Improvements and Opinions

Miguel1982 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:00 am

The "field" remark means that when uploading photos of Boeing and Airbus aircraft (among others) you should avoid sending any "Builder" data, as it only applies for license-built aircraft.

So, when you enter the registration and airport on the photo upload page, and click on Auto Complete, you find a list of possible matches for N809AW. Among them, you find these two entries:

From those, note how the second entry has an additional "Builder: Airbus". That is the one you should not select.

airkas1 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:02 am

And to add to Miguel's explanation; if there is no other option and you see that the builder field is filled in when it shouldn't have been, please simply delete the entry of that field.

As for the photos, I'd let the first 2 go and agree that the third one looks a bit cyan. Otherwise passable.

Runway28L · Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:43 pm

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'll give the AA A320 another go and remove the cyan. Miguel and Kas, I'll delete any Builder entry I see.

3 new ones that I just entered into my queue. Was wondering if they are passable or not.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2802e4355e
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5d7e92c5aa
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7330451709

dutchspotter1 · Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:47 am

Light isn't great on any of these.

Runway28L · Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:20 pm

Would like some feedback for this image.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 95dcc9decf

Having a hard time trying to get the level right. It seems as though despite the building being upright, the ground is not and vise-versa.

dutchspotter1 · Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:39 am

Needs some CW rotation IMO.

Runway28L · Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:23 pm

Went ahead and added more CW.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3db145f36

Runway28L · Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:18 pm

Have a question I'd like to ask...

Due to issues with my Adobe account I am completely locked out of Lightroom CC and can't use it. So for the time being, I am only using PS to edit. Getting used to the workflow and it seems to be working out but I am having one issue while editing. It seems like if I try to lift the shadows even at the slightest, lots of halos will form around the aircraft. Lifting the shadows in Lightroom obviously never led to this but it is happening in PS. Is there a way to mitigate that or should I use a different setting?

Kaphias · Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:38 am

Runway28L wrote:
Have a question I'd like to ask...

Due to issues with my Adobe account I am completely locked out of Lightroom CC and can't use it. So for the time being, I am only using PS to edit. Getting used to the workflow and it seems to be working out but I am having one issue while editing. It seems like if I try to lift the shadows even at the slightest, lots of halos will form around the aircraft. Lifting the shadows in Lightroom obviously never led to this but it is happening in PS. Is there a way to mitigate that or should I use a different setting?

How are you lifting shadows? Shadow/Highlight command? Are you using CameraRAW?

Runway28L · Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:08 pm

Kaphias wrote:
How are you lifting shadows? Shadow/Highlight command? Are you using CameraRAW?

It is indeed Shadows/Highlights. And yes, I am using RAW instead of JPEG.

Runway28L · Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:36 pm

The AA A320 I showed last week was rejected once again, now for Oversharpened and Underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9921bf5fda

Made zero changes to the exposure and it went from Overexposed to Underexposed (?). Sharpening is also on par with other photos of mine that have been accepted.

Strongly considering an appeal but other opinions would be nice as well.

Runway28L · Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:22 am

Along with the image in the post above, could someone offer me thoughts on these two? Thanks!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6234babe4f
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 49ce4fcac0
I have a feeling the second one might be a little OS and bright, but I'm not entirely certain.

HarryLi · Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:02 am

Hi Evan,
AA A320 : I'll tend to agree with "Unerexposed" since i think it could be brighter. Sharpness seems not bad to me. BTW, it has colour issue for me. It looks kind of cyan/blue (Could be fixed easily).
UA Star : Slight OS to me. Light isn't very good.
Spirit : Needs CW Rotation, sharpness and brightness look not bad to me although i'll tend to reduce brightness slightly (Not much).

Runway28L · Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:47 pm

Thanks, Harry!

HarryLi wrote:
AA A320 : I'll tend to agree with "Unerexposed" since i think it could be brighter. Sharpness seems not bad to me. BTW, it has colour issue for me. It looks kind of cyan/blue (Could be fixed easily).

So the image still looks cyan? :scratchchin:

I added +3 red in PS to cancel out the cyan, but if I went above that I saw that the filter would become too obvious in specific areas such as under the fuselage and tail. If it's still cyan I will still go ahead and add more red.

As far as exposure, if it was rejected the first time for OE and then UE the second time when I made no changes to the exposure. So I imagined it was right in the middle but the screeners couldn't seem to figure that out.

HarryLi wrote:
UA Star : Slight OS to me. Light isn't very good.

Is it the STAR ALLIANCE titles across the fuselage giving that indication? Because those seemed hard to get rid of jaggies.

HarryLi wrote:
Spirit : Needs CW Rotation, sharpness and brightness look not bad to me although i'll tend to reduce brightness slightly (Not much).

Totally agree. I just noticed that it looks off and was careless with seeing that. :hissyfit:

I'll probably reduce the exposure by another .05-.10

airkas1 · Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:06 pm

I would let the Star Alliance 737 go. Quality seems poor with quite poor light as well.
Spirit: reduce highlights by -20, reduce the yellow channel by -20/25 (if shot in RAW). Level seems OK.
AA 320: brightness looks ok. color does looks cyan, but when trying to adjust in PS the differences are so marginal that I'm inclined to say that the color is passable.

