Let's start off this year with a lot of rejections:
Blurry and Oversharpened: The only areas sharpened are windows, gear, cockpit, nose, registrations. Didn't see blur on the full sizes when I selected the images for processing and uploading.
DL 757: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 973d098da4
B6 E190: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bceca99eae
Soft:
Aeroflot 77W: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 224120ae27
- This one is kind of iffy along the window line. I sharpened it but think the color of the fuselage plays a role
Underexposed:
Kalitta 744: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e9d524ae70
- Not really sure of anything on this given it's similarity to the LH 744 that was accepted.
Air Berlin A333: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8db16fb25e
Delta A319: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... acb8471796
- I know the sky is not the nicest for this but you can tell there is sunlight by looking at the number 2 engine. The question is how much room does this really have for acceptance before it goes the other way.
Darks:
Saudia 77W: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dd8b246764
- This also came with a noise rejection. Don't see any noise but will ultimately be choosing another shot from the sequence. The rear 3/4 shot came out a lot better.
Open Skies 757: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0a63994fe8
- Rejected for dark after a second opinion. Identical brightness to the Volaris A320 that was accepted in the same batch as this image.
Cathay 77W: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7201fd54b5
- This one also had a vignette. I've equalized this one in photoshop and looked at thumbnail size and there is nothing there. Brightness is the only part I am on the fence about.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Hi Len,
DL 757 : The nose and the cockpit and the title look like blurry to me. Do not see obvious Oversharpened.
B6 E190 : Do not see obvious blurry maybe some parts look slight soft. The nose and the tail (Jet Blue letters) look slight Soft to me.
Aeroflot 77W : The sharpness looks not so bad i think. The windows wich after the win look soft.
Kalitta 744 : I did a quick editing in my PS and it does could be brighter.
Berlin A330 : Also could be brighter i think.
DL A319 : Brightness looks ok to me at this situation.
Saudi 77W : Agree with Dark as it could be brighter.Noise looks ok to me.
757: Looks ok to me.
CX Oneworld : Dark problem looks ok to me although i think it could be brighter. Vignette is iffy to me as after using Equalize in PS i still can see slight black area in the upper right corner.
Cheers,
Harry
DL 757 : The nose and the cockpit and the title look like blurry to me. Do not see obvious Oversharpened.
B6 E190 : Do not see obvious blurry maybe some parts look slight soft. The nose and the tail (Jet Blue letters) look slight Soft to me.
Aeroflot 77W : The sharpness looks not so bad i think. The windows wich after the win look soft.
Kalitta 744 : I did a quick editing in my PS and it does could be brighter.
Berlin A330 : Also could be brighter i think.
DL A319 : Brightness looks ok to me at this situation.
Saudi 77W : Agree with Dark as it could be brighter.Noise looks ok to me.
757: Looks ok to me.
CX Oneworld : Dark problem looks ok to me although i think it could be brighter. Vignette is iffy to me as after using Equalize in PS i still can see slight black area in the upper right corner.
Cheers,
Harry
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Hi Len,
I mainly agree with Harry.
Neither the DL nor the Jet Blue look oversharpened to me, but on the DL the windows look at least rather soft and the Jet Blue looks infact slightly blurry.
Aeroflot: I agree that the light / fuselage colour plays a role, but the light wasn't great.
Kalitta: Looks fine to me.
Air Berlin: Is underexposed to me.
Delta: Maybe borderline for exposure, but looks also okay to me.
Saudia: definitely a bit dark, but I cannot see noise neither
Open Skies: Looks fine to me
CX. Tricky as (like the Air Berlin and the Saudi) it is rather top-lit. The high shadows give it a dark feeling, but the top looks a bit washed out. It is a bit brighter in the middle than on the corners, but ones has to look close to see that.
What the equalized version says shouldn't matter... Viewers won't equalize a shot.
Cheers.
Juien
I mainly agree with Harry.
Neither the DL nor the Jet Blue look oversharpened to me, but on the DL the windows look at least rather soft and the Jet Blue looks infact slightly blurry.
Aeroflot: I agree that the light / fuselage colour plays a role, but the light wasn't great.
