Hello everyone, hope everything is fine.

Decided to give a try uploading a batch last week. It was all going well the first nine, three accepted e and six rejected, considering I’ve not edited any photo for a.net since the first half of February it was very reasonable. The last five pictures all got rejected, and I would like some opinions.

Thanks in advance.

Skygates 747
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 553685b46f
After HQ 1, blurry and oversharpened.

Ethiopian 787
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 21a56a002f
Blurry, oversharpened (soft with jaggies).

Gol 737
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 88d15c7d89
Dirty (not mentioned where) and soft. Where are the dirty and is it really soft?

TAM A319
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8d746c5f02
Soft, dirty (all around the tail) and editing (poor sky editing). Whats happened to the sky and where are the dirty around the tail?

TAME Embraer
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 619ed1cda1
Dark and high contrast. I sort of agree on this one, but any opinions would be welcome.

Hi,
Let's talk about that two photos that were rejected with Dirty.
I used " Equalize " to check them in my PS and indeed see some obvious dirty spot there. Here is the result :


You can also have a check again by yourself. If screeners rejected them with Dirty and you can't see any, you can use Equalize to check again. I also do it in my editing steps.
Besides, the sharpness of them look ok to me. Not bad to me.

Regarding to the SKYGATES, Agree with OS reason as a little bit jaggys under the wing i think. Blurry is iffy to me.
ET 787: Some parts look soft but some look little bit OS i think ( Some jaggys )
Contrast of Embraer could be reduced a little bit i think. Also could be brighter.

Cheers,
Harry

I think dark/contrast for the ERJ is A.net's way of suggesting that the light is poor and you'll struggle to get it in. Lighting is certainly tricky enough for me not to bother wanting to edit it (if it were mine)!

Karl

I won't address the Dirty rejections, since Harry has already covered that.

Skygate seems a bit OS, should be an easy fix.
Ethiopian looks acceptable to me.
Gol and TAM look maybe a touch soft, but I'd say probably acceptable.
TAME - contrast and brightness look perfectly fine - they're just a product of the light (which, while not perfect, should be perfectly acceptable, I think). It does look soft to me, though.

The Sky Gates looks soft to me :/
The rest is OK for me (except for the dirty that was pointed out).

Harry, Karl, Vik and Kas, really appreciate all your comments and tips.

There is indeed some dust spots on GOL and TAM, already cleaned up them and add a small amount of sharpness and uploaded again. About TAME and Ethiopian, I'll give a try with appeal. Skygates I'll reduce sharpness a bit (oversharpened 3 x 1 soft ).

Four more pictures, the first two are very special for me (but I know that doesn't matter to a.net) as it was the first and second time ever an An124 landed im my hometown airport.

Volga Dnepr
Rejected only for cyan cast, corrected and now rejected for blurry and soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3814612c6

Antonov Airlines
Rejected for soft and magenta cast, correct, and now rejected for high contrast and magenta cast again.
About contrast there is nothing to do, the plane is correctly exposed and the background simply don't have enough light. Magenta cast is really that bad? Color balance is a little tricky on this one because on the right you have the sodium lights and on the left LED lights.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af4a1ba080

Azul
Rejected only for oversharpened, corrected and rejected for blurry and oversharpened.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1a9ccefb61

Gol
Rejected for green cast, corrected, HQ1 and then soft, high contrast and underexposed. Considering its the very last rays of sun, looks ok to me...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 32b3c4c455

Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan

trevisan26 wrote:

Harry, Karl, Vik and Kas, really appreciate all your comments and tips.

There is indeed some dust spots on GOL and TAM, already cleaned up them and add a small amount of sharpness and uploaded again. About TAME and Ethiopian, I'll give a try with appeal. Skygates I'll reduce sharpness a bit (oversharpened 3 x 1 soft ).

Four more pictures, the first two are very special for me (but I know that doesn't matter to a.net) as it was the first and second time ever an An124 landed im my hometown airport.

Volga Dnepr
Rejected only for cyan cast, corrected and now rejected for blurry and soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3814612c6

Antonov Airlines
Rejected for soft and magenta cast, correct, and now rejected for high contrast and magenta cast again.
About contrast there is nothing to do, the plane is correctly exposed and the background simply don't have enough light. Magenta cast is really that bad? Color balance is a little tricky on this one because on the right you have the sodium lights and on the left LED lights.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af4a1ba080

Azul
Rejected only for oversharpened, corrected and rejected for blurry and oversharpened.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1a9ccefb61

Gol
Rejected for green cast, corrected, HQ1 and then soft, high contrast and underexposed. Considering its the very last rays of sun, looks ok to me...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 32b3c4c455

Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan

Are you from Brazil too?

But let talk first about the pictures

#1. I'm not so sure abou this one. I think some points are soft, but not the whole a/c.
#2. In the right side is a little magent cast. In my monitor and point of view is ok, but will be better a opinion from a screener.
#3. I don't agree about the blurry point but it's a little oversharpened (I can see jaggies aroung the words)
#4. I think just a little more exposure will be alright, This one is bordeline to me.

Just some opinions, I think will be better wait a comment from A.net screener team.

Vinicius

The two appeals were accepted

I think its worth saying that on Antonov Airlines, the color on the right bottom is the result of the light from the car on the right, it was so strong I decided do crop the image at the engines instead of showing the full wingspan because it was a little distracting.

I'll be waiting for a few more opinions, because as we know, everyone can see it different. Anyway, thanks very much for your opinion Vinicius. I'm from Porto Alegre and looks like you're from Brasília, would be nice to met you for a spotting session one of these days. Cheers!

trevisan26 wrote:

The two appeals were accepted

I think its worth saying that on Antonov Airlines, the color on the right bottom is the result of the light from the car on the right, it was so strong I decided do crop the image at the engines instead of showing the full wingspan because it was a little distracting.

I'll be waiting for a few more opinions, because as we know, everyone can see it different. Anyway, thanks very much for your opinion Vinicius. I'm from Porto Alegre and looks like you're from Brasília, would be nice to met you for a spotting session one of these days. Cheers!

I totally understand and agree with you! And yes! Let`s meet some day to do a spotting session in Brasilia or Porto Alegre!

Congrats for your shots!

First one: The sharpness looks not bad but could be more sharp. And the blurry might be given due to Soft issue as i didn't see very obvious blurry area.
Second : Color problem seems not very serious but the magenta could be reduced some in order to be more comfortable. And the contrast also could be reduced some i think.
Azul : Sharpness looks not bad. But some parts seem have some jaggys but looks not serious.
GOL : I did aquick editing to it. And it seems that there is still some space for you to increase exposure. Regarding to the color issue, i would say that i will tend to reduce some green as i feel little bit green too and it uncomfortable for me. But if you are Nikon user i think is a common phenomenon. And i will reduce little bit contrast although the situation looks not bad.
My personal perspectives.

Cheers,
Harry

Volga: looks ok, except for the strong blues. I think that can be reduced more in the RAW converter, by tweaking the Kelvin slider and reduce the blues in the saturation area.
Antonov: same as the Volga.
Azul: mostly looks ok, although the tail is a bit soft (which could've been mistaken for blurry).
GOL: has a strong yellow cast that can be reduced without messing up the 'low sun' idea. It could also use some more brightness. Sharpening looks ok to me.

Azul: The writing going down the fuselage and window line are what make it look blurry. Think it just looks soft in the depth of field. What was the f stop for that shot?
GOL: sharpening on it looks okay to me, but once again I'm on a bad display to be judge this with.
Volga, Antonov: agree completely with Kas

Harry, Kas and Len, thanks once again for the feedback. I'll follow the advices and correct the color balance on both An124 photos. Gol will have a increase in brightness and reduced color cast. About Azul, I'll add a little sharp to the tail and see how it goes, it was taken at f7,1 and 170mm.

Both pictures I previously asked feedback before were rejected again. What do you guys think?

