Pre-Screening DL747

DL747 · Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:05 am

Hey all,

I've returned to a.net after being away a while. Life gets busy sometimes! Quite out of practice, so seeing what y'all think of these before I upload. Hopefully I'm not too far off! Also, if you all have any suggestions for a hosting site, please let me know.

1. https://imgur.com/cm0Fxxc
2. https://imgur.com/pk7BdT7
3. https://imgur.com/KslSgfu
4. https://imgur.com/IsGT1f8
5. https://imgur.com/nA8TiwB

NOTE: Not sure what imgur did compression wise, the Jeju has the titles looking awful and blotchy, that's not on the edit on my computer.
Thanks in advance!

Preston (Yes I used to go by my "other" name of John, but it is still me.)

DL747 · Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:14 am

Update, the Jeju was accepted, Urumqi got tossed for oversharpened and heat haze, I think the heat haze may be in reference to engine exhaust giving a heat haze effect to the 737-800 title and registration area. The JAL got tossed for oversharpened. That leads me to two questions, is the heat haze significant enough on the Urumqi to bin it entirely, and where is the JAL oversharpened? The only OS I see on the JAL is the regisration, and very slightly imo. Like I said, I'm quite rusty, so let me know your thoughts on all five in the OP.

dutchspotter1 · Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:12 am

Urumqi is defnintely heathazed, e.g. top of the fuselage is not a smooth, straight line.
JAL tail logo is also oversharped.

DL747 · Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:09 pm

Tanker shots (N462KC USAF) look alright? I’ll re-edit and post the JAL back here when I can.

DL747 · Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:00 pm

Here's the JAL re-edit, along with one more.

1. https://imgur.com/mhAzlia
2. (JAL re-edit, view OP for previous version) https://imgur.com/6zcjjsC

I did an entire rework of the JAL because for some reason a part of the tail was cloned out when I opened the file. Still not sure how that happened, but anyways, how do these two look?

Thanks!

dutchspotter1 · Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:34 pm

Korean looks oversharped, suffering from harsh light and needs CCW rotation.
Tanker shots are also oversharped.
JAL: looks slightly better but there are still some oversharped parts (should have mentioned that earlier), e.g. the Boeing 787 titles.

DL747 · Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:35 pm

Thanks Dutch. The JAL has no sharpening whatsoever on titles...not sure what to do there. And where is the tanker OS? A.net used to love borderline OS...guess that isn’t the case anymore. Can a screener weigh in here? I’m a little stuck.

DL747 · Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:58 am

So I was told it’s fine for sharpening but needed to be higher in frame. Changed only that, reuploaded. Now it’s oversharpened and needs CCW rotation. Any thoughts? I mean this is kind of ridiculous, it can’t be THAT subjective.

DL747 · Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:09 pm

Bit of a bump here for feedback on tankers and JAL shot...

Runway28L · Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:37 pm

VH004: Looks ok
N462KC: Needs a touch of CCW, building in the background doesn't look upright
JAL re-edit: Still looks a bit HIF, probably could lower the frame just a tad. I have to agree with the CCW rejection though, as annoying as it is being missed the first time. The building in the background looks like it's "leaning" to the right and the runway doesn't look level. Sharpening looks ok IMO but I'd wait for a screener to comment on that.

Edit: I see now that you mentioned going back and fixing the HIF.

airkas1 · Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:05 pm

VH004: looks passable
462: needs CCW (level the nose & main gear)
JAL: High in frame

DL747 · Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:29 pm

Thanks guys. Kas, I’ll adjust 462. The JAL I uploaded is not that version, I corrected that one for high in frame and reuploaded. It got tossed for OS and CCW. I’ll link the rejected one when I can

DL747 · Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:08 am

DL747 wrote:
Thanks guys. Kas, I’ll adjust 462. The JAL I uploaded is not that version, I corrected that one for high in frame and reuploaded. It got tossed for OS and CCW. I’ll link the rejected one when I can

Here's the rejected JAL for oversharpened and CCW rotation needed.
https://imgur.com/5hmHvBK

airkas1 · Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:33 am

Does look a bit sharp. Perhaps solvable by using the blur tool or a bit larger size. CCW of 0.4 should be sufficient to fix that too. And still a bit HIF.

DL747 · Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:28 pm

Roger that, I’ll fix it after I’m back from the airshow today. Might just do a clean edit at this point. Thanks for the feedback!

airkas1 · Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:57 pm

I suggest to always do a clean edit and not work on existing files. Hope the show was good!