Runway28L · Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:31 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I would let the Star Alliance 737 go. Quality seems poor with quite poor light as well.

I will have removed it from my queue and will hopefully find a better image of it. Unfortunately, the lighting is something I have to deal with since the primary landing runway here that has way better lighting isn't being used due to a construction project.

airkas1 wrote:
AA 320: brightness looks ok. color does looks cyan, but when trying to adjust in PS the differences are so marginal that I'm inclined to say that the color is passable.

I had the same thought too back when I adjusted the filter. I will try an appeal then.

airkas1 wrote:
Spirit: reduce highlights by -20, reduce the yellow channel by -20/25 (if shot in RAW). Level seems OK.

Re-edited the Spirit and added it back to the queue. How about now?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc3024125a
I adjusted the highlights to -20 and barely gave the image CW since I noticed some of the light poles and the taxiway light in the first one looked off. I also reduced the yellow saturation by a little bit.

Runway28L · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:06 am

Well... the AA A320 was rejected on appeal. :roll:

"Blurry, Quality, and Underexposed"

Here is the link once again.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9921bf5fda

Not sure what could be done other than maybe the exposure. There was no indication of blurry in the original and I am not sure how quality could be poor when I was using my best lens at it's lowest length.

Runway28L · Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:39 pm

Hi, could someone please give thoughts on these?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3c4aa0d27
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 864e69f5a7
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 62f45fb103

The last one is a brand new entry in terms of aircraft type. Just wondering if I got it right...

Thanks.

Runway28L · Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:41 pm

Runway28L wrote:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 62f45fb103

Please disregard the link to the third image above. I found something I didn't like and re-edited it. New version below:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ca9b6a1a68

airkas1 · Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:00 pm

F-35: should be alright
F-16: should be alright
C-130: motive

Runway28L · Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:59 pm

Thanks, Kas. A few more...

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 559c6ac65b
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 757f834a20
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0b8d2683ed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1394b31dfb
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f36a0131a9
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e59c325e8c

I'm a bit iffy on motive for 1, 3, 4, and 5.

DL747 · Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:25 pm

As far as motive, I think all but 4 will be rejected on those grounds. IMO the others are fine, C-5 tail is borderline OS in spots, and I am awful at judging wing views, so I'd wait for Kas. I'm doing the same haha

Runway28L · Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:03 am

I removed the ones where motive is an issue and replaced them with other photos that I thought were less crowded. (A lot of these images were very tricky to take as I constantly had people unexpectedly get in the way of the shot :roll:

). Any feedback would be appreciated.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9b38417b1a
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9d1d5076a7
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b57d7fc888
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f9bccfb520
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b4eb5d8329

airkas1 · Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:35 am

Hawkeye: depends on rarity I guess. difficult call regarding motive
C17: passable
F18: passable
F15: fine
KC135: passable

Runway28L · Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:47 am

Thanks Kas. The C-5M tail, B-52, and AA E190 wing view all passed. Replaced them with 4 more that I would also like feedback on:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8394ad11f8
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b9e8c14bd7
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9153b99d04
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3a1a653c26

spompert · Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:04 am

Runway28L wrote:
Thanks Kas. The C-5M tail, B-52, and AA E190 wing view all passed. Replaced them with 4 more that I would also like feedback on:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8394ad11f8
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b9e8c14bd7
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9153b99d04
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3a1a653c26

Hi, the WOW is soft (or slightly blurry), visible at the wing and windowline. Watch out that it won`t get oversharpened. Frontier looks to have slight yellow or green cast, but not sure.

DL747 · Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:34 pm

F-16: may be a little soft, but looks pretty good
T-1: minor OS, looks to need CCW but I'm a poor judge of rotation in these situations, so let the photoshop ruler decide for you
WOW 321: looks to have blur or softness in spots, nose gear makes me think blur
F9 321: looks low in frame, imo color is fine

Runway28L · Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:55 pm

Thanks guys for the feedback. The T-1 I'm having a hard time judging when it looks level. The version I posted above has about half of the hangar and the ground look uneven yet the right side of the hangar and the pole to the right are leveled. I might make another version adding CCW and compare.

I'm iffy overall on the WW A321. I zoomed in on the original and noticed some parts that looked very suspect but I thought resizing would cover some of that up. I could add selective sharpening to some areas and give it a shot but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Agree that the F9 A321 is a bit low in frame after looking at it again several times. Should've picked that up right off the bat.

Runway28L · Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:59 pm

New versions:

T-1A
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a4fe1d349e
Added CCW and increased eraser strength.

WW A321
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1091141a09
Added sharpening and increased eraser strength to compensate.

F9 A321
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5a8610909a
Lifted frame.

Runway28L · Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:32 pm

airkas1 wrote:
KC135: passable

Just came back from screening. Was rejected for "Dark".
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b4eb5d8329

If Dark implies that the image is backlit, then how can that be valid? It certainly isn't backlit... I even waited until it wasn't to take that image.