Kalitta: Looks fine to me.
Air Berlin: Is underexposed to me.
Delta: Maybe borderline for exposure, but looks also okay to me.
Saudia: definitely a bit dark, but I cannot see noise neither
Open Skies: Looks fine to me
CX. Tricky as (like the Air Berlin and the Saudi) it is rather top-lit. The high shadows give it a dark feeling, but the top looks a bit washed out. It is a bit brighter in the middle than on the corners, but ones has to look close to see that.
What the equalized version says shouldn't matter... Viewers won't equalize a shot.
Cheers.
Juien
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
DL: We discussed this one already, right?
B6: has a blurryish/soft tail, but is otherwise OK for me
SU: soft
Kalitta, AB & DL are ok for me
Saudia: could use some brightness, but not bad
Open Skies: fine for me as well
The CX look alright to me, but light is very harsh.
B6: has a blurryish/soft tail, but is otherwise OK for me
SU: soft
Kalitta, AB & DL are ok for me
Saudia: could use some brightness, but not bad
Open Skies: fine for me as well
The CX look alright to me, but light is very harsh.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Thanks for the help. Saudia will be a better image, B6 will be sharpened on the tail, SU gets sharpened.
Heres another one for the centering debate.
Rejected for High in Frame:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 378d42a9de
I appealed with this statement: "Center of fuselage is placed slightly below the center point to account for that tall wing and winglet of the 767. Similar shots have had discussions in the past. Dropping the plane lower to get that wing away from the top of the frame is actually incorrect as the main subject will be sitting too low."
Rejected on appeal with Common, High in Frame, Personal with comment: "quite high in frame, easily recognizable when looking at the thumbnail".
This gets complicated by this acceptance:
Now look at both images and see where there is a difference, there is virtually none. This statement is backed up by the measurements.
Rejected image measurements:
Empty space from top of fuselage to top of frame: 297 pixels
Empty space from bottom of fuselage to bottom of frame: 262 pixels
Bottom of main gear to bottom of frame: 184 pixels
Accepted image measurements:
Empty space from top of fuselage to top of frame: 295 pixels
Empty space from bottom of fuselage to bottom of frame: 263 pixels (stopped at the copyright bar)
Bottom of main gear to bottom of frame: 180 pixels
What is one to do in this instance?
Heres another one for the centering debate.
Rejected for High in Frame:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 378d42a9de
I appealed with this statement: "Center of fuselage is placed slightly below the center point to account for that tall wing and winglet of the 767. Similar shots have had discussions in the past. Dropping the plane lower to get that wing away from the top of the frame is actually incorrect as the main subject will be sitting too low."
Rejected on appeal with Common, High in Frame, Personal with comment: "quite high in frame, easily recognizable when looking at the thumbnail".
This gets complicated by this acceptance:
Now look at both images and see where there is a difference, there is virtually none. This statement is backed up by the measurements.
Rejected image measurements:
Empty space from top of fuselage to top of frame: 297 pixels
Empty space from bottom of fuselage to bottom of frame: 262 pixels
Bottom of main gear to bottom of frame: 184 pixels
Accepted image measurements:
Empty space from top of fuselage to top of frame: 295 pixels
Empty space from bottom of fuselage to bottom of frame: 263 pixels (stopped at the copyright bar)
Bottom of main gear to bottom of frame: 180 pixels
What is one to do in this instance?
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Hey Len.
actually as long as I've been on a.net it was always said you shouldn't center on the fuselage only and take the whole airplane into account. I know other websites supposedly have a different stance.
I think there would be an easy solution for yours, in the end it is only problematic because of the 16:9 crop (I d say the shot isn't suited for it), make a regular 3:2 out of it and there wouldn't be a debate. The debate is only there as the winglet almost touches the top of the frame.
Possibly due to the tail being higher the rejected image feels indeed higher in frame than the accepted one. That's all I can say.
actually as long as I've been on a.net it was always said you shouldn't center on the fuselage only and take the whole airplane into account. I know other websites supposedly have a different stance.
