User avatar
trevisan26
Topic Author
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:31 am

Post screening

Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:38 pm

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

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

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

TAM A319
http://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
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 619ed1cda1
Dark and high contrast. I sort of agree on this one, but any opinions would be welcome.
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 707
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post screening

Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:34 am

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 :
Image
Image
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. :roll:

Cheers,
Harry
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4782
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Post screening

Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:47 pm

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
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12122
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Post screening

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:17 am

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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6178
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post screening

Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:42 pm

The Sky Gates looks soft to me :/
The rest is OK for me (except for the dirty that was pointed out).
 
User avatar
trevisan26
Topic Author
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:31 am

Re: Post screening

Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:54 pm

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 :lol: ).

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.
http://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.
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af4a1ba080

Azul
Rejected only for oversharpened, corrected and rejected for blurry and oversharpened.
http://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...
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 32b3c4c455

Thanks in advance,
Thiago Trevisan
 
User avatar
vcruvinel
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:28 am

Re: Post screening

Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:17 pm

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 :lol: ).

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.
http://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.
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af4a1ba080

Azul
Rejected only for oversharpened, corrected and rejected for blurry and oversharpened.
http://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...
http://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
 
User avatar
trevisan26
Topic Author
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:31 am

Re: Post screening

Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:02 pm

The two appeals were accepted :D

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!
 
User avatar
vcruvinel
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:28 am

Re: Post screening

Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:40 am

trevisan26 wrote:
The two appeals were accepted :D

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!
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 707
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post screening

Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:53 pm

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
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6178
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post screening

Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:19 pm

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.
 
len90
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post screening

Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:05 pm

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
Len90
 
User avatar
trevisan26
Topic Author
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:31 am

Re: Post screening

Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:19 am

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

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

Ukraine Air Alliance An12
http://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
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6178
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post screening

Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:34 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos