Improvements and Opinions

Runway28L · Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:42 am

jelpee wrote:
I cannot access the RAW files for which you have shown the links. It takes me to my own Dropbox account. As Stefan as offered as well, if you can send an original as a PM I'd be happy to look at it as well and try an edit for you.

Jehan

My apologies, I'll PM them to you as soon as I regain access to my computer.

Runway28L · Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:08 am

Jehan, I sent you a PM. What is your email address in case the PM still didn't work?

airkas1 · Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:56 am

Those links lead me to my own Dropbox, so I'm unable to view them.

jelpee · Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:13 pm

Runway28L wrote:
Jehan, I sent you a PM. What is your email address in case the PM still didn't work?

I PM'd you back with my email address so you can attach the original file.

Jehan

Runway28L · Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:18 am

Hello everyone,

Jehan and I were able to find a fix for the image quality issue. I went back and re-edited some images while also starting on some new ones.

Re-edits
N744P: http://imgur.com/93OV8sb
N838AW: http://imgur.com/7gQxmiT
N304FR: http://imgur.com/aiWJIxs
70-461: http://imgur.com/mCkzzN5

New batch of images
N835AW: http://imgur.com/MdAIAHm
N717FR: http://imgur.com/tpwsIKm
TF-NEO: http://imgur.com/oZnnIzB (I'm a bit worried that this one is OS)
N9629H: http://imgur.com/4sAAVN9
N946WN: http://imgur.com/d3KIsWk
N566WN: http://imgur.com/cMK9ECq

Runway28L · Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:21 pm

And here is one more

http://imgur.com/uHrXg2y

airkas1 · Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:52 pm

Re-edits:
AA: not bad, but still a little iffy for some reason
AA: overexposed, flat
F9: overexposed, oversharpened
Tail: bit soft (except for red banner & flag)

New:
AA: overexposed
F9: overexposed, oversharpened
WW: flat
AA: oversharpened windowline but otherwise nice
SW: blurry, quality
SW: blurry, quality
AF1: flat, oversharpened

Some of them do still look a bit iffy for some reason, but I can't really pinpoint it. Also, am I correct in assuming that there is snow on the ground where you took those photos?

Runway28L · Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:53 am

Hi Kas,

airkas1 wrote:
AA: not bad, but still a little iffy for some reason

OS at the engines and front of fuselage maybe???

airkas1 wrote:
AA: overexposed, flat

Will go back and adjust the exposure and boost the contrast up.

airkas1 wrote:
F9: overexposed, oversharpened

I agree with OS, will fix that and fix the exposure

airkas1 wrote:
Tail: bit soft (except for red banner & flag)

Alright, will try to boost the sharpening up a bit

airkas1 wrote:
AA: overexposed
F9: overexposed, oversharpened

Will fix the exposure on both and OS on F9

airkas1 wrote:
WW: flat

Ok, will give it more contrast

airkas1 wrote:
AA: oversharpened windowline but otherwise nice

Darn, so close!

I won't hit the windows with the sharpening tool this time

airkas1 wrote:
SW: blurry, quality
SW: blurry, quality

Tried to address that on both, but they ended up being OS quickly. Oh well...

airkas1 wrote:
AF1: flat, oversharpened

Will boost the contrast and try to sharpen it less.

To answer your question: yes, we did have snow on the ground for all of those images. Most likely why some of them are overexposed.

Runway28L · Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:43 am

Finished fixing these

70-0461: http://imgur.com/lgYIjqa
TF-NEO: http://imgur.com/5NRxJUM
N838AW: http://imgur.com/xekSXiM
N835AW: http://imgur.com/t86zVCu
N744P: http://imgur.com/JSy0Dal
N717FR: http://imgur.com/aLVxP9B
N304FR: http://imgur.com/tj5KKQ8
N9629H: http://imgur.com/nIxzBBn
AF1: http://imgur.com/XCnlYRJ

Runway28L · Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:45 am

And three more I just completed
N427UA: http://imgur.com/KxGk5Md
N601AW: http://imgur.com/Q41rKMr
N836NN: http://imgur.com/ZmMjUuP

len90 · Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:19 am

The only three I found issue with were TF-NEO for the color looking off, AF1 but that could just be the chrome belly causing that really washed out color, and N304FR looking dark especially when viewed right after N717FR.

Runway28L · Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:34 am

len90 wrote:
The only three I found issue with were TF-NEO for the color looking off, AF1 but that could just be the chrome belly causing that really washed out color, and N304FR looking dark especially when viewed right after N717FR.

Hi Len... were you looking at the original link for TF-NEO or the most recent link I just posted of it?

