Pre-screening photos - fsx98

airkas1 · Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:19 pm

The last photo posted is high in frame and the titles are oversharpened. Not the greatest, but probably passable when those issues are fixed.
Sorry for not comments on the rest right now, but you're posting a lot of links.

fsx98 · Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:24 pm

Thanks Kas; will fix N478WN #2 photo; I have at least 6 photos (N7817J window view, N202HA (2 photos), N995AT, C-GLQP, and N835UA) that will be screened the soonest so I would like feedback on these six before being screened. My apologies as I have taken a lot of photos of these aircraft and I still have more photos to upload; no need to rush on anything!

fsx98 · Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:43 am

I have redone N478WN #2 with aircraft lower in frame and attempted removal of jaggies around titles:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 49a6878ee7

HarryLi · Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:57 pm

The N478WN #2 looks quiet oversharpened to me and could be slightly brighter. Engine seems blurry and OS compensates it. Poor light condition.

Regards,
Harry

fsx98 · Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:37 pm

Thanks Harry; guess I should bin it then since engine is still blurry even with the photo downsized in an effort to mask it...

fsx98 · Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:43 pm

I have reuploaded an overview photo of NFW (increased exposure; cropped out roadway causing motive rejection):

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... bb0e10584c

HarryLi · Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:04 pm

The view is nice but the quality seems not quiet good in this case. Iffy to me.

fsx98 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:11 pm

That's okay; I'll let other screeners give input on this overview photo before deciding on whether or not to bin it.

airkas1 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:28 pm

Poor quality indeed.

fsx98 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:33 pm

Thanks Kas and Harry; I'll bin this one from queue.

fsx98 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:47 pm

Here's a JetBlue A320 photo at EWR:
N569JB: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 0d4cde6fed

fsx98 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:33 pm

Updates:

N202HA #1 Rejected for low contrast/noise:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... bc1fbce7bb
N202HA #2 Rejected for same above + underexposed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d4a19512ea
N995AT Rejected for blurry and low contrast:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4398ca274e

Most likely reworking on both photos of N202HA but will bin N995AT; may still have other shots of N995AT that I will upload...

On a positive note:
C-GLQP and N835UA got accepted to the database!

Window view of N7817J at EWR is getting SO'd.

fsx98 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:21 pm

Here's another round of photos up in the screening queue:

N995AT: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 864ab3b3d8
N246NV: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c02b305431
N608SK: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 25da20f1ec
N288UP: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4c935d8718
N461UA: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e8dcde58ad

fsx98 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:48 pm

I have decided to remove N288UP and N461UA from the screening queue due to the fact that they both need adjustments in terms of CW rotation; the N995AT photo above, in question, is a different shot in the landing sequence.

Here's another DL B717, N965AT, in the screening queue:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 579801f670

fsx98 · Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:26 am

N7817J window view update: rejected for OS and quality, in addition to poor light and image quality as stated in a personal message; is it worth re-editing all over?

fsx98 · Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:54 am

I have reuploaded N288UP and N461UA to fix minor CW rotations:
N288UP: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f8011c3e3c
N461UA: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f3a69bccd3

fsx98 · Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:15 pm

Updates:

N7727A rejected for OS; will sharpen the photo a notch less and then reupload.
N29906 is accepted to the database:

fsx98 · Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:46 am

Another Update:

N769UA rejected for soft; reuploaded with another kick of sharpness:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d01dcfd241
N352UP rejected for OE, OS, and Low Contrast; reuploaded with rejection reasons addressed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 463b11a633
N920WN rejected for color, quality, soft, and noise, w/ a personal message; reuploaded with all rejection reasons addressed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d2191b2c94
N38473 rejected for OS and UE; reuploaded w/ toned down sharpening and increased exposure:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f0db5bd1d2
N478WN rejected for OS and noise; reuploaded w/ less-sharpened photo and further noise reduction:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... bfc38c56f9

N8520Q is being SO'd at this time; until then, let me know what you guys think about these re-edited photos!

fsx98 · Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:56 am

N8520Q update: rejected for OS (partly on wings and stabilizer) and UE; will fix this photo and re-upload it later;
In the meantime, I have reuploaded N7727A with sharpness being toned down:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d304fbfce5

Runway28L · Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:39 pm

Honestly I would bin the wing view based off of the PM given. I'm not sure if it would work at 1024 or not.