I think there would be an easy solution for yours, in the end it is only problematic because of the 16:9 crop (I d say the shot isn't suited for it), make a regular 3:2 out of it and there wouldn't be a debate. The debate is only there as the winglet almost touches the top of the frame.
Possibly due to the tail being higher the rejected image feels indeed higher in frame than the accepted one. That's all I can say.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
The rejected photo is not high in frame. Yes, it looks like it, but when you qctually place the aircraft lower in the frame, it will look even even more out of balance. I've found out the hard way a while ago, where I rejected a similar photo for HIF, only to have the photographer reupload the same image but lower and it looked even worse.
Julien's solution will of course work. But I also agree with your appeal comment. Unfortunately it's already gone through the appeal process, so the only thing you can do is re-edit and place the aircraft a bit lower (a small subtle change, but change nonetheless, otherwise you'll get hit for reuploading).
Julien's solution will of course work. But I also agree with your appeal comment. Unfortunately it's already gone through the appeal process, so the only thing you can do is re-edit and place the aircraft a bit lower (a small subtle change, but change nonetheless, otherwise you'll get hit for reuploading).
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Thanks Kas! I prefer the 16:9 ratio for editing as it keeps a lot of dead sky space out of the frame. Unfortunately it has led to some aircraft shots that have these instances. A319s (especially with sharklet), B763 with singlet, and a few others will have this tall wing. You back my point perfectly about the balancing it out. I might go for a re-edit, I might not even bother as it is a basic aircraft at a regular location.
Julien, you are right about the balance of the shot. However you balance for the tall wing and the gear is riding way too low. The format change would work but then I would have to resort to 3:2 for every picture as I want things to look all the same.
Julien, you are right about the balance of the shot. However you balance for the tall wing and the gear is riding way too low. The format change would work but then I would have to resort to 3:2 for every picture as I want things to look all the same.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Blurry and Oversharpened: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... aef3e9605b
Only areas sharpened: windows, cockpit, nose, gear, registration. Registration probably is the only thing that looks to have any signs of being a bit sharp. Not sure where the blurry is coming from
Only areas sharpened: windows, cockpit, nose, gear, registration. Registration probably is the only thing that looks to have any signs of being a bit sharp. Not sure where the blurry is coming from
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
The website on the engine looks slight blurry especially the glare area. The stabilizers and the nose area look more soft than other areas. So i think maybe the blurry comes from unbalanced sharpness of the aircraft. Besides, i think it could have bit of more sharpness. ( But REG is close to OS )
Cheers,
Harry
Cheers,
Harry
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Re. the Caribbean 737, I wouldn't say over sharpened, but definitely blurry (especially visible in the main title and nose). There are cases where sharpening has been used to compensate for blur and it results in an odd mix of the both. I'm not seeing so much of that in this image, but definitely would earn a "blurry" rejection.
Jehan
Jehan
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
A few new ones:
Delta 737 Overexposed: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b2e11dd4f8
- Maybe like at most .15 over but didn't think really an issue given a lot of underexposed rejections I have had
AeroMexico E190 Soft: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8bacf9d7f4
- Is it just all over?
BA 747 Colour/OS: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 73663964e1
- Not sure how it is oversharpened when all I touch are the gear, windows, cockpit, nose, registration. Colour usually comes with a personal if it is a color cast so this will need some clarification
Virgin A333 Soft/OS/Personal: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0425766b41
Sharpening the same setup as the BA 747. I'm not seeing jaggies anywhere that would hint at OS. Personal was a OS everywhere except for left wing which is Soft.
Delta 767 Blurry/Soft/Category/Personal: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f476bac80a
- The personal was telling me it should be colorful paint for the nose decal, but I didn't think those were enough to classify as a colorful special... live and learn on that I guess. As for the blurry, I pulled the full size and there is no blur on it. Is it just soft then? If so what needs sharpening.
Delta 737 Overexposed: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b2e11dd4f8
- Maybe like at most .15 over but didn't think really an issue given a lot of underexposed rejections I have had
AeroMexico E190 Soft: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8bacf9d7f4
- Is it just all over?