Regarding N304FR it was a bit of a challenge trying to find a balance between contrast and the exposure since raising both even at the slightest made the image overexposed. I'm probably going to go back and try that one again anyways.

airkas1 · Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:40 pm

N835AW has a blotchy top of sky now.
N304FR is indeed underexposed now and needs more brightness.
AF1 actually looks a little blurry upon looking at it just now. Also needs deeper black as it looks a bit washed out in general. Also noise/poor sky.

The rest looks alright I think.

Runway28L · Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:18 pm

airkas1 wrote:
N835AW has a blotchy top of sky now.
N304FR is indeed underexposed now and needs more brightness.
AF1 actually looks a little blurry upon looking at it just now. Also needs deeper black as it looks a bit washed out in general. Also noise/poor sky.

The rest looks alright I think.

Kas, thank you as always for your helpful input.

I'll go back and fix the first two.

Re AF1 I was already iffy about that one since it seemed like the front part of that image where the nose is had more noise and blur than the rest of image. Was just curious due to the obvious importance of that bird.

Two more I completed :smile:

N304JB: http://imgur.com/wkGMtyE
N280WN: http://imgur.com/c6bjAx6
^^ I know there's haze in the background but I didn't see any touching parts of the aircraft so I just decided to go ahead and proceed, but would that still warrant an immediate rejection?

Runway28L · Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:19 pm

Also, N838AW and 70-0461 are currently in the queue awaiting to be screened.

airkas1 · Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:29 pm

Unfortunately the JB looks blurry

Heat haze in an image is no issue, as long as the main subject is not affected. But it looks like it did affect the aircraft, as it looks quite marginal. It also needs a much tighter crop than is currently the case. I would advise cropping the left side just near the tail, roughly equal space as between the engine and right side of the frame.

Runway28L · Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:19 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Unfortunately the JB looks blurry
Heat haze in an image is no issue, as long as the main subject is not affected. But it looks like it did affect the aircraft, as it looks quite marginal. It also needs a much tighter crop than is currently the case. I would advise cropping the left side just near the tail, roughly equal space as between the engine and right side of the frame.

Ok, any opinions on these two of 280?
http://imgur.com/F0jQ0Bx
http://imgur.com/EsBtBfK

Runway28L · Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:03 am

Redid N304FR and N835AW
http://imgur.com/0JRWAJ1
http://imgur.com/OMDEcGU

HarryLi · Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:29 pm

The first 280 : The quality of it looks very poor. It seems to be suffered from Heat Haze i think. Blurry ,Soft to me. And i also can see obvious purple edge at the stabilizers.
The second 280 : Looks better than the first one but still has problem. Underexposed/Dark to me. Bit of low contrast. Slight blurry to me.
I did a quick edit of the exposure of the second 280 (I only edited the exposure and contrast and didn't do anything else):

Sharpness of it looks iffy to me.
N304FR : As i can't open the link about it that you posted here before so i can't compare it. But it looks Oversharpened to me and I'll reduce bit of exposure of it to make it more comfortable.
N835AW : Looks fine to me although i prefer to reduce bit of exposure.

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:03 pm

HarryLi wrote:
The first 280 : The quality of it looks very poor. It seems to be suffered from Heat Haze i think. Blurry ,Soft to me. And i also can see obvious purple edge at the stabilizers.
The second 280 : Looks better than the first one but still has problem. Underexposed/Dark to me. Bit of low contrast. Slight blurry to me.
I did a quick edit of the exposure of the second 280 (I only edited the exposure and contrast and didn't do anything else):

Sharpness of it looks iffy to me.

Harry, would you mind sharing what presets you used to get that level of exposure and contrast?

On Lightroom I had Exposure set to +0.30 and Contrast at +30 for that image.

HarryLi wrote:
N304FR : As i can't open the link about it that you posted here before so i can't compare it. But it looks Oversharpened to me and I'll reduce bit of exposure of it to make it more comfortable.

Ok, thank you :smile:

I'll also go back and do my own version of that one again and try to find an acceptable level and reduce the sharpening. Sorry about the link not working.

HarryLi wrote:
N835AW : Looks fine to me although i prefer to reduce bit of exposure.

New version: http://imgur.com/ovClFfC

I barely reduced the exposure as adding more made the image too dark I thought, so I also reduced the "whites".

HarryLi · Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:35 pm

Harry, would you mind sharing what presets you used to get that level of exposure and contrast?

I don't use Lightroom to adjust it. I usually use Photoshop to adjust most of processes of spotting photos. I can PM you the settings later as I am not using my Computer yet.

HarryLi · Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:27 am

The new version of N835NW now looks underexposed. You can see it through the Histogram and the photo does look underexposed.
Besides, it seems that i can't open those links now. Once i open those new links the Old links can't open to me.