N7869A: Quality, needs CW
N520JB: Blurry, quality
N569JB: Borderline OS in some spots
N461UA: Blurry, noisy
N288UP: OS titles, needs CCW, noisy, marginal quality
N965AT: Blurry, quality, high contrast
N995AT: Blurry, quality, hazed under the fuselage(?)
N246NV: Noise, tail slightly blurry
N608SK: Same as above

N769UA: Looks more blurry than soft, mainly on the forward part of the fuselage
N352UP: Blurry, noisy, quality, haloing around tail
N920WN: Quality
N38473: Marginal quality, dark (I would increase the shadows and reduce highlights to compensate)
N478WN: Noisy, dark, underexposed

It would help quite a bit with prescreening if you incrementally added images to the screening queue rather than adding so many all at once and asking for feedback. It would take up a lot less time.

fsx98 · Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:53 pm

Thanks Evan; will bin the wing view and N608SK; I'll let other screeners have an opinion of these photos, just to make sure; I'll try to post/upload five at a time for feedback and won't post/upload any additional photos until I receive opinions for the prior photos for feedback.

fsx98 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:18 am

Here's a long rejected photo that is recently re-uploaded after further noise reduction and OS rejection addressed:
N226NN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 26c564bdfb

DL747 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:26 am

N226NN has a super blotchy/noisy sky, seems slightly heat hazed as well. The quality isn't there on this one. 7727 is borderline overall quality, borderline OS in areas, and borderline noise. Looks a little blue to me too. Can't get some others to load due to whatever series of 502 error issue is currently going on with the site.

airkas1 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:47 am

226NN: blue-ish, strong glare, noise/haze.

fsx98 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:37 am

Thanks guys! I'm binning this shot of N226NN, but I have another shot of the same aircraft in a different angle:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 310f98018a

Will think about whether or not to remove N7727A for further fixing...

DL747 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:15 pm

Haze is worse on that one. I would advise it is probably best to pass on this shot.

fsx98 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:31 pm

Thanks Preston; will probably bin this one as well.

fsx98 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:40 pm

I have re-uploaded the airport overview photo of KSTL after increasing contrast:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a557d19f45

fsx98 · Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:38 am

N569JB update: rejected for color (magenta color cast); I couldn't see any traces of magenta color, as with any other photos of aircraft taken at EWR that day; is it worth an appeal or should I re-upload a new edit (I have re-edited with color corrected)?

In the meantime, I have re-uploaded the two shots of the Hawaiian A321:
N202HA #1: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... b31e555703
N202HA #2: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d5e834d38d
Both of the above have increased contrast and further noise reduction, and photo #2 above have increased exposure. Let me know what you guys think!

fsx98 · Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:49 pm

More updates:

N246NV rejected for OS and UE; reuploaded the photo for feedback:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 184edb26d1
Let me know what you guys think!

Also new uploads for feedback:
N14907: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... ca84f85006
N67052: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 7b3ef9e58f

N461UA rejected for soft; will easily bump up a notch of sharpness on a new edit...

Both N995AT & N965AT rejected for blurry; 995 for compression/UE; 965 for soft; will downsize both from 1280 to 1024 in width as a last resort attempt to mask the blurriness and also make other adjustments...

N288UP accepted to the database!

Runway28L · Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:23 am

N246NV: I would reduce the highlights as the sky looks overexposed IMO. Should be passable after that.
N14907: Blurry with OS to compensate
N76052: Blurry, underexposed

fsx98 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:25 pm

Thanks Evan! Didn't notice the blurriness on N14907 but will definitely bin this photo; as for N76052, the only area blurry is the registration, IMO; will let screeners decide on N76052.

N14907 Update: Here's another photo of the same aircraft in a different angle; not sure if that is passable:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c3caab5ddb

HarryLi · Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:20 pm

The latest version of N14907 will not make it i would say. Sorry. Since it's too blurry especially the half front part. Besides, it's too underexposed. Overall quality is too poor. Would suggest you to pick some shots with good weather and good light condition & angle to upload. Remember to set ISO 100 under good light condition so that you can avoid Noise issue as i saw lots of your shots have noise issue.

