Pre-screen DARA

dara88 · Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:20 pm

JakTrax · Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:28 pm

I've not much clue about the site's standards these days but most are common subjects shot in pretty poor light. Additionally, the GAF 340 looks blurry to me.

I personally wouldn't try and upload any of them, but I think you'll have to wait for a screener to chime in to get some definitive clarity.

Karl

HarryLi · Tue May 01, 2018 4:05 pm

The first thing thai i want to mention is that the size you used for those photos are too big.
1 : Pretty blurry to me and slight underexposed. Poor quality i think.
2 : Undereposed to me. Also soft. Smaller size will be better.
3 : Underexposed. Soft. Slight blurry.
4 : Blurry, Quality slight underexposed.Especially the tail.
5 : Blurry ,Quality.Especially the wildows nose, and tail.
6 : Soft and slight blurry at this size. Slight underexposed.
7 : Blurry toward the front part and the windows.
8 : Undeexposed, Soft and slight blurry at this size. Poor quality at this size too.
9 : Marginal Quality .Slight underexposed.
10 : Windows look blurry to me.
In conclusion, the weather condition really does not really good for you. Besides, you used very large size on those photos, which make the quality looks pretty poor. Just my personal opinions.
Cheers,
Harry

dara88 · Tue May 08, 2018 1:35 pm

Thanks Harry. Next time will put smaller sizes here.
Have a nice day,
Dara

dara88 · Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:08 am

Hi guys, I'd be happy to have your opinion on these shots:

https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 2-1024.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... U-1024.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... C-1024.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... W-1024.jpg

I'm having difficulties in A.net so this time I added some 1024px shots.
Have a great day,
Dara

airkas1 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:45 am

Hey Dara,

1) looks good
2) looks good
3) cheatlines of the Hawker are jaggy, but otherwise good. Nice framing!
4) heat haze

dara88 · Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:47 am

Hi Kas it's so nice to hear from you. Thanks for the comments I'm going to upload the first three as suggested.
Have a nice day

dara88 · Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:37 am

Sadly two of the three shots "Rossiya & Nordavia" got rejected. First one for "oversharpened, noise heat haze" and the second one for being "high in frame". What do you think guys? Should I appeal for any of them?

airkas1 · Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:39 am

I still stand by my earlier opinion of both photos.

dara88 · Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:54 pm

Can I have your opinion on these 4 shots?

https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 1600-1.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... W-1280.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... Y-1600.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... K-1600.jpg

Have a nice day,
Dara

dara88 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:19 am

Hi again guys, I'd really appreciate to have your comment. Just a reminder. Regards.

airkas1 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:32 am

HI Dara,

The RYR's look hazed, the other 2 are passable.

dara88 · Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:02 pm

Hi Kas, thanks for the comment I did upload the two. Can I have your comments on these three too please :-)

).

https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... I-1600.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... O-1600.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... R-1600.jpg

Have a nice day man

dara88 · Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:54 pm

Any suggestions guys?

airkas1 · Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:07 am

Hey Dara,

Sorry for the delay:
AI: On the soft side of the scale, but passable for me
CFO: fine
IBR: fine

dara88 · Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:14 pm

Thanks man, I always appreciate your comments ;-)

.

dara88 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:25 am

Sadly the Alsie Express got rejected for being high in frame but I believe it is centered. Do you think I should appeal guys?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f64dd60090
Cheers ;-)

DL747 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:12 am

Imo it is a bit high, and a recrop would at least partially remove the distracting wire. It’s borderline in my eyes.

airkas1 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:18 am

DL747 wrote:
a recrop would at least partially remove the distracting wire.

So would a 16:9 ratio crop. But as is, centering looks fine to me.

airkas1 · Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:23 am

I saw it got upheld on appeal, sorry for that. I still think it's passable and wasn't able to screen the appeal.

dara88 · Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:22 am

No problem Kas, going to make a 16:9 crop and upload it again. I'm having some problems with the cropping as until now I was thinking that the fuselage should be centered; I will consider the tail from now on.
Cheers

dara88 · Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:19 pm

Sadly today 3 of my shots got rejected, the 4th one is still in screening waiting for the 3rd screener. What do you think guys? Apart from the F-100 (IDG) that I do completely agree with the outcome I guess the other two could be passable. I'd be happy to have your opinion on them:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e2c26fb007
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 557e655e27
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9501a9f422

Cheers ;-)

HarryLi · Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:30 am

Hi Dara,
I'm sorry that three of them look blurry & soft to me, especially at this large size is obvious. Title, REG.

Cheers,
Harry

dara88 · Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:52 am

Sad but fair enough. Will upload smaller sizes again.
Cheers Harry ;-)

HarryLi · Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:28 am

dara88 wrote:
Sad but fair enough. Will upload smaller sizes again.
Cheers Harry

BTW, Blurry is almost unfixable. Try to pick some non-blurry image and use smaller size will be better i think.

airkas1 · Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:13 pm

Hi Dara,

Unfortunately I have to agree that all 3 are blurry. I suggest dropping them and not bothering with a smaller edit, sorry.

dara88 · Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:13 pm

Hi Kas,
Surely will do. I have to edit some new ones I guess or maybe pick other frames of those. Thanks for the comment btw.
Cheers

dara88 · Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:26 am

Hey guys, how do you see the chances for these three shots?

https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 2-1600.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... T-1280.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... B-1600.jpg

I have to mention that EP-ICE was previously rejected for dark and yellow cast.
Have a great day,
Dara

dara88 · Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:29 am

airkas1 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:32 pm

The last one is blurry/poor quality, the others look passable to me.

dara88 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:36 pm

I was getting dissapointed, what a relief. Will try appealing them ;-)

