Improvements and Opinions

airkas1 · Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:09 pm

Runway28L wrote:
I get that different sites may have different standards, but it just seems odd that JetPhotos accepted those three but Anet rejected them with similar reasons given. Would it be worth appealing all three or could I just go back and modify them and place them through the queue again?

I'd add the first 2 on appeal. If you decide to appeal, let me know (send me a quick E-mail at airkas1[at]airliners.net) and I'll take care of it.

HarryLi · Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:51 am

I went back and changed the color settings to sRBG this time and the color looks normal again. I wonder why PS will sometimes randomly not save my images as sRBG

No matter if the PS will help me convert it to sRGB or not, i will convert it to sRGB everytime manually before i save it. If you don't want to do so everytime you can convert it in your camera settings you'll find it in your camera and then turn it to sRGB. Thne would be ok. But, IMO. I would suggest you to make sure that you save it as sRGB when u save it although you have turned it to sRGB in you camera.

Pay attention to this part is sRGB when you save your photos.

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:58 am

Kas, I emailed you that I have appealed both Uniteds. Harry, thank you for the info too. My camera is already set at sRBG its just for some reason PS doesn't always do so. Will keep that in mind before I go save.

airkas1 · Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:50 am

Both Uniteds added :thumbsup:

However the color profile for these 2 is also incorrect, so a reupload is needed for both as well.

Runway28L · Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:29 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Both Uniteds added

However the color profile for these 2 is also incorrect, so a reupload is needed for both as well.

Kas, thank you very much! :mrgreen:

I'll fix the color and re upload both once I get on my computer.

Runway28L · Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:00 am

New photos I took earlier today:
http://imgur.com/rZSFrwN
http://imgur.com/BTpTZgX
http://imgur.com/Girzucj
http://imgur.com/654t4cb
http://imgur.com/8ZoHbDP

These two are of the same aircraft, but I'd like to know which one is better. Personally, I think the second one looks a bit better.
http://imgur.com/UzWIilE
http://imgur.com/wc8iFDR

Runway28L · Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:52 am

http://imgur.com/myKfMXP
http://imgur.com/AFmAenY

airkas1 · Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:40 pm

For C-GBIA, it probably depends on what angle you like better, as the quality seems similar for both photos.
The AA seems a little blurry and oversharpened to compensate.
the Delta is a bit too sharp and yellow (despite the low sun).

Runway28L · Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:52 pm

airkas1 wrote:
For C-GBIA, it probably depends on what angle you like better, as the quality seems similar for both photos.
The AA seems a little blurry and oversharpened to compensate.
the Delta is a bit too sharp and yellow (despite the low sun).

Thanks, Kas. I'll probably go with the second Air Canada.

I'll double check the AA too because I don't remember seeing any bluriness anywhere on the aircraft when I checked the original file before editing. If there is I'll choose another file I have of it.

The Delta... is the yellow fixable at all? Maybe reduce yellow saturation? I'll also reduce the sharpening on it.

HarryLi · Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:59 pm

I agree with Kas viewpoints.

The Delta... is the yellow fixable at all? Maybe reduce yellow saturation?

I've tried to reduce yellow saturation of the delta in my LR. It does work but when you reduce the saturation i think you should pey attention to the luminance of the colour or it would be pretty weird or looks underexposed i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:23 pm

airkas1 wrote:
the Delta is a bit too sharp and yellow (despite the low sun).

HarryLi wrote:

How about this one? :scratchchin:

http://imgur.com/s7FL7j9

Took 45% of yellow saturation out, Added 10% luminance, and reduced sharpening from 65% to 55%.

airkas1 · Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:37 am

Color looks great now, but the quality seems somewhat iffy still.

Runway28L · Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:43 am

airkas1 wrote:
Color looks great now, but the quality seems somewhat iffy still.

Where do you think quality may be an issue? On the plane? The sky? Or even the entire image?

Also, what could be the cause of a quality issue in this particular photo? I read the overview of "Quality' in the acceptance guide but it imo it seems like I don't have the major issues that the section highlighted.

