User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:29 pm

I'd add high in frame for the FedEx as well. Also underexposed and not great. The Spirit looks underexposed with some soft/blurry areas.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:57 am

Thanks Kas for the feedback. I've pulled both images from the queue.

I just had this rejection that I'm really confused about:
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 631d0fc36f

Rejected for Oversharpened. Yet this photo below was accepted which I took 5 minutes before the rejected one from the same location and I used the exact same sharpening and noise reduction values for both. Not sure how one made it and one didn't. :confused:

I'd still be willing to reduce the sharpening value another 5-10% if that would satisfy the screener. I'm even using lower sharpening values nowadays that Kas recommended to me up-thread.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:29 am

The sharpening looks passable to me.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:16 am

I had two priority adds in the queue (a recent delivery and a new operator) and both were rejected.

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c15970f78b
-High Contrast, Underexposed, and Oversharpened

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b804e43987
-Dark, Noise, Oversharpened, Quality, and Underexposed

Seems to me like the reasons given for the second one means that one is likely a goner.

Also, I have no clue as to why I'm using lower sharpening settings and lately I'm getting hit with OS rejections way more often than in the past.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:31 pm

Ok so I went back and fixed the WN 738 and placed it back into priority explaining the changes I made. And it instantly gets rejected again, but this time for "Blurry".
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4af3c4a268

Now sitting here really confused :(
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:44 pm

The light on the E135 isn't great and I would indeed consider that a goner (sorry).
As for the WN, the second image is definitely better, but I tend to agree that it looks a little blurry/marginal. This should've been mentioned upon first screening though and I'm sorry we wasted your time by failing to do that.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:49 am

airkas1 wrote:
As for the WN, the second image is definitely better, but I tend to agree that it looks a little blurry/marginal. This should've been mentioned upon first screening though and I'm sorry we wasted your time by failing to do that.


It's ok, Kas. :)

Looking at the image in full size, I didn't notice any blurry on the aircraft itself. I guess it's the way the lighting is that makes the plane look blurry, as I took that at a time of day where the sun was starting to get low and cause issues like the ones present on the OneJet.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:38 am

926FR: quite blurry and will not make it
815NN: bit blurry/soft on the front, not sure it's fixable
815MD: blurry (especially nose/nosegear)
327NV: passable
307JB: the front section looks a bit sharp, but quality general quality is marginal
8699A: blurry
757UW: blurry front, especially noticeable on the nosegear
68811: passable

The light really doesn't do you any favors though, so that's an extra handicap when shooting at that time of the day.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:37 pm

Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:59 am

The JetBlue got rejected for OS so I decided to reduce the sharpening from 35% to 25%. Here is the result below. I think it should be fine but any second opinions would be welcomed.
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 504c91cfe4

Here are three more that I took today as well:
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a8d82e10d7
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5834f9e1f8
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e052f82af0 (This would be a priority add since it's a recent fleet addition and there aren't any pics of the registration in the DB yet)
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:53 am

Spirit: Blurry & overexposed aft fuselage
Southwest: Bit soft
Air Canada: overexposed top, marginal quality

The light isn't really great for all of them.

As for the other 4 in the post above it, passable.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:45 am

Thanks again Kas for the feedback. I removed the Spirit, Southwest, and Air Canada from the queue.

All of the above in the prior post were accepted except for the JetBlue again, which this time was rejected for Blurry and OS. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 504c91cfe4

I don't really agree with both, especially the blurry so here is the full size image if anyone wants to view it:
Image
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:49 am

Also, the Gulfstream from above got accepted. But for some reason when it got uploaded the data switched from "G280", the correct type, to "G200" which the registration used to be on. Should it be ok if I go back and edit to change the info?
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:29 am

I corrected the Gulfstream for you, so no need for action from your side. As for the JB, it would seem maskable at a smaller size, but if it has been rejected 2 or 3 times already, perhaps it's better to leave it then.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:35 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I corrected the Gulfstream for you, so no need for action from your side. As for the JB, it would seem maskable at a smaller size, but if it has been rejected 2 or 3 times already, perhaps it's better to leave it then.

Well it's been rejected twice now so I guess I'll just give up on it and add it to my personal page then.

Thanks for fixing the Gulfstream too. :smile:
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Wed May 16, 2018 2:07 am

Hi all,

Any feedback regarding this photo?
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0909a125e7
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Fri May 18, 2018 1:35 am

In addition to the above, anything with this photo?
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7076778ff3

This was an inaugural flight for our local airport, but would this constitute a priority screen?
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Fri May 18, 2018 10:58 am

N868RW : Too overexposed. Little bit Low in frame (Looks not bad).
N8528Q:Too low in frame. I would like to reduce a little bit exposure to make it feels more comfortable.
N8560Z: Too low in frame. Bit of soft to me.
N14230: Bit of overexposed to me. I would tend to reduce bit of exposure.
N327NV: Also looks low in frame to me.
N958UW: Also looks low in frame to me. Bit of low contrast to me. Also looks overexposed. The light is not so well i think.
N408UA: Low in frame to me as well. Bit of low contrast to me.Reducing bit of exposure will be more comfortable i think.
N85352 : Bit of low contrast to me.Nose is bit of soft or blurry to me. Light really not good.

Cheers,
Harry
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Sat May 19, 2018 4:07 am

HarryLi wrote:

Thanks Harry as always for your input. I corrected all of the above based off of your advice.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue May 22, 2018 4:42 pm

I had this Air Canada rejected for Soft:
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7076778ff3

So I decided to add +10% more sharpness to the image and got this result. Should it be ok now?
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 85f59af9f4
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kaphias and 2 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