Gol
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... deef167416
Soft, editing and banding. "poor sky editing"

TAM
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d18cddce29
Editing, oversharpened, halos and banding. "Poor sky editing, haloish around main gear"

Ukraine Air Alliance An12
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 82ff71b6cb
Oversharpened, underexposed and dirty. I can see the dust spot as pointed in the comments, but not sure about the other two reasons. Weather was certainly not on my side, but the whites look already bright.

Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan

The GOL and TAM are fine. I would suggest appealing them. Shoot me an E-mail once you've done so.
The exposure of the AN12 is ok too.

First, although a little late, happy new year for everyone.

Had 3 rejections today and would appreciate some feedback.

An225. Rejected by blurry, soft and quality.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... df0fbc9cab

Westjet. First rejected by left in frame and oversharpened. Now low contrast and soft. While there is room for more contrast it doesn't look unacceptable as it is for me.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5a4f34e4fe

Antonov 12. Oversharpened and overexposed. I had already reduced the amount of sharpness applied this time. Exposure looks fine for such weather.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... df6e1406ca

Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan

An225: More soft than blurry to me. This might be a common frame. If so, standards are higher.
Westjet: looks OK for me.
An12: Not seeing over exposure. Image has a slight green color cast. Some minor jaggies visible on the nose area, but not fatal, IMO.

Jehan

Thanks a lot Jehan. I reworked the An225 and the An12 since the color cast bothered me and I could easily reduce the amount of sharpness on the nose. Will appeal the Westjet.

A few more rejections... Any feedback would be appreciated. In my opinion, blurry (many times with oversharpened together) is being overused as rejection reason. Editing on retina display for a.net is terrible, but the originals looks good and very similar to my other pictures accepted.

747-8 Blurry and Soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 52e62ae614

Caribbean 737 Blurry Oversharpened and Banding.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9f5ed317cf

Delta 757 Oversharpened, overexposed and Blurry.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9b77046992

Last one, Avianca Cargo A330. Version rejected by soft vs new edit. Which one looks better?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c57ea7fe4c
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b55d212012

Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan

In my opinion, blurry (many times with oversharpened together) is being overused as rejection reason.

When the OS and blurry appear at the same time , it means that the Oversharpened compensate Blurry.
Regarding to the B748F, i agree with these reasons. The whole aircraft looks soft and the front part especially the nose （Soft） part look blurry ( The letters ).Engines' part look bit of soft.
Carribean 738: Sharpness looks not so bad to me although the REG looks slight OS. But banding effect appears in the sky. Don't see obvious Blurry but some parts look soft.
DL 757: Exposure of the aircraft looks not bad but the BG part ( Sky ） looks bit of Overexposure i think.The title has slight OS trace which compensate the Blurry i think. With respect to this kind of photo or this kind of weather i will choose another angle which have more building or other constructions (If there are lots of) as they can cover some sky space so that i can avoid the overexposure of Sky.
A330F: I would say that there is no obvious difference between them ... wait more replies maybe ?

Cheers,
Harry

B747-8: Agree with screening results and Harry's comments.
Caribbean 737: Overall blurry. Some OS on the titles and registration
Delta 757: Soft and low contrast. Not seeing OS. The lighting is quite poor. My experience with this type of conditions has been to carefully blend exposure, contrast and noise reduction.
Avianca Cargo: The original looks a little soft. THe new edit is acceptable for m

Jehane.

Thanks very much Harry and Jehan for the specific feedback. I'll let the freighter and Caribbean go and reworked the Delta, lets see how it goes.

Any opinions about motive and HIF on this one? Low contrast and soft looks like an easy fix. Motive was to show how close you could get for spotting without any security (before the road was closed).
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8df34c337b

Regards,
Thiago Trevisan

I'm OK with it.

I love airport noise and love that image!

Jehan

Thanks Kas and Jehan. The new edit is on the queue.

The Westjet and other Gol edit were accepted on appeal.

More rejections:

1) LAN Cargo 777
Rejected for underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 03532e107f
Same edit with some more brightness rejected for blurry, oversharpened and underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a3e149cc36
Light is not the best but we have seen similar ones accepted.