DL747 · Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:21 pm

Kas and company (good name if you start a small business lol), here are the re-edits as well as an individual shot. I'll be posting some from the airshow once those get edited too. Both the tanker and JAL were clean edits, with only the alterations you suggested applied, all other parameters were the same.

N462KC (tanker): https://imgur.com/JCiIZ45
JA874J (JAL): https://imgur.com/DeXFEQB
N518TA (A-4): https://imgur.com/3EFabo2

airkas1 · Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:29 am

Tanker: OS, looks like a hot day with all the challenges that come with that. Marginal. Does a larger version look better?
JAL: Looks passable, but I would lift the shadows a bit to create lighter surroundings.
A4: quite OS, yellow (use less Kelvin in the RAW editor). May be a blurry original.

DL747 · Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:35 pm

Thanks, the tanker shot was super close and didn't require much crop, so yes a larger version is probable better. The JAL got deprioritized in the queue, why is that? Original of the A-4 isn't blurry, I think something might be weird with my resizing methods. I'll reedit and try again when I can. In the meantime, why did the JAL get deprioritized? It is the first flight in full paint, which per the priority thread, should have priority, correct?

airkas1 · Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:07 pm

DL747 wrote:
In the meantime, why did the JAL get deprioritized?

Because:

Priority help text on upload page wrote:
Q: Sometimes we see 1st flight shots, but the aircraft is on the ground with all the gears (take-off roll), like a static shot. Is it acceptable?
A: Priority submissions of a first flight will now have to be rotation or airborne photos.

DL747 · Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:49 pm

Alright, that makes sense. Seems a little silly, but I understand. Here's the re-edits.

N462KC (tanker): https://imgur.com/OPQzWVO
N518TA (A-4): https://imgur.com/91VoIXW

DL747 · Sun Jul 29, 2018 2:47 am

Just a friendly little bump here

Runway28L · Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:18 am

KC-46: I don't think it's much of a problem, but there is some grain/noise in the sky. Although that can be fixed easily with noise reduction.
A-4: I kind of want to say that it could be passable, but I'm not 100% sure. I'd wait for Kas or another screener to comment.

DL747 · Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:51 am

Thanks, I think the noise is more slight imgur compression, its not that noisy on my computer.

DL747 · Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:09 am

And the JAL rejected again for dirty, oversharpened, and dark. Go figure. Not frustrating at all.

DL747 · Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:36 pm

Out of frustration, abandoning the JAL 787. Here's a half dozen more I'd like feedback on. Also still welcoming feedback, particularly from screeners on the tanker and A-4 most recent versions above. Thanks!
1. N528ZC 787-10: https://imgur.com/TVY5RqJ
2. N88972 B-25: https://imgur.com/8mD6XWM
3. 78-0864 A-10: https://imgur.com/PtOxaE7
4. Blue Angels solos: https://imgur.com/24jUEny
5. 167111 KC-130J: https://imgur.com/i5l6RXc
6. FHC P-51D: https://imgur.com/n1KWIRt

DL747 · Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:14 am

So the A-4 and tanker have been accepted, just a friendly little bump for those six. Thanks all!

dutchspotter1 · Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:10 am

1. Looks fine to me
2. very difficult light, top of the fuselage, wings and perhaps even the sky look overexposed, but the side of the fuselage is already quite dark. Moreover the photo is oversharped. All in all I wouldn't bother with this one
3. oversharped, perhaps to compensate for blur.
4. Motive is not my cup of tea as there is too much empty space
5. Perhaps a little bit too bright
6. Oversharped, also harsh light.

DL747 · Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:41 am

Thanks for the feedback. I knew the B-25 would be pushing it, but I have other shots of the same aircraft that are probably better, I liked the angle on that one. I don't know why the A-10 looks weirdly OS/blurry, the original is not blurry, might be imgur related. Could a screener chime in? Particularly regarding motive on 4?

airkas1 · Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:04 am

I agree with Joost's assessment of the 6 photo, with the added notes that I don't see #6 as OS, but blurry/soft. And the B-25 could be fixed with a bit less strong sharpening and lifting of shadows.
The motive for #4 *should be* passable.

DL747 · Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:34 pm

Roger that, thanks guys. Kas, is the softness on 6 everywhere or in a particular spot? Seems to me like the registration/serial number, and the wings are affected but want to verify before I re-edit.

airkas1 · Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:06 pm

The fuselage & tail.