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:49 am

HarryLi wrote:
The new version of N835NW now looks underexposed. You can see it through the Histogram and the photo does look underexposed.
Besides, it seems that i can't open those links now. Once i open those new links the Old links can't open to me.

It's probably because when I insert the newest file I delete the old one, so that's likely why you can't see them. I'll leave up the old images up this time.

Btw I received your PM, Harry. Thank you for the info you sent me

A few more I'll add:
http://imgur.com/2gJqx2r
http://imgur.com/xmgsVZZ

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:05 am

New version of N835AW. Let's hope I got it right this time :white:

http://imgur.com/oNvk5pi

HarryLi · Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:12 am

The latest Version of N835AW looks ok to me now although i will use Black Straw to touch the gears because i've tried in my PS base on this latest version and it looks more comfortable you can have a try.
I am not sure about the KC-135 especially the Composition.
JetBlue: Oversharpened, underexposed, Low Contrast i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:27 am

HarryLi wrote:
The latest Version of N835AW looks ok to me now although i will use Black Straw to touch the gears because i've tried in my PS base on this latest version and it looks more comfortable you can have a try.

Would it be the end of the world if I didn't? I hit the gears with the sharpening tool at 50% strength and thought that was good enough to my liking.

HarryLi wrote:
I am not sure about the KC-135 especially the Composition.

I wasn't sure about it either, that's why I posted it in here

If it isn't then no biggie. I have several other files of it.

HarryLi wrote:
JetBlue: Oversharpened, underexposed, Low Contrast i think.

So it's pretty much a goner? Lighting for that pic wasn't very good to start with as the terminal was blocking almost all of the sun.

HarryLi · Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:32 am

Would it be the end of the world if I didn't? I hit the gears with the sharpening tool at 50% strength and thought that was good enough to my liking.

The current one looks ok to me actually. So it depends on you !
For the JB ... I will let it go as the quality seems not so great to me to be honest.

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:39 am

HarryLi wrote:
Would it be the end of the world if I didn't? I hit the gears with the sharpening tool at 50% strength and thought that was good enough to my liking.

The current one looks ok to me actually. So it depends on you !
For the JB ... I will let it go as the quality seems not so great to me to be honest.

Alright, I'm comfortable with how it currently is so I'll go through with that version.

As far as JetBlue goes, I agree with you and will bin it sadly.

airkas1 · Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:03 am

N835AW does look passable to me as well.
The JB is poor quality unfortunately and the KC135 looks a bit blurry

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:36 pm

Guys, N838AW and 70-0461 were both rejected

70-0461:
Blurry

N838AW:
Editing
Noise
Oversharpened
Quality
Personal message "oversaturated"

Here are the links to the two again:
http://imgur.com/lgYIjqa
http://imgur.com/xekSXiM

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:09 pm

http://imgur.com/LqDqy6I
http://imgur.com/0GOEHlU
http://imgur.com/fkYZkxv
http://imgur.com/tA3Atfz
http://imgur.com/rMHCBtC

airkas1 · Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:42 pm

70-0461: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1fbdcb33e3
N838AW: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b47b5639f0

I'd let the tail shot go, but the AA should be fixable. Maybe a little bit more noise reduction and a little less sharpening perhaps and it should be alright. I disagree with blurry, editing and quality.

---
UA: blurry at the back and front (especially nosegear).
SW: blurry/soft.
AA: blurry/soft.
AA: blurry at the back and front (especially nosegear).
UA: passable for me.

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:12 pm

airkas1 wrote:
70-0461: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1fbdcb33e3
N838AW: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b47b5639f0

I'd let the tail shot go, but the AA should be fixable. Maybe a little bit more noise reduction and a little less sharpening perhaps and it should be alright. I disagree with blurry, editing and quality.

Thanks, Kas! What do you suggest in reducing the noise for AA? I sometimes use the Reduce Noise filter on PS but I'm not sure how effective it is.

I don't know how there was an "over saturation" since I didn't even touch the saturation tool at all. Maybe it was from adding contrast...?

airkas1 wrote:
UA: passable for me.

Would it not hurt if I barely took some color out to try and avoid an over saturation rejection again? It seems to me the color on that one is a bit similar to the AA.

airkas1 · Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:35 pm

I use the RAW converter or dfine2 ( the latter comes with the free Google NiK software that is widely available for Photoshop. If you Google it, you should be able to easily find it I think). As for the color on the Ua, it's ok for me as is. The AA didn't look oversaturated to me either.

Runway28L · Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:36 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I use the RAW converter or dfine2 ( the latter comes with the free Google NiK software that is widely available for Photoshop. If you Google it, you should be able to easily find it I think). As for the color on the Ua, it's ok for me as is. The AA didn't look oversaturated to me either.

Thanks, Kas. I'll download the NiK software to my computer.

http://imgur.com/HaGaimo
Reduced the background noise by a lot and slightly reduced some showing on the underside of the fuselage. Also reduced the sharpening filter from 80% down to 65%.

Runway28L · Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:23 pm

Hello everyone. I have a few Deltas I'd like to add to the database:
http://imgur.com/MRnjmNa
http://imgur.com/9NekveQ (Previously showed this one but it has better quality this time)

Here is N838AW revised:
http://imgur.com/HaGaimo

Runway28L · Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:40 pm

Oops, forgot to add this Delta too
http://imgur.com/Uj9LuO4

HarryLi · Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:54 am

N838AW : Looks better than last one.
N965DL : Looks bit of underexposed to me.
N906DE : Slight overexposed to me, i would tend to redce little bit Highlight. Also looks little bit oversharpened and blurry toward the windows.
Delta B738 : "Underexposed" is for sure to me. Obvious vignettings at the upper left and right corner. Looks bit of blurry (not quiet sure).And the aircraft looks bit of too green to me .

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:42 pm

Thanks, Harry! I might just bin the last two Deltas then and work on the first one.

The AA MD-80 successfully passed screening, but N835AW was rejected for Noise and OS. Noise I could agree with as there is some in the background that I probably should've fixed but I don't see any indication of OS.

Runway28L · Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:41 pm

Here are some I took today.

These two are of the same aircraft. Which one should I go with for uploading?
http://imgur.com/MXXqeMZ
http://imgur.com/vAGrSBg

Same scenario for this one:
http://imgur.com/sNyvfVZ
http://imgur.com/qoYKZqc

HarryLi · Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:58 am

N310NV 2: Some parts look oversharpened to me.
N310NV 1: Looks iffy to me and some look slight Oversharpened.
N8711Q 1: Blurry and Oversharpened to me.
N8711Q 2: Looks better but it seems bit of Low in Frame to my taste.

Cheers,
Harry

Runway28L · Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:28 pm

HarryLi wrote:
N310NV 2: Some parts look oversharpened to me.

New version: http://imgur.com/3bHspQ0
Hit every jaggy area I could find with the eraser tool and was more conservative with the sharpening tool this time.

HarryLi wrote:
N8711Q 2: Looks better but it seems bit of Low in Frame to my taste.

New version: http://imgur.com/SjAbgSG
The prior image I wanted it to have a "straighter" angle while landing but that was the highest I could get it in the frame. So this time I gave it some CCW to try and raise it in the frame.

Runway28L · Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:11 am

I also have this photo:
http://imgur.com/NDi9wqY

It's a relatively new delivery that is not in the database yet.

airkas1 · Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:53 pm

The Allegiant and Southwest are marginal, with the SW also being oversharpened.
The United is noisy and oversharpened as-is, but not seems fixable.

Runway28L · Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:45 pm

airkas1 wrote:
The Allegiant and Southwest are marginal, with the SW also being oversharpened.
The United is noisy and oversharpened as-is, but not seems fixable.

By marginal, are you referring to the levels shown on the histogram? I am wondering because the exposure looks fine but that's only when the level is heavily skewed to the right side of the graph. I understand that the goal is to get a balance of the right amount of exposure and at the same time get the levels at or close to the middle of the graph.

airkas1 · Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:55 pm

The exposure looks ok. But when I say marginal, I mean that the quality is marginal in general. I usually use that when it's hard to point out the issues, but the general quality just doesn't look right and I wouldn't attempt to upload that photo.

Runway28L · Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:14 am

airkas1 wrote:
The exposure looks ok. But when I say marginal, I mean that the quality is marginal in general. I usually use that when it's hard to point out the issues, but the general quality just doesn't look right and I wouldn't attempt to upload that photo.

Ok thank you for clarifying that, Kas.

Runway28L · Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:50 pm

Three photos I entered into the database that another site previously accepted were rejected by Anet.
N427UA: http://imgur.com/KxGk5Md
-Grainy, Halos, Low Contrast
N653RW: http://imgur.com/xtAm2T4
-Blurry, Grainy, Halos
N836NN: http://imgur.com/ZmMjUuP
-Blurry, Grainy, Halos, Low Contrast

N838AW was accepted on its second try and so was TF-NEO.

The color on both don't seem right at full size. Is there a way to fix that through a reupload?

airkas1 · Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:59 pm

I just added the reuploads, so the color issue should be fixed shortly.

427UA: seems passable
653RW: seems passable
836NN: perhaps a little blurry towards the back

Runway28L · Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:55 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I just added the reuploads, so the color issue should be fixed shortly.

427UA: seems passable
653RW: seems passable
836NN: perhaps a little blurry towards the back

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.

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?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net