ - Again, well exposed given the circumstances. I can't see anything to complain about here.

MNF - Again, looks nice. You have the start of small jaggies above/behind the flightdeck, where very white fuselage meets much darker sky. But surely that isn't enough to cause a problem, and is no evidence of oversharpening some blurriness (IMHO).

I am hopeful for you with these.

Cheers.

Paul

airkas1 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:04 am

All of them are OK for me, although your sky shots tend to maybe me a little high.

HarryLi · Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:55 am

Hi Dara,
Congratulation ! I saw some of them have been accepted. But i am doubting that if you are using RGB of the color or not because some accepted photos' color seem to be different from what u posted here before. They seem to have lower saturation.
Like:
QR A330:
You posted before : https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 03-AEI.jpg
Accepted Version :

A6-FDZ:
You posted before: https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 23-FDZ.jpg
Accepted Version :

You can compare them and will see the difference. I only noticed these two for now. You can have a check.

Cheers,
Harry

darazarbaf · Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:26 pm

Dear Harry,
Yes I'm using RGB. My camera is set to Adobe RGB, also in photoshop I save them in RGB color space. As for the QR, I boosted the exposure a bit and corrected the red cast so it's not a problem in the accepted version. But I don't know what's the problem with the Flydubai. You are right about it completely. What do you thing is wrong about it?
Best regards,
Dara

darazarbaf · Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:48 pm

Dear Kas,
The spotting location of IKA airport is not very ideal, I'm not going there anymore because of the not favorable high shots.
Cheers,
Dara

airkas1 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:58 pm

Just in case; no-one would reject a photo based on a non-favorable angle. Light may be a different matter, but depending on time of day, higher photos can be well passable.

Regarding color; you need to use sRGB, not AdobeRGB. You can try to save them in that color profile and then see how they look side by side. The reupload function is there to replace the current photo, which do seem a bit washed out in terms of color.

darazarbaf · Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:01 pm

Dear Kas,
Didn’t know that option exists. Going to re-upload some of my shots this week.
Have a nice day.

HarryLi · Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:25 pm

darazarbaf wrote:
Dear Kas,
Didn’t know that option exists. Going to re-upload some of my shots this week.
Have a nice day.

Yes, i used to upload photos with RGB version but then i observed that the color is weird. After that i knew that sRGB is better to the website. So it would be better to change to sRGB and then upload. It's more convenient for you to change now as you don't have too many photos in DB yet !

darazarbaf · Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:39 pm

Yeah re-uploaded all of the affected photos. The Camera RAW on my work PC was set on Adobe RGB and I guess it's now fixed.
Cheers

airkas1 · Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:56 am

Hi Dara,

Your current image of EP-MMH in the queue shows quite some halos. Especially around the gears and trailing edge of the wings/stabs. Almost like some color bleeding or something. I'd suggest pulling it and trying to rework it.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net