BA 747 Colour/OS: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 73663964e1
- Not sure how it is oversharpened when all I touch are the gear, windows, cockpit, nose, registration. Colour usually comes with a personal if it is a color cast so this will need some clarification
Virgin A333 Soft/OS/Personal: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0425766b41
Sharpening the same setup as the BA 747. I'm not seeing jaggies anywhere that would hint at OS. Personal was a OS everywhere except for left wing which is Soft.
Delta 767 Blurry/Soft/Category/Personal: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f476bac80a
- The personal was telling me it should be colorful paint for the nose decal, but I didn't think those were enough to classify as a colorful special... live and learn on that I guess. As for the blurry, I pulled the full size and there is no blur on it. Is it just soft then? If so what needs sharpening.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Hi Len, here's my take:
1. Delta 737: Nose/cockpit area is blown; the tail area including registration as well as the window line number looks soft.
2. AeroMexico E190: Your assessment is correct, i.e.generally soft all over
3. BA 747: Don't see over sharpening or color issues. The image needs contrast though. It looks rather flat/washed out.
4. Virgin A333: This one strikes me as the blurry w/OS to compensate. Whether you intended it or not, to my eyes, it looks that way especially in the front half of the aircraft.
5. Delta 767: I screened this one. I see the nose as blurry (notably in the front), window line looks soft. You could try selective sharpening on the nose, but it may get the blurry/OS look to it. See how it looks at 1024 pixels. The lighting is not the best which does not help either. As for the Category (colorful paint), it is for reference. If the image was otherwise acceptable, I would have changed the paint designation and accepted it. Typically, by itself, a Category issue should not result in a rejection if everything else is OK.
Hope this helps.
Jehan
1. Delta 737: Nose/cockpit area is blown; the tail area including registration as well as the window line number looks soft.
2. AeroMexico E190: Your assessment is correct, i.e.generally soft all over
3. BA 747: Don't see over sharpening or color issues. The image needs contrast though. It looks rather flat/washed out.
4. Virgin A333: This one strikes me as the blurry w/OS to compensate. Whether you intended it or not, to my eyes, it looks that way especially in the front half of the aircraft.
5. Delta 767: I screened this one. I see the nose as blurry (notably in the front), window line looks soft. You could try selective sharpening on the nose, but it may get the blurry/OS look to it. See how it looks at 1024 pixels. The lighting is not the best which does not help either. As for the Category (colorful paint), it is for reference. If the image was otherwise acceptable, I would have changed the paint designation and accepted it. Typically, by itself, a Category issue should not result in a rejection if everything else is OK.
Hope this helps.
Jehan
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Jehan,
Thanks for that quick response. For the delta you screened, the category just got me a bit for a nose decal. I can try selective on the nose. Don't really want to touch the decal as that will easily result in an OS with the fine lines. Nice that you don't outright reject for a category rejection... that's happened in the past
Virgin A330: only spot on the full size I see anything is the RR logo on the engine and the name Miss England (almost assume to see it with the angle it is captured at). I'll look at a different shot from the sequence.
BA747: Really doubt I can add any contrast to it as the gear and belly will then get me hit for too much contrast.
Aeromexico: good I saw it the same way. Might have missed my sharpening pass on that one while editing half asleep.
Delta 737: Think those will fall more in line sharpening wise if the exposure is corrected.
Thanks for that quick response. For the delta you screened, the category just got me a bit for a nose decal. I can try selective on the nose. Don't really want to touch the decal as that will easily result in an OS with the fine lines. Nice that you don't outright reject for a category rejection... that's happened in the past
Virgin A330: only spot on the full size I see anything is the RR logo on the engine and the name Miss England (almost assume to see it with the angle it is captured at). I'll look at a different shot from the sequence.
BA747: Really doubt I can add any contrast to it as the gear and belly will then get me hit for too much contrast.
Aeromexico: good I saw it the same way. Might have missed my sharpening pass on that one while editing half asleep.
Delta 737: Think those will fall more in line sharpening wise if the exposure is corrected.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Len,
Re. the DL 737, I tried a quick edit in PSE. Reducing the brightness by 8 and boosting the contrast by 10 results in an image that I would find acceptable. Boosting the contrast results in a crisper image mitigating the softness that I see.