Runway28L · Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:42 am

More new images I took today:
http://imgur.com/jxCAdpz
http://imgur.com/y6Q79rQ
http://imgur.com/vIQS4yq
http://imgur.com/REOmTF4
http://imgur.com/CQUvSI8
http://imgur.com/0THH1JR
http://imgur.com/b9YarCp
http://imgur.com/8FILgoS
http://imgur.com/nLm9j0U
http://imgur.com/3n4DWtr
http://imgur.com/4UWGF0r
http://imgur.com/9NxB3mu

airkas1 · Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:01 pm

Regarding the DL Mad Dog; it still seems on the sharp side, perhaps that's why I'm thinking it looks marginal. I'm not sure if it was asked before, but what is your sharpening process like? And what values do you use for sharpening?

---
SW: looks alright
JB: very oversharpened
UA: oversharpened
UA: nose gear & wing edges oversharpened
AA: nose gear oversharpened
SW: cockpit area a bit blurry, may be alright
AA: looks alright
AA: looks alright
AA: looks alright
AA: looks alright
SW: looks alright
SW: looks alright

Runway28L · Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:20 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Regarding the DL Mad Dog; it still seems on the sharp side, perhaps that's why I'm thinking it looks marginal. I'm not sure if it was asked before, but what is your sharpening process like? And what values do you use for sharpening?

1. Duplicate layer
2. Select the plane and background with the magic wand
3. Inverse and expand the selection by 5
4. Apply the Smart Sharpen filter. I usually set it between 50% and 65% depending on the image, as well as noise reduction between 10-20%.
5. Use the earser at 70% opacity to mitigate jaggies, then use sharpening tool to define areas such as cockpit windows, wing boxes, and landing gear.
6. Inverse again, apply Smart Sharpen filter at 5% amd set noise reduction between 25-50%, sometimes even higher if there's no clouds and a lot of background noise.
7. Flatten image and deselect.

Runway28L · Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:03 pm

JetBlue: http://imgur.com/fXfe0Kc
-Reduced sharpening from 60% to 45%

UA: http://imgur.com/NaMxzZ6
-Reduced sharpening from 60% to 50%

UA: http://imgur.com/978cvf4
-Reduced sharpening from 60% to 55% just to be safe. Also hit the leading edge and wingtips with the eraser tool. I realized I forgot to use the eraser on both areas in the original.

AA: http://imgur.com/ZxkypZG
-I think I went a bit too excessive on the nose gear with the sharpening tool at first, so I barely went over it this time.

airkas1 · Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:16 pm

Runway28L wrote:
airkas1 wrote:
Regarding the DL Mad Dog; it still seems on the sharp side, perhaps that's why I'm thinking it looks marginal. I'm not sure if it was asked before, but what is your sharpening process like? And what values do you use for sharpening?

1. Duplicate layer
2. Select the plane and background with the magic wand
3. Inverse and expand the selection by 5
4. Apply the Smart Sharpen filter. I usually set it between 50% and 65% depending on the image, as well as noise reduction between 10-20%.
5. Use the earser at 70% opacity to mitigate jaggies, then use sharpening tool to define areas such as cockpit windows, wing boxes, and landing gear.
6. Inverse again, apply Smart Sharpen filter at 5% amd set noise reduction between 25-50%, sometimes even higher if there's no clouds and a lot of background noise.
7. Flatten image and deselect.

The method is good, but I'd like to suggest a lower amount of sharpening. Try 30%, instead of 50/65. If the image is still soft after one pass of sharpening, repeat steps one more time. Use the eraser at 100% opacity. If the top layer is jaggy, use the eraser. If the area is still jaggy, go to the first layer and use the eraser there. No further sharpening except this.

I'll look at the re-edits tomorrow, as my eyes are tired now.

Runway28L · Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:20 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The method is good, but I'd like to suggest a lower amount of sharpening. Try 30%, instead of 50/65. If the image is still soft after one pass of sharpening, repeat steps one more time. Use the eraser at 100% opacity. If the top layer is jaggy, use the eraser. If the area is still jaggy, go to the first layer and use the eraser there. No further sharpening except this.