DL747 · Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:10 am

Thanks guys, here's the re-edits of everything but the B-25 since that's a fairly comprehensive edit. Went ahead and added the Blue Angel solo shot and the 787-10 to the queue.

KC-130J: https://imgur.com/vfGMQlv
A-10: https://imgur.com/YagXUR9
P-51D: https://imgur.com/4OD4MLG

Thanks again!

airkas1 · Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:49 am

The P51 looks a bit blurry/OS now, with the others a bit marginal as well. Not sure if Imgur is the cause. The A-10 looks somewhat OS.

DL747 · Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:26 pm

I'm thinking its imgur related, the original on the 51 is a little soft but I don't see any blur. Only changed exposure on the 130, so if that's good, I'll add it to the queue. Where is the OS on the A-10? Crew names?

DL747 · Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:50 pm

So here's the A-10 and the P-51 in the queue, perhaps they look better without imgur interference? If not I'll delete and work on them again.
A-10:

P-51:

Runway28L · Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:35 am

I can't view them in a large size. When I select the image, it says it's no longer available.

You can select an image in the queue, right click and "Copy Image Address", then paste the link in a post.

HarryLi · Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:42 am

Hi,
This function can only be available to those accepted photos. Would you please copy the URLs of those images you would like to get feedback to here ?

Cheers,
Harry

DL747 · Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:47 am

Will do, sorry guys. That's my bad. Here are the URL's.
A-10: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bf3bab7581
P-51: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b28e7b343f

Thanks all!

DL747 · Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:50 pm

Friendly bump for feedback on those two, and also here is one more shot. Thanks!
737-7MAX: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 10a04ce5ce

Runway28L · Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:10 am

A-10: Ok
P-51: Ok
MAX: Could use a bit more contrast I think.

DL747 · Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:44 am

Thanks Evan! I was trying to get the balance between acceptable shadows and good contrast, so I should probably add a little more contrast. I'd like some screener feedback on these, since Kas was unsure if the sharpening issues were imgur related.
Edit: Congratulations on 100 Evan! That's not easy, I hope to see many more!

Runway28L · Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:45 am

DL747 wrote:
Thanks Evan! I was trying to get the balance between acceptable shadows and good contrast, so I should probably add a little more contrast. I'd like some screener feedback on these, since Kas was unsure if the sharpening issues were imgur related.

More than likely it was Imgur related, as compression is a known issue with sharing images off of there. Sharpening looked ok to me for all of them but I too would wait for a screener to comment.

DL747 wrote:
Edit: Congratulations on 100 Evan! That's not easy, I hope to see many more!

Thank you! :cheerful:

DL747 · Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:32 pm

So the KC-130 wound up rejected for dirty (spots on taxiway that I didn't see), soft, and overexposed. I guess I get overexposed, it was obviously dirty, soft I don't really see...but I guess I can add some sharpening. Would love further opinions on the P-51 and A-10 and the re-edit of the KC-130 since the first two are due to be screened either today or tomorrow. See the most recent links for 51 and A-10. Thanks!
KC-130 re-edit: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8509f39511

Runway28L · Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:52 pm

The KC-130 seems to have harsh lighting which gives the impression of being Overexposed. I think reducing the highlights a little would help. Sharpening looks ok to me.

airkas1 · Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:44 am

Look what I just found in the log

.

DL747 · Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:20 am

Haha, thanks Kas. Appreciate the help as always! I’ll drop the highlights on the 130 and try again on that tomorrow. Kas, what are your thoughts on the MAX? I’m thinking more contrast, like Evan said, but want to verify with a screener. Thanks!

dutchspotter1 · Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:24 am

Runway28L wrote:
The KC-130 seems to have harsh lighting which gives the impression of being Overexposed. I think reducing the highlights a little would help. Sharpening looks ok to me.

Actually I think lighting is perfect. It's just the combination of light a/c and dark background (trees) which requires some attention regarding exposure/brightness.

airkas1 · Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:04 pm

DL747 wrote:
what are your thoughts on the MAX?

Contrast looks alright, but it's overexposed for me. I'd reduce the highlights by some -30/-40 and if it gets too gray, bump up the whites by +10/+20.
The C-130 isn't too soft for me, but perhaps a small decrease of exposure (-20) will do the trick.

DL747 · Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:29 pm

Thanks Kas, I'll make those adjustments later today. Headed out to BFI again this afternoon, hopefully getting some fresh special schemes.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net