Jehan
Re. the DL 737, I tried a quick edit in PSE. Reducing the brightness by 8 and boosting the contrast by 10 results in an image that I would find acceptable. Boosting the contrast results in a crisper image mitigating the softness that I see.
Jehan
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Been a while since I posted a batch on here:
Soft:
UA 319: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 14a784ce02
B6 320: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd790d21b
AA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c2a4b1519f (registration maybe?)
DL 717: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a823242e02 (screener said soft rear, thought maybe it is the sun glare leading to a soft appearance but is really okay?)
Low Contrast/Soft:
UA 739: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cc8436f745 (think the contrast is actually okay, another soft due to sun glare/reflection)
Blurry/Colour (cyan)/Contrast/Soft
AA 321: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e7363ea54c (I can see the color cast, but the rest I am not. I also think the lighting with this getting a nice amount of the snow reflection has thrown off the screener. Contrast is fine when you look at the true blacks. You can't judge this by the darker areas like the underside of the wing)
Blurry/Soft:
UA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc149e47b4 (I think the blurry is really the lighting affect with sun reflection/glare again in this shot)
Soft:
UA 319: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 14a784ce02
B6 320: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd790d21b
AA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c2a4b1519f (registration maybe?)
DL 717: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a823242e02 (screener said soft rear, thought maybe it is the sun glare leading to a soft appearance but is really okay?)
Low Contrast/Soft:
UA 739: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cc8436f745 (think the contrast is actually okay, another soft due to sun glare/reflection)
Blurry/Colour (cyan)/Contrast/Soft
AA 321: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e7363ea54c (I can see the color cast, but the rest I am not. I also think the lighting with this getting a nice amount of the snow reflection has thrown off the screener. Contrast is fine when you look at the true blacks. You can't judge this by the darker areas like the underside of the wing)
Blurry/Soft:
UA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc149e47b4 (I think the blurry is really the lighting affect with sun reflection/glare again in this shot)
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
The two UA 738s do look soft/blurry to me, but to be honest UA isn't a scheme that photographs well in terms of sharpness. It's a simple fact that, in most cases, true sharpness can only be determined from the original image - I've very often edited a super-sharp photo, only for it to look soft/blurry following processing.
As for the AA 321, I can see the cast, but I don't think it's at all unaesthetic - far worse slips in on a daily basis. I'm also not seeing any serious contrast issues in any of them. Would they still be fine with increased contrast? Yeah, sure; but I think they are within limits as they are.
As for the AA 321, I can see the cast, but I don't think it's at all unaesthetic - far worse slips in on a daily basis. I'm also not seeing any serious contrast issues in any of them. Would they still be fine with increased contrast? Yeah, sure; but I think they are within limits as they are.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
UA A319 : It does soft i think. Title and windows look soft to me.
B6 A320 : Tail looks soft i think.
AA B738 : Looks better than last two but still can have bit of more sharpness i think.
DL 717 : Looks not bad to me but still can has more sharpness i think especially the tail.(maybe due to the glare )
UA B739 : Contrast looks ok to me but it seems that it deserves bit of more sharpness.(Cockpit and those glare areas)
AA A321 : I agree with the colour issue but contrast looks not bad to me.Maybe the blurry was caused by soft.
UA B738 : I will select all windows to give them little bit more sharpness including the cockpit windows. Do not see any obvious Blurry from it.
Cheers,
Harry
B6 A320 : Tail looks soft i think.
AA B738 : Looks better than last two but still can have bit of more sharpness i think.
DL 717 : Looks not bad to me but still can has more sharpness i think especially the tail.(maybe due to the glare )
UA B739 : Contrast looks ok to me but it seems that it deserves bit of more sharpness.(Cockpit and those glare areas)
AA A321 : I agree with the colour issue but contrast looks not bad to me.Maybe the blurry was caused by soft.
UA B738 : I will select all windows to give them little bit more sharpness including the cockpit windows. Do not see any obvious Blurry from it.