DL747 · Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:09 pm

I don't think they're implying backlit, it does have a bit of a dark feel, but imo it is passable. I'd suggest either slightly bump the exposure/shadows, or appeal. As for new versions, the T-1 is still borderline OS but to me is acceptable, the WW looks slightly blurry in spots and minor OS to compensate, the F9 is good to go imo. Pardon the rhyme.

Runway28L · Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:49 pm

Thanks... I can see what you mean. I'll probably lift the shadows and adjust the exposure to compensate before re-adding to the queue. Likely not gonna appeal since the last few I've filed have not gone my way.

Runway28L · Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:16 am

I am looking to add this to priority screen but I would like some feedback on this image first:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a6aa2d3530

DL747 · Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:29 am

Tough light, looks borderline OS in a couple spots, sky has some odd blotchiness, although that could just be the light. Overall borderline imo. Why priority?

Runway28L · Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:37 am

DL747 wrote:
Tough light, looks borderline OS in a couple spots, sky has some odd blotchiness, although that could just be the light. Overall borderline imo.

Lighting is tough I will agree. Where do you see the sky being blotchy? I think it may be cloud cover since I did add NR to the sky after sharpening.

DL747 wrote:
Why priority?

Inaugural service.

DL747 · Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:09 am

The blotchiness looked to be in the upper left, it is either a blown out cloud or artifact of NR.

Runway28L · Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:53 pm

Well I reopened the final version of the MU 77W and yes I can definitely see the blotchiness after equalizing the image. Most likely developed from the lighting. Was wondering if that could be fixed? Since there were a few images I took this past winter with the same problem and I could never fix it.

airkas1 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:36 am

Blotchiness is usually caused by noise reduction. Can sometimes be fixed with some careful editing, but sometimes you're just SOL. For the MU, would even be better if the cart lower right could be avoided.

Runway28L · Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:39 pm

Turns out I added way too much noise reduction to the sky which likely caused the issue. I didn't add any this time (the background didn't need NR that much to be honest). Didn't see any after blotchiness editing and reuploaded.

airkas1 wrote:
For the MU, would even be better if the cart lower right could be avoided.

Unfortunately I don't have any images with it not there. Is it that serious of an issue for motive?

airkas1 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:22 pm

Difficult to say. Try and see how it's received.

Runway28L · Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:45 am

I tried the MU on priority and it came back rejected for Noise, Motive, and Oversharpened.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a68dd9a6f5

Honestly I may just bin this for good and try to find a better image to use.

Runway28L · Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:10 am

In the meantime, I just added two to the queue. Both were taken through a window and I had to change the color a bit so I'm wondering if color is ok...

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ca7bfa1c28
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 41029b8ca2

Runway28L · Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:02 am

Any feedback for this image?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d5232f5071

DL747 · Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:17 am

IMO I would bin the MU, sorry. UA looks a tad soft at the nose but may be passable, AA 321 seems low and needing CW but I feel like the rotation is my eyes tricking me. I would let the trusty old ruler tool decide that one. MU inflight looks to be in harsh light, top is almost blown out and the shadows are quite dark, looks borderline OS in spots to me. Something weird happened to the reg, it looks all blurry and jumbled?

Runway28L · Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:32 am

Oops, the AA A321 was't the final version. The one above I found out was a new reg and tried to priority add it but was rejected for Soft. I adjusted the rotation and gave it 10% more sharpening.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5397f28ccf

As for the MU inflight, I really think it looks 'off', which is why I linked it in a reply.

I may have lost an abnormal amount of quality when resizing it... ended up having to add way more sharpening than usual. It could be why the reg and other parts of the aircraft look funny.

Runway28L · Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:48 pm

The AA was rejected again but for Blurry, OS, and Quality:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5397f28ccf

Added sharpening after the original rejection for Soft, but now it's all of a sudden OS? I am also not seeing any blur in the original.

I took this shot through a window and they aren't exactly the greatest here. Maybe that's what is causing issues?

Runway28L · Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:13 pm

Also another rejection. Rejected twice now for Underexposed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... deaa8d08ef

I'm not sure how I can make it any brighter? The lighting is already a bit on the harsh side. Anyone have any imput?

ChrisLait · Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:40 pm

I agree about your concerns brightening it further as I have had similar issues. Are you able to play with the highlights and / or lighten up the shadows so it appears lighter without actually changing the exposure itself?

Runway28L · Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:16 am

Chris, thanks for the feedback and I took your advice for the F-16. I lifted the shadows a little, reduced the highlights, and added back brightness to offset.

Old version vs latest version:
Old: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... deaa8d08ef
New: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 53048309bb

Also, this United B738 was rejected for Low in Frame and Cyan cast:
Old: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d4de3c6418
New: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fdc4d50bd1

I don't know if I added enough red (+4), anyone with feedback regarding that?

airkas1 · Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:36 am

The new F-16 edit looks better and is OK for me
United is also better.

What happened with the cloud towards the top right by the way? If you flip through both images quickly, the top part disappears in the old edit

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net