Improvements and Opinions

airkas1 · 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.

Runway28L · 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:
https://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.

airkas1 · Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:29 am

The sharpening looks passable to me.

Runway28L · 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.

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

https://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.

Runway28L · 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".
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4af3c4a268

Now sitting here really confused

airkas1 · 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.

Runway28L · 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.

Runway28L · Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:52 pm

Anything regarding these?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c189657c9c
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8ac1731aa2
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... eeae1d7357
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3445fc967b
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f072897003
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4d85289b9b
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 00ba2ba048
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b4f65f52b5

airkas1 · 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.

Runway28L · Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:37 pm

Ok, I removed the ones that weren't good and replaced them with 4 more that I have left over:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... df140478ec
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5f8e2b11a8
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a0a11e6d2f
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 45411ff955

Runway28L · 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.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 504c91cfe4

Here are three more that I took today as well:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a8d82e10d7
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5834f9e1f8
https://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)

Runway28L · Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:05 am

Any thoughts regarding theses three?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ba4a8d24b4
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c18d970290
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 716bdd8826

airkas1 · 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.

Runway28L · 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. https://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:

Runway28L · 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?

airkas1 · 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.

Runway28L · 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:

Runway28L · Wed May 16, 2018 2:07 am

Hi all,

Any feedback regarding this photo?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0909a125e7

Runway28L · Fri May 18, 2018 1:35 am

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

This was an inaugural flight for our local airport, but would this constitute a priority screen?

Runway28L · Fri May 18, 2018 6:21 am

HarryLi · 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

Runway28L · 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.

Runway28L · Tue May 22, 2018 4:42 pm

I had this Air Canada rejected for Soft:
https://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?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 85f59af9f4

Runway28L · Fri May 25, 2018 4:49 am

Just finished this one and added it to the queue... anything regarding this photo?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 37631a2dbc

Runway28L · Wed May 30, 2018 2:13 am

I have had 2 out of these 3 photos rejected twice already. I have gone back and made changes to them.

(United)
Attempt 1: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0b2103cfe2
-Low Contrast
Attempt 2: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c9c9efc54c
-Low Contrast

Then theres this one... (Delta)
Attempt 1: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 641c6e7cc2
-Overexposed
-Soft
Attempt 2: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4724b8ac92
-Underexposed
-Low Contrast

This is a newer one (Spirit)... was rejected for Soft and Underexposed:
Attempt 1: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 00cd53676d

Here are the latest changes made:
United: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 09121e5d65
Delta: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6249aa9966
Spirit: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2f3e238062

I would like to see if they need more adjustments before they enter screening and are possibly rejected again. It would be nice to finally get these out of my queue as they have been sitting in there for the past 2 weeks from getting re-uploaded often.

airkas1 · Wed May 30, 2018 1:47 pm

United: I'd add some more contrast.
Delta: Looks passable, although hazed.
Spirit: Passable for me.

Runway28L · Wed May 30, 2018 3:36 pm

airkas1 wrote:
United: I'd add some more contrast.
Delta: Looks passable, although hazed.
Spirit: Passable for me.

Ok, I’ll add another 10-15% contrast to the United. Thanks for the reply, Kas.

Runway28L · Thu May 31, 2018 4:24 am

I tried to priority add this photo and it was rejected for Dark.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4bae823ae1

So I tried to mitigate the issue by adjusting the exposure a bit and turning the shadows way up. I also boosted the contrast.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b555fbb0a4

Despite turning the shadows way up, it didn't seem to do much in my eyes and I am having a hard time trying to find a balance. I have considered just bining this photo but a second opinion would be nice.

airkas1 · Thu May 31, 2018 8:32 am

The light just isn't doing you any favors there, so likely the aircraft will always be underexposed and the sky overexposed/blown. Honestly I would bin it and try again another time.

Runway28L · Thu May 31, 2018 3:33 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The light just isn't doing you any favors there, so likely the aircraft will always be underexposed and the sky overexposed/blown. Honestly I would bin it and try again another time.

I had the same thought too. For some reason the shadows barely lit the plane up and just blew out the sky instead. Same with adjusting the exposure. Oh well... maybe next time.

Runway28L · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:36 am

Quick question... nothing pre/post screen related. Thought I'd ask it here:

Usually all of my photos in my queue will say "Screening" in the top right corner.

Well on one of my photos awaiting screening, it says 'High Quality" on the top right. Is there any reason as to why this could be? I uploaded the photo at my normal 1200x800px size and I didn't select any special categories as this is just a regular photo that I would always take.

If anyone is wondering, this is the photo in question:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1e06cd3677

I'm sorry if this is a nooby question. In my 6 months uploading to here I've never seen this before.

spompert · Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:27 am

Hi, it means it has been screened already and was found good but with some minor flaws I believe. If another screener sees it and also thinks it's good enough and gives it a second high quality it will be added. I believe there's a explanation about the screening terms somewhere in the forum. Greets

airkas1 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:52 am

Stefan is correct. More info here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1335771

Runway28L · Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:48 pm

Thanks guys... that explanation makes sense. Scrolled down and saw that whoever screened first asked for a second opinion. Then it was screened again and marked “High Quality 1”

Runway28L · Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:00 pm

The UA B738 got rejected. High in Frame and the screener left a PM:
"Sorry Evan, looks like the previous screener ticked the wrong box. It was high in frame from the beginning. Please take into account the visual weight of the tail when centering, esp. in this kind of angle. Sorry for the misleading screening."