2) 747-8
Rejected fo blurry, overexposed, oversharpened and noise.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1698e966a6

Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan

The Lan re-edit and 747 are both passable for me.

Thank you Kas. The 747-8 was accepted and LAN rejected by overexposed, underexposed and oversharpened.

From the last month.

Low in frame, soft and overexposed. (First time by soft and underexposed. Small amount of brightness applied).
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 52d94fae86

The Avianca A330 which was rejected by soft, then soft and oversharpened is now overexposed, soft and heat haze. It was a cold morning (about 15C degrees) and I was standing less than 100m to the center of the runway with only grass in between, exposure is about the same of last rejections. Any thoughts on soft?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 340d15c336

Wing view rejected by soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d7de023a27

Last, AF A340 rejected on appeal for blurry, oversharpened and overexposed. Taken at 1/800s, 122mm and f8… What parts are blurry?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 540b3a9005

Thanks in advance.

BA A318: looks alright. Not great, but not great conditions either.
AV A330: titles maybe a little soft, but otherwise ok.
GOL: looks fine
AF A340: not OS/OE, blurry is debatable, but passable for me

trevisan26 wrote:

The Avianca A330 which was rejected by soft, then soft and oversharpened is now overexposed, soft and heat haze. It was a cold morning (about 15C degrees) and I was standing less than 100m to the center Thanks in advance.

Hey Thiago,

totally off-Topic, but there is nothing to add to Kas Feedback anway.
You consider 15C degrees a "cold" morning? Damn, that made me smile... I just came back from a short sneak to the airport before work to catch the Swiss "Romandie" Special and it was - 9C degrees. That would be a "cold" morning for me ;-)

By the way, really nice shot. Would love to shoot so close to the runway as well.

Cheers,
Julien

airkas1 wrote:

BA A318: looks alright. Not great, but not great conditions either.
AV A330: titles maybe a little soft, but otherwise ok.
GOL: looks fine
AF A340: not OS/OE, blurry is debatable, but passable for me

Thanks as always Kas. About the A340, a new edit with small changes on contrast and crop would be ok to avoid reupload rejection?

JKPhotos wrote:

Hey Thiago,
totally off-Topic, but there is nothing to add to Kas Feedback anway.
You consider 15C degrees a "cold" morning? Damn, that made me smile... I just came back from a short sneak to the airport before work to catch the Swiss "Romandie" Special and it was - 9C degrees. That would be a "cold" morning for me ;-)
By the way, really nice shot. Would love to shoot so close to the runway as well.
Cheers,
Julien

Hey Julien,

Yes, cold morning was a bit unfair It was more on the sense of "cold enough" to avoid heat haze being close.

In the South of Brazil where I live the lowest temperatures we see are usually around 5C degrees on cold days during the winter, so sadly no plane spotting with snow which would be nice.

It was an awesome experience being close to the runway in Ecuador. In FRA, its not to the runway, but you get quite close to the taxiway with your wide angle shots. Guess its a little closer than 100m? The wings look awesome in those shots.

Cheers

The Avianca A330 was rejected on appeal by Oversharpened, Overexposed and LIF...

Another three with blurry as reason, any thoughts?

Westjet 737: Blurry, Oversharpened and CW rotation. Taken at 58mm, f8 and 1/1000s.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c49ed683da

ROKAF F4: Blurry. Taken at 16mm and 1/400s. (New reg)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d0e4fc455b

Global Africa Cargo MD-11F. Blurry and oversharpened. Taken at 300mm, f8 and 1/1000s.
This one was already rejected on appeal but I would appreciate feedback anyway.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 08f1c56378

Cheers,
Thiago Trevisan

Edit. Forget this one. Air Berlin A330. Heat haze, CCW and soft. Also new reg for DB.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5d9d72f819

Global Africa: Not seeing blurry, tail and titles maybe where they get the OS. More than likely a victim of the lighting not being the best

Westjet: Looks a tad OS, worst being the winglet. Level looked okay

ROKAF: no thoughts on that

Air Berlin: It's a very slight CCW rotation. Maybe like .25-.5 degrees. Soft window line. Can't see any waviness of heathaze at 1100 wide.