Cheers,
Harry
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Soft:
UA 319: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 14a784ce02 - I agree with soft
B6 320: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd790d21b - I agree with soft
AA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c2a4b1519f (registration maybe?) - Looks a bit soft overall
DL 717: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a823242e02 (screener said soft rear, thought maybe it is the sun glare leading to a soft appearance but is really okay?) - Rear half and reg look soft.
Low Contrast/Soft:
UA 739: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cc8436f745 (think the contrast is actually okay, another soft due to sun glare/reflection) - Contrast seems acceptable, does look a bit soft.
Blurry/Colour (cyan)/Contrast/Soft
AA 321: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e7363ea54c (I can see the color cast, but the rest I am not. I also think the lighting with this getting a nice amount of the snow reflection has thrown off the screener. Contrast is fine when you look at the true blacks. You can't judge this by the darker areas like the underside of the wing) - Contrast seems acceptable; I agree with color; seems soft rather than blurry.
Blurry/Soft:
UA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc149e47b4 (I think the blurry is really the lighting affect with sun reflection/glare again in this shot) - I'd say soft rather than blurry.
UA 319: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 14a784ce02 - I agree with soft
B6 320: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd790d21b - I agree with soft
AA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c2a4b1519f (registration maybe?) - Looks a bit soft overall
DL 717: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a823242e02 (screener said soft rear, thought maybe it is the sun glare leading to a soft appearance but is really okay?) - Rear half and reg look soft.
Low Contrast/Soft:
UA 739: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cc8436f745 (think the contrast is actually okay, another soft due to sun glare/reflection) - Contrast seems acceptable, does look a bit soft.
Blurry/Colour (cyan)/Contrast/Soft
AA 321: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e7363ea54c (I can see the color cast, but the rest I am not. I also think the lighting with this getting a nice amount of the snow reflection has thrown off the screener. Contrast is fine when you look at the true blacks. You can't judge this by the darker areas like the underside of the wing) - Contrast seems acceptable; I agree with color; seems soft rather than blurry.
Blurry/Soft:
UA 738: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dc149e47b4 (I think the blurry is really the lighting affect with sun reflection/glare again in this shot) - I'd say soft rather than blurry.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Thanks for the replies.
These two out of eleven total screened got hit.
AA 175 soft/low contrast: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 34476d9a38
- disagree with the contrast as it is another snow reflection so the only true black is the gear and those seem appropriate. Sharpness I thought was okay but others can weigh in.
Spirit A321 soft/personal (too saturated color) https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 170ceca0fc
- not sure about the personal as I never touched the color and snow lighting always gives a vibrant color. Same as the prior image with sharpness.
These two out of eleven total screened got hit.
AA 175 soft/low contrast: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 34476d9a38
- disagree with the contrast as it is another snow reflection so the only true black is the gear and those seem appropriate. Sharpness I thought was okay but others can weigh in.
Spirit A321 soft/personal (too saturated color) https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 170ceca0fc
- not sure about the personal as I never touched the color and snow lighting always gives a vibrant color. Same as the prior image with sharpness.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
The contrast of both of them look ok to me but the American Eagle seems bit of soft but not bad.
The spirit looks ok to me but i will tend to reduce green tone to make the aircraft looks more comfortable.
Cheers,
Harry
The spirit looks ok to me but i will tend to reduce green tone to make the aircraft looks more comfortable.
Cheers,
Harry
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Don't see any contrast issues in either and that Spirit isn't over-saturated.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
len90 wrote:AA 175 soft/low contrast: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 34476d9a38
- disagree with the contrast as it is another snow reflection so the only true black is the gear and those seem appropriate. Sharpness I thought was okay but others can weigh in.
It is soft, but contrast looks acceptable.
len90 wrote:Spirit A321 soft/personal (too saturated color) https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 170ceca0fc
- not sure about the personal as I never touched the color and snow lighting always gives a vibrant color. Same as the prior image with sharpness.
Maybe a touch soft (but probably acceptable); color looks a touch cyan, but otherwise fine.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
AA E175 looks fine.
Spirit looks a bit cyan, but otherwise nice as well.