I'll look at the re-edits tomorrow, as my eyes are tired now.

Thanks Kas for the quick reply

I'll be sure to give that method a try at some point!

Runway28L · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:59 pm

Need help with the Air Canada: http://m.imgur.com/wc8iFDR

Rejected for Blurry and Oversharpened. Didn't see any blurriness and I believe the sharpening is fine. Another site also accepted it with no issues.

HarryLi · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:12 pm

Canada looks not bad to me.

Runway28L · Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:43 pm

Two more rejections...
N753US:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fa93d70b2b
High Contrast and Oversharpened.

N8322X:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b4365ed3c8
Low Contrast and Overexposed.

On a brighter note, N230WN made it in.

airkas1 · Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:18 pm

I agree with the rejection on N753US for those reasons.
8322X isn't either of those rejections and passable (although a bit marginal)

Runway28L · Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:22 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I agree with the rejection on N753US for those reasons.
8322X isn't either of those rejections and passable (although a bit marginal)

Thank, Kas! I'll fix AA and may appeal the WN.

What are your thoughts on this rejection?:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e150ba505f

This one was rejected for Blurry and OS.

Runway28L · Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:10 pm

I took this photo the other day and added it to Priority as it was a new registration. Unfortunately it was rejected for High Contrast and Color, including a "Cyan cast" PM.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8666abe007

How could I get rid of the cast in Lightroom? I tried reducing the blue saturation but it made the colors look weird.

airkas1 · Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:37 pm

It's not super cyan and in fact I find it hard to see. What you can do is (if you shoot RAW), to reduce the cyan slider with -20 or so. I agree a little less contrast would be better as well.

The Air Canada looks alright to me, although a small disclaimer that my eyes are a bit tired at the moment.

Runway28L · Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:20 am

airkas1 wrote:
It's not super cyan and in fact I find it hard to see. What you can do is (if you shoot RAW), to reduce the cyan slider with -20 or so. I agree a little less contrast would be better as well.

The Air Canada looks alright to me, although a small disclaimer that my eyes are a bit tired at the moment.

I went back and fixed the Southwest and placed it back in Priority. This time it got accepted.

Runway28L · Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:38 am

I appealed the Air Canada and once again recieved a Blurry/OS rejection

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e150ba505f

Since it went through appeal there's probably not much I can do for it now.

airkas1 · Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:34 am

Runway28L wrote:
Since it went through appeal there's probably not much I can do for it now.

This is correct. Even though I still maintain it looks passable, apparently my colleague didn't agree, sorry.

Runway28L · Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:02 am

Any second opinions of this one?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8215e3db75

Rejected for Overexposed and OS.

airkas1 · Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:11 pm

Passable for me.

HarryLi · Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:05 pm

Looks ok i think. I don't see jaggys or other trails of OS in the pic.

Runway28L · Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:12 am

Thank you Kas and Harry for your imput. Just for the sake of the screener and avoiding a dice roll of an appeal like the Air Canada, I lowered the exposure and sharpening on that photo just barely and re-uploaded while also providing the info on the changes made.

I've added this one to the queue but I have a question about this one:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f6b1d98b71
There was some haloing underneath the fuselage near the registration and L2 door, so I used the spot healing tool to erase the halos. But the area appears a bit suspect in my opinion as I don't know if I accidentally erased part of the fuselage or if that area doesn't look natural. What do you all think?

airkas1 · Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:58 am

For the AA B738, it does look weird and I would pull the photo and make a better edit before uploading it again.

Runway28L · Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:57 am

Kas, I pulled the original image, went back, and fixed the image. How about this one?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f6fb2e48cb

Runway28L · Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:23 am

The United got rejected again, this time just for OS. Thinking about reducing the sharpening a bit again...?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 68b1d812f3

This Allegiant was also rejected for OS.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8272ae6ee6

keesje · Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:54 pm

I'm not really a spotter and only offered a few photo's over the last 15 yrs.