Thanks Len, I'll rework them sometime.

-

Would appreciate some feedback about this images:

AA 757 SXM - Oversharpened
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c9c75b0e48

AA/DL LAX - Oversharpened
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1b1188f111

TUI 787 SXM - Oversharpened
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2f26612908

LAN 777 UIO - Underexposed, blurry and soft.
I guess I can add a little exposure before overexposing the engine, but the nose looks a little soft/blurry at 1400px. Any hope for this one on a smaller size or better try another frame?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c43a6d9365

As always, thanks in advance.

AA: not OS, but front section a bit soft/blurry?
AA: fine
OR: fine
LAN: smaller size version should be OK

Agree with S7 and I voted motive on the stair photo as well. UA looks blurry at the tail and quite soft indeed.

Thanks Kas. Both AA/DL and OR got accepted.

The front section of AA at SXM looks similar in terms of sharpness to the rest of the image on the original. I will apply just a little more sharpness on this area. LAN Cargo is already on the queue in a smaller size.

-

A few more rejections from last weeks.

UA/KLAX - Soft
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 10b3f0c518

S7 new reg - Blurry, oversharpened and high contrast
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7388034db9

QR A380 stairs - Blurry, Oversharpened, Motive and underexposed. "looks like just a stair, not az aircraft"
A quick search for "stairs cabin" on the top left corner shows two similar motivated acceptances. The camera was stabilized on the floor.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ef0fe66b9d

Thanks in advance.

Screening is really fast this days! The LAN Cargo at a smaller size (1100px instead of 1400px) got rejected for underexposed, soft and blurry.
Exposure was already increased a little, I feel that anymore will lead to an overexposed rejection by the fuselage and top of the engine. Any thoughts about sharpness?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6f459ab7b0

airkas1 wrote:

Agree with S7 and I voted motive on the stair photo as well. UA looks blurry at the tail and quite soft indeed.

Thanks Kas. While I disagree about motive considering other acceptances I understand its highly subjective and will leave this one for my personal collection.

About the others, I uploaded the RAW files of S7, UA and one LX that got rejected for blurry on google drive, would you mind having a look? (Obviously, everyone else is welcome to give an opinion)
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing


Thanks in advance.

LAN Cargo : Not sure about the sharpness but looks bit of soft to me. Suggest you to wait more opinions.
UA/KLAX : Iffy to me.... But not very soft.
S7 : I have seen your RAW file and tried to edit in on my own. It seems that using smaller size like 1024PX or 1200PX can be better. The contrast of your version does look pretty high.
LX: The same to S7.
All of them are my own my opinions Lol.

Cheers,
Harry

LAN: Not underexposed, but I don't know. I still maintain it's passable.
UA: I downloaded the NEF and made an edit that I deem acceptable. I've sent it to your E-mail.
S7: Your edit is definitely too contrasty. The original doesn't seem blurry to an unfixable extent, so I think you can make that one work with better editing.
LX: Blurry aft fuselage & tail.

Thanks Harry and Kas.

-

A few more I would appreciate some feedback.

Qatar new business class. First rejected by CCW rotation and on last edit by blurry (shallow DoF).
The pair of middle seats in the bottom is out of focus but this issue have always been tolerated for cabin pictures as long as the rest of the picture was ok, and to me looks like thats the case.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a5fec6567e

Korean Air Business Class. First rejected by oversharpened/blurry and on second time by soft/blurry.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9ce730d543
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3482821547

Korean Air First Class. Rejected by blurry/soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3734879152

Last but not least, Boeing factory overview. Compression/overexposed/soft.
I don't see any compression artifacts and it was taken/exported on highest quality. Exposure can be reduced but I don't see that much room for more sharpness, perhaps just a little on selected areas?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b9bcee754

As always, thanks in advance.

Hi Thiago

I am not too familiar with interior shots that's why I skip them.