Spirit looks a bit cyan, but otherwise nice as well.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Another soft/low contrast from that same snow reflection morning: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7849e9cca8
The wheels show contrast is really fine. Sharpening is what I am will leave out there for questioning.
The wheels show contrast is really fine. Sharpening is what I am will leave out there for questioning.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
It does seem to be soft. The whole aircraft seems to be soft to me especially the tail, windows and the title.Contrast looks not so bad as you said the wheels indeed show the contrast look ok to me too.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Looks a little bright for this site's preferences - toning down that brightness a fraction will also improve the contrast as I think it would look better with a small boost.
Karl
Karl
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
I too think a boost in contrast will make the photo look better. However, the tail section looks quite blurry here (actually looks out of focus).
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Agree with Kas Point that the tail part looks blurry instead of Soft especially APU.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Two quick ones:
UA Retro: OS, Overexposed, Noise... probably not much I can do for this one. Really just thought it was a cool shot. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ee2899a855
UA 777: Overexposed, Soft, Vignette: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 366b051470 Thinking the Overexposed is the sun reflection on the nose. Didn't think that would be an issue.
UA Retro: OS, Overexposed, Noise... probably not much I can do for this one. Really just thought it was a cool shot. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ee2899a855
UA 777: Overexposed, Soft, Vignette: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 366b051470 Thinking the Overexposed is the sun reflection on the nose. Didn't think that would be an issue.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Hi Len,
The retro is iffy to me. But i think reducing Highlight might be helpful to the overexposed.Noise looks not very bad to me.But sharpness and exposure are iffy to me.
UA 777 : Exposure of it looks ok to me but reducing bit of highlight will make it more comfortable. Sharpness looks not bad.
Cheers,
Harry
The retro is iffy to me. But i think reducing Highlight might be helpful to the overexposed.Noise looks not very bad to me.But sharpness and exposure are iffy to me.
UA 777 : Exposure of it looks ok to me but reducing bit of highlight will make it more comfortable. Sharpness looks not bad.
Cheers,
Harry
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
The A3320 isn't that bad considering the conditions and looks passable to me.
The 777 is not overexposed or soft, but you do have some small vignetting going on on the left side of the frame.
The 777 is not overexposed or soft, but you do have some small vignetting going on on the left side of the frame.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Thanks Kas I am pretty sure I had documented it was rough conditions when uploading that 320. I’ll message you later
Three more rejects, only two of which I’ll post as the other is clear cut.
United 737: hit for vignette and OS https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 185dd292b6
- not really able to see either
United 757: OS
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... df615e4a07
Didn’t hit with much sharpening at all. Selective on windows, cockpit, engine nacelles.
Three more rejects, only two of which I’ll post as the other is clear cut.
United 737: hit for vignette and OS https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 185dd292b6
- not really able to see either
United 757: OS
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... df615e4a07
Didn’t hit with much sharpening at all. Selective on windows, cockpit, engine nacelles.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
Latest round of pictures that went through and it seems like a screener has a preference for OS because everything of mine got hit for Soft. I personally have issues given the recent trend of acceptances that go against the site’s rules with grain, soft, blur, poor light etc.
Soft:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 636c247025
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4ef6b857c0
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 259cbf27f0
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 596b6dd259
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e4b9b2e969
Soft/Blurry:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd7fce3f2
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a308fbadff
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd7fce3f2
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a52f563164
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 28ee2f08a7
Soft:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 636c247025
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4ef6b857c0
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 259cbf27f0
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 596b6dd259
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e4b9b2e969
Soft/Blurry:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd7fce3f2
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a308fbadff
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ccd7fce3f2
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a52f563164
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 28ee2f08a7
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
I think the main problem is that all of them, except the last two, seem overexposed.
Re: Len90 2018 Pre/Post Screening
850 is blurry/soft, The rest is on the softer side, but passable I guess.
Out of the blurry/soft ones, 488 and the 737 looks passable. the rest is so-so.
Small disclaimer; lots of links and I have tired eyes.
Out of the blurry/soft ones, 488 and the 737 looks passable. the rest is so-so.
Small disclaimer; lots of links and I have tired eyes.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests