Pre-Screening DL747

HarryLi · Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:44 am

The image is soft rather than blurry for me as well. The whole a/c seems quiet soft especially title, windows and nose. Giving it more sharpness will be fine IMO.

DL747 · Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:57 am

Okay thanks Victor and Harry, I'll give it another pass of sharpening and try again. Appreciate the feedback!

DL747 · Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:14 am

Hey all, struggling to see the softness in this one. Rejected twice for soft, but now it looks OS in places rather than soft to me. Thoughts? Thanks!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d0f5126677

Runway28L · Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:27 am

Hi Preston,

Personally, I think the whole image could use another pass of sharpening. Although I'm curious to see if anyone thinks otherwise.

I do not see any OS artifacts in that image. But if it does quickly becomes so, you could boost the eraser strength and hit the most profound areas.

DL747 · Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:02 pm

Thanks Evan. Sharpening the Spicejet's has always been difficult for me for whatever reason. I applied a bit more and although it looks OS to me, it was accepted.

DL747 · Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:34 am

No prescreening in this post, but I'll have some after the holidays. I just wanted to extend a huge thank you to all who have helped me get to 200 acceptances. Screeners, members, crew, and anyone else not mentioned, thank you! I have learned a ton, advanced my skillset tremendously, made some fantastic friends, and thoroughly enjoyed the a.net community. Have a wonderful holiday season, and I'll see you sometime around the new year, hopefully with some exciting end-of-year Boeing deliveries!

airkas1 · Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:44 am

Happy holidays to you as well! Good to hear all the positives and happy to continue that in the next year.

Runway28L · Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:58 pm

Preston, congrats on 200 uploads. Keep up the awesome work and happy holidays! :smile:

DL747 · Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:56 pm

Thanks for the kind words gentlemen. I said I'd be back at the new year...I lied!

Here's a couple oversharpened rejections that I'm not too sure about. They look alright to me, I guess I see a bit of jaggies on the WN reg but other than that I'm struggling to see the OS areas. Thoughts? Thanks!
WN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 15ff9cc5a1
AA: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 146507d75c

Runway28L · Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:52 am

For the Southwest, I think the following areas could have a stronger eraser applied:
-Front edges of the fuselage (nose, above the cockpit, nosewheel doors)
-Right winglet
-Rear of the fuselage (rear edges, the white lines, horizontal stabilizers)

For the American:
-Front edges of the fuselage (nose, above the cockpit)
-Wing leading edge and flap track fairings
-Vertical and horizontal stabilizers

DL747 · Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:46 am

Thanks Evan, I decided to just decrease overall sharpening and they've been accepted. I am, however, a little confused with the low in frame on this one. It is nearly identical centering wise to my accepted TUI nose. Thoughts on this one?
Rejected Norwegian: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 622d7c7419
Accepted TUI: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a333035e16

Runway28L · Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:20 am

I can see why the Norwegian gives off the impression of being low. I think the main difference is that you cropped a bit more of the TUI and it looks more centered (count the number of windows on the TUI vs Norwegian), and thus takes up slightly more of the frame than the Norwegian.

But really though, the difference between the two is so minor and I think the Norwegian is passable. Might be worth an appeal.

DL747 · Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:33 am

Thanks Evan, I was considering that too. I would've cropped it more similarly to the TUI but I thought chopping off the stripe would look silly. Just a personal preference. I'll wait for a screener's opinion before finalizing what I'll do. Happy New Year by the way!

airkas1 · Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:43 pm

They're both a bit low in frame for me. For such crops, I'd recommend placing the fuselage in the horizontal center at first and then move it slightly up. Likely the screener was on the fence a bout the TUI but decided to add it and then leaned the other way for the Norwegian.