Otherwise I would like to say something different, but the Boeing factory shot is definitely rather soft (or even blurry - hard to tell on that size) and would need more sharpening. I don't think it is overexposed, but I would bring down the midtones (adjust the Levels further). That will also make it look sharper.

Julien

JKPhotos wrote:

Hi Thiago
I am not too familiar with interior shots that's why I skip them.

Otherwise I would like to say something different, but the Boeing factory shot is definitely rather soft (or even blurry - hard to tell on that size) and would need more sharpening. I don't think it is overexposed, but I would bring down the midtones (adjust the Levels further). That will also make it look sharper.

Julien

Hello Julien,

Thanks for the feedback. To be honest, there was very little sharpness applied to the Boeing factory shot and on the retina screen its specially hard to edit these shots. I've now used some sharpening and pushed the midtones like you said. What do you think?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 56c7555743

Cheers

HI Thiago,
generally these shots are very hard to sharpen.
It looks better now, but I would reduce exposure by 0,1 and give it another pass of sharpening (30% 0,3).

I did that in PS and the result looked acceptable (at least to me).

Julien

Thanks Julien, just uploaded a new edition with this changes. Lets see how it goes

Boeing overview looks fine.

QR business: Agree on blurry/dof. The area is just too large and prominent.
KE business: Not that bad, but I dislike the empty foreground.
KE first: Not that bad.

Three more if someone wants to give some feedback

Cathay Pacific (1/1000s, f8 and 280mm)
First by overexposed/soft/compression, now blurry, soft, oversharpened.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 71e9107e11

Virgin Australia (1/1250s, f8 and 100mm)
Blurry/oversharpened.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9ab66a00c9

Eilat overview (1/1000s, f8 and 116mm)
Blurry and other reasons I can correct easily.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 449004cc23

-

airkas1 wrote:

Boeing overview looks fine.
QR business: Agree on blurry/dof. The area is just too large and prominent.
KE business: Not that bad, but I dislike the empty foreground.
KE first: Not that bad.

Thanks Kas. I'll let QR go and KE First new edit is already on the queue. About KE business, I was playing with the wide angle and emergency exits, it gives a new perspective compared with other KE cabin shots. I uploaded a new version with more sharpness applied and new size ratio to reduce the empty foreground, any thoughts?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 49b7aaa35e

Cathay: Fuselage looks a bit marginal, but I would probably give you a pass on it.
Virgin: Looks fine.
Eilat: Embraer looks a bit blurry, but the ATR should be OK with less sharpening (I'm guessing OS was a reason?)
KE: better.

airkas1 wrote:

Cathay: Fuselage looks a bit marginal, but I would probably give you a pass on it.
Virgin: Looks fine.
Eilat: Embraer looks a bit blurry, but the ATR should be OK with less sharpening (I'm guessing OS was a reason?)
KE: better.

Thanks once again. Eilat overview was rejected by blurry, cyan cast, low Contrast and underexposed. Looking at the original again, the Emb nose looks blurry, guess I have better chances with another frame for the same location?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 719b280e04

Cheers

Hello everyone. Three more shots if anyone wants to chime in.

QF 767 - Editing/Colour/Soft/Underexposed. I can't see the personal message even on the e-mail but I guess its related to colour/editing.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 362dc261c8

Exposure looks on par to other recently accepted pictures taken during the very last rays of sun. Colors are vivid but also looks acceptable to me considering it rained for the past three days till 10/15 minutes before the photo, making the air quite clean and one of the strongest sunset lights I've ever seen.

TG 747 - Blurry/soft (f8 and 1/1250s)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 61ec709cde

LH/NZ LAX - Blurry/soft/quality (f7,1 and 1/1000s)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c3ca495612

Thanks in advance for any opinions,

Thiago Trevisan

IMO the QF is a bit soft and maybe slightly yellow. I don't see it being underexposed. Nose of the TG, and tail appear a little soft but I don't necessarily think blurry, there is also some heat haze. LH does look off, I can't really pinpoint it, but it looks like there's a little blur on the wings possibly.

I forgot about the thread here and just saw your answer DL747, really appreciate your feedback.

Any other feedback about LH/NZ shot?