Original LF rejection from May 24th: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9838151649
Latest HF rejection from June 2nd: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1e06cd3677

This is my latest fix. I tried my best based off of the advice given:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ea537d815b

Just want to see if the frame is correct...

Runway28L · Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:03 am

Hi,

I had this image rejected for needing CW rotation:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... af76cdd57a
Trying to see if this fixed it:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... df5609ca5e

I originally thought it was fine as I used the background and the taxiway as a reference for the rotation, but it seems like whoever screened used the sewer grate.

Could someone also comment on the photo in the post above this one?

airkas1 · Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 am

Regarding the HIF, the original edit looks to be the best and not too HIF at all. But since it got rejected for this, the 3rd attempt seems to be the runner-up.
Regarding the CW, original does look CW and the re-edit looks good.

Runway28L · Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:06 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Regarding the HIF, the original edit looks to be the best and not too HIF at all. But since it got rejected for this, the 3rd attempt seems to be the runner-up.

Yeah I too thought the first one looked normal, so I was surprised that it was rejected for LF.

airkas1 wrote:
Regarding the CW, original does look CW and the re-edit looks good.

Runway28L · Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:34 am

Hi... wondering if these could be pre-screened? I originally placed them in the queue but removed them because I didn't like the exposure on some. Went back and got these results:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e8b0648eff
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 53012cee6f
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8f22382d30
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6fe3e526d0
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 557f653f2e
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 717547cbd3
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fff8a38328

Runway28L · Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:40 am

And one more... rejected for Soft, High Contrast, and Underexposed:
Original: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e1e49cf218
New edit: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a04b22ac6f

HarryLi · Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:10 am

Runway28L wrote:
And one more... rejected for Soft, High Contrast, and Underexposed:
Original: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e1e49cf218
New edit: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a04b22ac6f

I'm sorry that it still looks pretty underexposed besides, the colour looks bit of cyan and also looks slight blurry to me.

Runway28L · Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:40 pm

HarryLi wrote:
I'm sorry that it still looks pretty underexposed besides, the colour looks bit of cyan and also looks slight blurry to me.

Hmmm fair enough... thanks Harry. I'll remove the cast and make it brighter... still gonna give it a shot since a photo of mine very similar to that was accepted. If it gets caught by the screeners for something unrepairable such as blurry then I'll bin it.

Runway28L · Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:07 pm

Would like some feedback for this one:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3ef4cebf6b
Rejected for High in Frame and High Contrast.

New edit:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7f2017d6fc

HarryLi · Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:46 am

Contrast looks not bad to me. But it looks slight blurry to me especially the REG and it could be given bit of more exposure or brightness (Just a little bit to me )

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:49 pm

Hi Harry... thanks for your feedback. I went and made it .05 brighter and didn't go over the reg with the eraser like last time.

airkas1 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:03 pm

Passable for me.

Runway28L · Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:07 am

airkas1 wrote:
Passable for me.

Thanks Kas but unfortunately it was just rejected again for High in Frame (?), Noise, Oversharpened, and Underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7f2017d6fc
Not sure why it’s noisy and OS all of a sudden. And the plane is lower in the center of the frame than in the first image I submitted.

Kaphias · Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:52 am

Runway28L wrote:
airkas1 wrote:
Passable for me.

Thanks Kas but unfortunately it was just rejected again for High in Frame (?), Noise, Oversharpened, and Underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7f2017d6fc
Not sure why it’s noisy and OS all of a sudden. And the plane is lower in the center of the frame than in the first image I submitted.

Evidently high-in-frame is the featured rejection reason of the month... I got a batch of unwarranted ones earlier this week, and I've seen a couple of other people mention it in the forums recently.

Runway28L · Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:31 pm

More rejections. Seems like whoever screened my images thinks they are all blurry despite me not seeing it in the full size.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e8b0648eff
-Blurry, Low Contrast, Info, PM
-"Sorry, this image obviously blurry and low contrast. "Builder" section is not applicable and we can not delete it. Please do not enter "Builder" field."

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fff8a38328
-Blurry, OS, Quality, PM
-"blurry in parts and over sharpened in attempt to compensate , poor light conditions"

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 394887c497
-Blurry, OS, Overexposed

Not real happy about the AA A319 rejection in particular because not only it didn’t appear blurry in the original, but it is probably the fifth rejection in a row where the given reasons have completely changed from the prior rejection. Seems like there’s a higher level of inconsistency recently. :twocents:

As far as the PM, I didn’t even enter the image into any fields.

dutchspotter1 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:07 am

Personally I agree on the rejections of the first two photos.
The AA A320 looks OK to me, except maybe a little cyan cast.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net