DL747 · Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:55 am

Hey guys, little bit stuck with these. Initially the Aeromexico and Turkish were simply rejected for flat, which was obviously an issue, reuploaded and now Aeromexico is blurry/overexposed, Turkish is blurry/overexposed/noisy and RAM is blurry/oversharpened. Little confused how a pretty easily fixable issue transformed into 3 images for the garbage bin. Is there any point in fixing these or best to throw them out? The originals are all decently sharp and show no blur, minimal NR was used (although I've had issues with "blur" resulting from NR use in the past).
TK: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 57d2f89adc
RAM: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 31eb727b0d
AM: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a8ee051b7f

jelpee · Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:20 pm

I don't see blurry, over-exposure, or oversharpenning, as a compelling issue in any of them. To me the images look a bit soft but more so, quite flat and needing more contrast. Also, I think these images will look better at a smaller size--say 1200 pixels.

Jehan

DL747 · Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:04 am

Thanks for the help Jehan, bailed on the RAM since I wasn't happy with the quality and luckily caught it in better weather. Unfortunately, either I've forgotten how to level, or screeners are seeing something I'm not, because this was tossed for blurry/soft/needing CCW. Frankly, I see none of those three, although I guess I could add some further sharpening. The original shows no signs of blur. What're y'all's thoughts?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... fe49c183a6

Runway28L · Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:11 am

Whole aircraft could use another layer of sharpening and the nose area does look a bit blurry on my screen. Not seeing any issues with leveling.

jelpee · Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:32 pm

Slight tilt to the right, but not fatal IMO. If you level using one of the horizontals on the runway, you'd see that it could use a slight amount of correction. Again, not fatal for me. I agree with Runway 28L:The image does look soft and perhaps blurry towards the nose.

Jehan

airkas1 · Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:00 pm

The entire image looks slightly blurry to me.

DL747 · Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:48 am

Thanks guys, I'll try a different frame instead. Here's two more level rejections I fail to see. CCW rotation is becoming awfully frustrating of late. The signpost on the freeway isn't a reliable reference as the freeway is on a slope, so if that's what they're using its not accurate.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e8a94149f5
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8545cf5fd5

Runway28L · Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:56 am

IMO the first one is absolutely not unlevel. The second one does look slightly tilted to the right but it's really minor and I think that's still passable, as I've seen worse manage to get by.

DL747 · Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:52 am

Thanks Evan. I went ahead and appealed both, as I absolutely don't see the CCW claimed to be needed. I don't know why I'm getting a CCW rejection on a majority of my uploads lately...
Edit: Both accepted on appeal. I was worried I was losing it for a second lol

airkas1 · Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:21 am

I can kinda understand why though, as I too often struggle a bit to find a good reference for photos taken at BFI. Is the runway/are the runways actually sloping? In your case there are some verticals in the background (the hangar mainly), but I also encounter photos that don't have any verticals in the background and where it's really hard to determine level.
In any case, both images added now.

DL747 · Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:29 am

Hi Kas, yes there is a bit of a grade on the runway, although very slight. This one got rejected for OS and CCW (again) and I have to be honest, I don't see either being a major issue. I guess I could see the titles being slightly OS but that's about all I can see, and that's nit picky.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 95d8ac7125

airkas1 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:16 pm

Looks fine to me.

DL747 · Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 am

Thanks Kas, I'll go ahead and try an appeal then.

DL747 · Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:42 pm

Hey all, back with a couple shots for prescreen. Running low on content with fewer MAX's to shoot, although hopefully that changes soon.
CR2: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 1354921ba3
C-32: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 25b23001b4

jelpee · Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:08 am

Nose looks a tad blurry on the CRJ2, but passable for me since there is only 1 other image of this registration in the database.
C-32 looks fine for me.

Jehan

DL747 · Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:28 am

Thanks Jehan, I think I might do a bit more sharpening around the nose/forward door of the CR2, maybe that'll help things. Have a good rest of your weekend.

DL747 · Mon May 13, 2019 4:48 am

So I've got 3 overexposed rejections and the AA was tossed for soft as well. Pretty confused how those are overexposed, I guess I can see some borderline soft areas on the AA. Thoughts? Thanks.
PH-TFP: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d933bd3858
N343RY: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 216b4a02f0
16-5855: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a43fa334d7

Runway28L · Mon May 13, 2019 6:36 am

TUI looks completely fine in my opinion. AA doesn't appear to be soft, but I have to agree with it being overexposed, same with the C-130J.

DL747 · Mon May 13, 2019 7:51 am

Thanks Evan, I went ahead and re-edited and reuploaded.