Regards,
Harry

fsx98 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:42 pm

Thanks Harry! Will bin this one.

fsx98 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 pm

Here's another UA Express ERJ in a similar angle, but different registration:
N14562: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 3c8069b0da

fsx98 · Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:48 am

Some updates:

N520JB accepted to the database!

N769UA rejected for dark, grainy, and low contrast; is it worth re-editing further or should I bin it?

fsx98 · Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:43 am

In addition to the rejected N769UA photo, N352UP is recently rejected for soft and blurry tail; N478WN rejected for blurry, noise, quality, soft, UE, and vignetting, w/ a personal message of "OOF/soft winglet;" and N38473 rejected for noise, quality, and UE, w/ PM of "poor lighting conditions;" would it be best to bin all three of these rejected photos?

fsx98 · Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:54 pm

Rejected photos that I will definitely be binning:
N918FJ: for blurry, noise, quality, UE
N920WN: Blurry, High-in-frame, quality

One more accepted photo:

fsx98 · Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:18 am

Here are some more photos that I would like feedback on, please:

N698CB: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 11d4d57a19
N254NV #1: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a6a488867d
N254NV #2: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 3a694e39a9
N254NV #3: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c0ca276b4f
N254NV #4: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 86b95b0891
N883NN: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e7e1e19ed1

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

DL747 · Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:42 am

I would suggest you bin all three rejections, especially 352UP, since you it was mentioned multiple times that was blurry. As far as new uploads:
N14562: poor light, titles look blurry
N698CB: noisy, blotchy sky, blurry at the front
N254NV 1: blotchy, noisy, quality marginal
N254NV 2: same as above plus out of focus/blurry at nose
N254NV 3: noisy, quality
N254NV 4: best of the bunch, oversharpened in places, blotchy, noisy, quality marginal, slightly low in frame
N883NN: noisy, slight heat haze
I'd try for lower iso shots in better weather. The overall quality of these kinds of shots is marginal at best.

fsx98 · Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:43 pm

Thanks Preston! I will bin all three mentioned rejections and remove some from queue that I don't believe that will pass screening, as well as all others to be fixed.

airkas1 · Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:47 am

fsx98 wrote:
In addition to the rejected N769UA photo, N352UP is recently rejected for soft and blurry tail; N478WN rejected for blurry, noise, quality, soft, UE, and vignetting, w/ a personal message of "OOF/soft winglet;" and N38473 rejected for noise, quality, and UE, w/ PM of "poor lighting conditions;" would it be best to bin all three of these rejected photos?

In general, I would bin everything that gets done for blurry or quality. Both are not fixable.

fsx98 wrote:
Here are some more photos that I would like feedback on, please:

I agree with what Preston wrote.

fsx98 · Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:05 pm

Thanks Kas; I had binned all rejected photos that cannot be fixed; will remove all mentioned pre-screened photos from queue; I will try to fix some photos and bin some unfixable photos as well.

fsx98 · Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:37 pm

I have uploaded another photo of N883NN in a different angle (earlier sequence):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 849fd99f90

Any feedback is greatly appreciated!

DL747 · Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:36 pm

Heat haze is worse on this one. I don't think a different shot from the sequence will do anything for the issues mentioned.

fsx98 · Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:42 pm

Thanks Preston; deleting this one from queue and binning it from further editing; both of the originals of N883NN had heat haze and were downsized to 1024 in an attempt to mask it; I don't expect either to be passable but was just wondering if this measure would help.

fsx98 · Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:12 am

Here's another AA B738, N942NN:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 26cde5dfa7

Let me know what you guys think!

DL747 · Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:20 am

Quite a bit of heat haze with this one too, and a borderline noisy/blotchy sky. Borderline OS in spots.

airkas1 · Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:50 am

I can agree with the above assessment.

fsx98 · Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:06 pm

Thanks guys; deleting this one from queue.

I have two more photos of the same aircraft in different angles; let me know what you guys think of these photos:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4dcdf8533b
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 83e37e5548

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net