2 weeks ago I incidently took a few photo's and uploaded one for publishing.

Apparently there little good on this photo:

Here's why your photo was rejected:

- Distance
- Motive
- Noise
- Oversharpened
- Personal Message
- Quality
- Underexposed

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Noisy sky, too much 'dead' space top and bottom. Seems to be a cellphone photo, general quality is insufficient. Also not for the creative queue."

Here it is :guilty:

.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/40076580564/in/dateposted-public/

Apparently I still have a lot to learn ! I will study thousands of way better, more interesting side views like

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/7/3/4889377.jpg?v=v4d529246ac3

that get approved and avoid "noisy skies", "motive", "dead space" and "distance"

We have to keep quality standards high!

airkas1 · Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:08 pm

Hoi Kees,

Please create a separate feedback thread of your own if you wish to receive feedback. Currently, you're hijacking someone else's. As for your photo, that was my doing. While I personally think the KLM is a bit boring as well and has some minor flaws as well, your photo is lacking in quality. the noisy sky is well visible, it needs a tighter crop and the snowmobile is blocking the helicopter (= motive). As I mentioned as a personal message, it seems to be a smartphone photo and the points described above arre typical for smartphone photos (as experienced myself).

keesje · Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:07 pm

Hi Airkas1 thank you.

You are right the sky is bad & the snowmobile is really blocking the helicopter.

It lacks in quality for a.net . I uploaded it elsewhere.

Best regards

Runway28L · Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:22 am

Yesterday we got several inches of snow which caused the lighting this afternoon to be a bit weird. These 4 I've uploaded I'm not quite so sure about...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 92c6f82762
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 40bb6c2d61
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ce8f0de72a
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2ed1cb2565

Thank you for your time!

HarryLi · Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:43 am

USAF : Looks bit of underexposed to me. I think it could have bit of more contrast too.
DELTA: Looks not bad to me.
AA: Not quiet sure. The sharpness looks iffy.
FEDEX: Looks not bad although the cockpit windows look slight OS to me i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:01 am

Thanks, Harry. Here are the new versions with changes:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 22bc7a8eac
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4aeceeb14a

Runway28L · Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:30 am

Any thoughts on these?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a9bc39da37
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 990e12599d
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5455e37b15
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b151d05259 (No photos of this aircraft in the DB)

airkas1 · Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:26 am

Condor: underexposed, bit sharp, marginal quality
Qatar: oversharpened
American: CW rotation needed
The C130 is OK for me for a new frame. New regs qualify for priority screening

Runway28L · Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:37 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Condor: underexposed, bit sharp, marginal quality
Qatar: oversharpened
American: CW rotation needed
The C130 is OK for me for a new frame. New regs qualify for priority screening

Thank you for your feedback, Kas. I forgot to mention for the AA E175... I used the building to the far left that's just under the wing as a reference point and tried to get it upright. Would you suggest usimg the background next to it instead?

Runway28L · Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:17 am

Any chance of these photos making it? Lighting wasn't the best and tried hard to make the best possible adjustments.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5a0ae8e21d
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4c2fe43ffb

vcruvinel · Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:17 am

Runway28L wrote:
Any chance of these photos making it? Lighting wasn't the best and tried hard to make the best possible adjustments.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5a0ae8e21d
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4c2fe43ffb

Hi,

For me both photos lacks contrast.

Best Regards,

Vinicius

vikkyvik · Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:33 am

Runway28L wrote:
Any chance of these photos making it? Lighting wasn't the best and tried hard to make the best possible adjustments.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5a0ae8e21d
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4c2fe43ffb

FedEx looks blurry, which makes everything else a moot point.

As for Spirit, well, I've seen worse lighting accepted. Maybe a touch soft though.

HarryLi · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:33 am

I would say that the quality of both of them are marginal to me. As Vik said the Fedex has blurry parts and it seems to be suffered from heat haze slightly.
Spirit is marginal.

Runway28L · Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:54 am

Thanks guys for the input. I've removed the FedEx from the queue. If the Spirit is marginal then I may do the same for that one.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net