. Thanks Kas.

airkas1 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:56 pm

Dara, just FYI. There is some truth in the rejections, so next time please do play with the color balance (Kelvin slider in the RAW editor) a bit, as well as checking noise in the sky.

dara88 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:02 pm

Really appreciate your feedback. Will be more careful with the color cast and the noise. Cheers

dara88 · Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:20 am

Hey guys,
Would be so glad to have your comment on these shots:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... J-1280.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... A-1280.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... I-1280.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 7-1280.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 3-1280.jpg
Cheers,
Dara

airkas1 · Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:51 pm

YR-BGJ: passable
N644UA: check level on that again. IIRC the slope is more upwards (meaning it needs CW).
PH-BFI: softish, not sure if caused by slight blur of the original. Extra sharpening likely leads to jaggies? Passable
B-5967: passable, but dull colors (perhaps needs some extra saturation?
N1603: marginally passable, bit dull colors as well.

Psych · Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:45 am

Hello Dara.

I find myself broadly agreeing with Kas's comments - when I opened your photos I thought the lighting/editing might be a factor.

I have taken the liberty of adding a couple of editing changes to a few of your images, and that does make a difference. I am ashamed to say it has been so long since I have posted on similar topics that I can't remember/work out how to repost those photos straight from my computer. When I opened the Delta 767 and China Southern Airbus, they both benefited significantly from increasing the midtones in the 'levels' histogram, and also then adding a little extra contrast. Those two adjustments slightly improve the colours, but those also can take a little extra saturation without them looking artificial.

Cheers.

Paul

dara88 · Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:58 am

Thanks guys,

I will work a bit on both the Delta and the China Southern and will post them here later. I was aware of the dull colors but by mistake, I was thinking to add a bit of yellowness (due to lack of experience) instead of adding saturation and midtone elevation.

It's always great to have your feedback and I really appreciate it :-)

.

Cheers,
Dara

dara88 · Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:09 pm

I came up with these. I would be so glad to have your feedback again :-D

.

CW rotation:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 1280-2.jpg

Another frame:
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... I-1280.jpg

Added +10 contrast, +10 saturation, and elevated the midtones a little bit.
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 1280-2.jpg
https://behrazco.com/wp-content/uploads ... 1280-2.jpg

Have a nice weekend,
Dara

dara88 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:12 pm

Hey guys,
This photo of mine has been rejected for "oversharpened":

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8a27e3673c

I personally believe that it could have been accepted. Can I please have your comment on it?
Cheers,
Dara

jelpee · Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:41 am

Hi Dara,

I was unable to access the images from the prior post. However the one of the interior has an oversharpened quality about it--especially the center console with all the dials. It's one of the individual judgment issues. I would likely have accepted it unless we had several images of the same view already in the database. I would try sharpening that area a little less and it should be OK.

Cheers

Jehan

dara88 · Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:31 am

jelpee wrote:
Hi Dara,

I was unable to access the images from the prior post. However the one of the interior has an oversharpened quality about it--especially the center console with all the dials. It's one of the individual judgment issues. I would likely have accepted it unless we had several images of the same view already in the database. I would try sharpening that area a little less and it should be OK.

Cheers

Jehan

Thanks Jehan, will try it with less sharpening.
Have a nice day,
Dara

dara88 · Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:06 pm

Hey guys,
I've got a few rejected shots and would like to have your comment if possible.

Rejected for heat haze:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 561c04a981

Rejected for Color and Soft. For the color part I should say that it was near sunset and this was the real color tone of that time:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 45af5869e1
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... fbc1fba6d7

Rejected for blurry and CCW rotation. My reference was the tower in the middle:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 66ecbc3677

Cheers,
Dara

airkas1 · Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:12 pm

1: agree.
2: yellow and looks a little blurry. Color can be fixed by moving the Kelvin slider to the blue side in the raw converter.
3: can agree to this as well. Color is not as 'bad' as in #2 but it still could use some less yellow.
4: passable for me.

dara88 · Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:35 pm

Thanks Kas, appealed EP-APA and will try the rest with leas yellow :airplane:

Cheers

dara88 · Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:49 pm

Hey guys,
Would be glad to have your comment on these shots:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 6a1924493f
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... b0c895cd5c
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... fca51b47e0

Cheers

jelpee · Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:58 pm

I am not on my screening monitor, but the 2 of the flight decks appear to have a blurriness for me, particularly visible on the sides. The view out the windows is also a too bright for me.
The Taban MD-88 looks OK for me.

Jehan

dara88 · Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:22 pm

jelpee wrote:
I am not on my screening monitor, but the 2 of the flight decks appear to have a blurriness for me, particularly visible on the sides. The view out the windows is also a too bright for me.
The Taban MD-88 looks OK for me.

Jehan

Thanks Jehan

airkas1 · Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm

I agree with Jehan, except for the fact that the outside brightness is passable for me. The cockpit photos don't have the quality for 1920px unfortunately.

dara88 · Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:22 pm

Hey guys,

I uploaded a photo of Mahan Air B744 EP-MNC yesterday and it got de-prioritized after a while. I thought the decision was due to part of the wing being cut-off. I decided to delete that one and upload another frame with a different kind of crop and it got de-prioritized again.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... ef64b59ec3
As it's in a totally different situation and the paint has been removed, isn't it going to be considered as a Priority Upload?

Also, I would be so glad to have your comment on these shots:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 636628ea12
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... df8a502940
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2c9118deef
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c14b31d957
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 611fd5a9f4

Thanks again for all the help,
Dara

airkas1 · Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:39 pm

Will comment on the rest later (on my phone now), but for the 747; that’s because its stored and not going anywhere. Same reason why museum shots don’t really get priority.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net