User avatar
Miguel1982
Head Screener
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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:

Image

From those, note how the second entry has an additional "Builder: Airbus". That is the one you should not select.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6672
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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.
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2802e4355e
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5d7e92c5aa
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7330451709
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
dutchspotter1
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:24 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:47 am

Light isn't great on any of these.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:20 pm

Would like some feedback for this image.
http://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.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
dutchspotter1
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:24 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:39 am

Needs some CW rotation IMO.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:23 pm

Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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?
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Kaphias
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:29 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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?
Matthew
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:36 pm

The AA A320 I showed last week was rejected once again, now for Oversharpened and Underexposed.
http://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.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:22 am

Along with the image in the post above, could someone offer me thoughts on these two? Thanks!
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6234babe4f
http://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.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Screener In Training
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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).
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6672
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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.
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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?
http://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.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

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.
http://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.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Topic Author
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Improvements and Opinions

Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:39 pm

Hi, could someone please give thoughts on these?
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d3c4aa0d27
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 864e69f5a7
http://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.
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: http://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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