DL747 · Mon May 13, 2019 5:05 pm

Re-edited AA got rejected for the exact same things. Some screener input would be appreciated, because for whatever reason I am struggling with this one.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 12ff1ee8d1

fsx98 · Mon May 13, 2019 5:34 pm

The tail section appears to be overexposed; however I don't see anything that warrants a "soft" rejection.

airkas1 · Mon May 13, 2019 6:22 pm

I'd say the entire aircraft is a bit overexposed, but otherwise it looks fine. Try bringing down the highlights by -40, that should do the trick.

DL747 · Mon May 13, 2019 8:22 pm

Thanks Victor and Kas, went ahead and made those changes, it's in the queue again. Hopefully the third time is the charm.

DL747 · Tue May 28, 2019 6:56 am

Hey all, back with a few for pre-screening. Thanks in advance!
N737AT: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... b02ddd108c
USMC KC-130J: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2873987e21
VQ-BIN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 63e0f010a5

airkas1 · Tue May 28, 2019 1:52 pm

737AT is a bit underexposed, the other 2 look fine. Love the framing of the last photo, nicely done!

DL747 · Thu May 30, 2019 6:15 pm

Thanks Kas, and thank you for the kind words. Timing is everything! Included below is a re-edit of 737AT, and the G-POWH rejection I'm struggling with. It's been rejected twice for oversharpened and dark, the first one I could definitely see and it was not a great edit. I know the light is pretty difficult, so I'm just wondering what you all think, and what adjustments to make. Additionally, Corendon just got rejected for soft, not really seeing that. Thanks!
TC-MKZ: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a3b9e26716
G-POWH: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 803c0ec9a8
N737AT brighter: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 5a4201516c

Crosswindphoto · Thu May 30, 2019 6:29 pm

TC-MKZ: looks a little purple IMO
G-POWH: something about it is making it not look right, I just can’t put my finger on what it is. (Aren’t I helpful :p)
N737AT: looks good to me.

DL747 · Thu May 30, 2019 6:33 pm

Thanks Tim, I'm kind of with you on POWH frankly. Hopefully a screener could offer some guidance, it isn't the best shot, but with the new titles and rarity of the subject in this area of the world, I figured I'd go for it. MKZ was rejected only for soft, which I don't see as an issue, but color is an easy fix if that is an issue as well.

Crosswindphoto · Thu May 30, 2019 6:53 pm

MKZ to me doesn’t look soft, but definitely has a magenta colour cast.
POWH, add a boot full of contrast and post it here, maybe that’s the key.

Crosswindphoto · Thu May 30, 2019 6:54 pm

On another look at POWH, it looks backlit, that might be it as well.

jelpee · Thu May 30, 2019 9:06 pm

MKZ: Color looks OK for me. Image is a little bright and could be toned down a bit.
POWH:Looks blurry; Contrast is low with a poor angle of light on this one. I would bin this one.
N737AT: Passable for me

Jehan

DL747 · Fri May 31, 2019 12:50 am

Thanks guys, I knew POWH would be borderline because of the almost directly noselit conditions. Oh well. I'll rework MKZ and have a go at that in the queue later tonight.

DL747 · Fri May 31, 2019 1:43 am

Update: rejected again "still quite soft" and now also low contrast. Kind of frustrated with the ever-changing reasons, and not really sure what to do since all I did was decrease brightness by 5 and add just a slight bit of sharpening. Frankly, I really don't see how/where its soft, there's almost jaggies appearing on most lettering. Thoughts? Thanks!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d277747ce6

Runway28L · Fri May 31, 2019 5:57 am

Definitely not soft, though I think it could use slightly more contrast.

jelpee · Fri May 31, 2019 11:55 am

That was me that rejected it. I had forgotten that I provided some feedback on this thread. Apologies for not calling out the softness since I was not on my screening monitor at the time. Looking at it on my screening monitor though, it looked generally soft all over and in particular the engines, main title and the title on the tail. I think a round of sharpening with some added contrast should make this acceptable.

Regards,

Jehan

DL747 · Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:35 am

Thanks Jehan, no worries. I tuned it up again and it's in the db now.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net