Pre/post screen - Runway28L

Runway28L · Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:48 pm

Hi folks! I've decided to make a new thread since the old one started to become a bit cluttered.

Anyway, just to get things up ands running, I have an image currently in the queue that I would like some opinions on:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 825df7e1c9

I'm unsure about it having a chance due to the low light and the way I edited it so I was wondering if anyone has any other thoughts.

fsx98 · Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:03 am

Looks passable to me; was this taken near sunset hours?

airkas1 · Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:33 pm

Titles and windowline look a bit too sharp, but otherwise passable for me.

Runway28L · Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:35 pm

Thank you Victor and Kas. Looks like it ended up getting accepted.

Runway28L · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:53 pm

Just had this image rejected for blurry. Anyone have any thoughts?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 35c1dd917e

jelpee · Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:37 am

The front half of the aircraft looks blurry to me...with some over sharpening to compensate?

Jehan

Runway28L · Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:52 am

Alrighty, thanks Jehan. Although I did not see any blur in the full size, I picked two other images from that sequence that may be better.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4072568824
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 5cf3c3ce01

airkas1 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:56 pm

All 3 looks similar, some slight blur and a little OS to compensate.

Runway28L · Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:09 am

Thanks Kas. Sorry for the late reply. I left the third image from that sequence in the queue and it got rejected for Soft. Might go back and fix it at some point.

Runway28L · Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:22 am

Had this image rejected for Blurry, OS, and High in Frame.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c3c88dec83

I looked at the original file and the rear fuselage and tail do appear to be on the soft side but I'm wondering if I could salvage it. I don't know what to make of the framing, having a hard time deciding if I should fix it or not.

spompert · Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:14 pm

Not sure, are the windows at the front half of the plane sharp in the original? HIF is easy to solve, the left wing brings the balance more to the upper half in my view.

JakTrax · Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:28 pm

Looks generally blurry to me but that livery is a real pain as, at that size, CA can often take on a similar appearance to blur. The original file will always tell you.....

Karl

Runway28L · Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:17 am

Thanks Stefan and Karl. I took a look at it again and I am probably just going to bin it. Morning light was starting to get a bit harsh and was having some issues with getting things to look sharp. Thought resizing and adding a bit more sharpening would've mitigated things but it appears not.

The HiF is borderline IMO but I can see why. I thought the fuselage looked low enough relative to the height of the wing. Just an angle I'm not too used to shooting at.

airkas1 · Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:37 pm

It's not super high in frame though, so if you have more of such photos (angle-wise), don't move it down too much.

Runway28L · Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:52 pm

Thanks Kas, I'll try to be aware of that in the future.

Also, does anyone think this image even has a chance of making it? I'm inclined to say no, but I was wondering if anyone has something else to say.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c90e63eead

airkas1 · Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:05 pm

Looks blurry and oversharpened to compensate, sorry.

Runway28L · Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:52 pm

Ok I'll pull it from the queue. Thanks Kas.

Runway28L · Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:58 am

Anyone think I should add more CW rotation to this image?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2970c40ebd

jelpee · Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:00 pm

To my eyes, it needs CCW rotation based on the tower in the background, the taxiway marker light in the foreground, and also the far edge of the runway, all of which are leaning to the right. a bit over-sharpened on the aircraft as well.

Jehan

JakTrax · Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:44 pm

The suggested rotation I doubt would make much difference. It looks good to me as it is; the references Jehan mentions are just too unreliable to succinctly conclude that it's not level. Benefit of doubt, in which case? The noseweel base is below that of the main gear - if you applied CCW it may well create an imbalance. Sometimes 'feeling' level is better than actually being level.

Agree with oversharp though. Quite obvious on my screen.

Karl

spompert · Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:10 pm

To me the windows look a bit blurry or soft. Perhaps tried to sharpen too much to compensate this?

Runway28L · Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:42 pm

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

Jehan and Karl... I see what you mean with the taxiway light and the cell tower way out there in the back. They look slightly right for sure. The conflicting issue IMO (and why I mentioned CW) is that the taxiway and the runways in the background look like they are downsloping to the left. I guess that makes the whole leveling thing moot.

Here is a new version. I reduced overall sharpening of the image but I added some to the windowline that Stefan made note of.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... c015c2cc22

Runway28L · Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:13 pm

I’m really stumped on all four of these. Just had all rejected for blurry or blurry/OS:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8eb707027c
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d27d44ae5d (PM: "Front half of the AC is soft / blurry.")
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8c5faa6d93
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4b07fa3e72

All four are crisp as day in Lightroom at full size. I’m wondering if I’m having issues with resizing lately, because these blurry rejections have really started to rack up and I’ve hardly noticed any difference in the images I’ve been taking.

airkas1 · Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:43 pm

Hi Evan,

I hate to say it, but I can see the blurry/OS combination in your most recent 5 links.

Runway28L · Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:13 pm

Hey Kas, do you think all could somehow be salvaged if done properly or should I just not even bother?

JakTrax · Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:14 pm

I think the long and short of it is that it's very difficult to pick up on true blur from such small-sized images. None of those last four look particularly bad to me (the SWA looks the least blurry, followed by the Spirit)) but scrutinising the originals very closely (i.e. pixel peeping) will tell you for sure. Liveries such as SWA are notoriously difficult due to the way digital sensors resolve detail across areas of high contrast. The worst is DHL, because modern sensors just aren't very good with red on yellow - I've yet to see an original file featuring that livery that doesn't somehow look soft!

Also, CA along high contrast edges can give the illusion of softness/blur, making it even more difficult to judge from a 1200 pixel image.

If your images are coming out blurry I imagine it's your lens either front of back-focusing, since the light in which you clearly shoot tends to be good.

Karl

HarryLi · Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:02 am

Hello Evan,

could somehow be salvaged if done properly or should I just not even bother?

As Kas mentioned above, all five images do have those problems. And Blurry can not be salvaged actually.

N496UA has obvious blurry at the title for me.
N224WN as you mentioned it does have blurry and the reg also seems blurry IMO.
N639NK is the same as the above one.
JB seems blurry at the tail and the nose IMO.

Regards,
Harry

airkas1 · Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:44 am

I would not bother re-editing them, sorry.

The light does seem doable to good, so not sure what went wrong. Karl could be right though. I haven't had the pleasure yet of taking photos of Southwest/Spirit aircraft, so no idea how their livery behaves on camera.

JakTrax · Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:18 pm

Spirit should be fine from a sensor's point-of-view as there are no real high-contrast edges. The United and Jetblue do look soft/blurry in parts but I'm not convinced re the Southwest. But like I said, it'll be easy to deduce from the original file.

If there is blur then it is either down to technique or a fault with the lens (which may or may not be correctable). Since it's pretty hard to produce blurry images given the decent light apparent in your photos I'm tempted to go with the latter explanation. My guess would be a slight mis-focus issue or possibly edge softness (typically a trait of a cheaper lens).

It is worth noting that focus points can sometimes be confused by a subject exhibiting very little contrast or detail (i.e. a well-lit aircraft fuselage), although it shouldn't be happening with such regularity.

Karl

Runway28L · Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:20 pm

Thanks for the explanations everyone.

The lens I used for all four doesn't even have autofocus and I have to manually calibrate it for every shot I take, which can be a bit tricky sometimes. The Southwest, yellow Spirit livery, and some of the USAF aircraft have given me issues due to their high contrast that Karl mentioned, but it hasn't happened often enough where I'd considered it much of a problem.

JakTrax · Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:04 pm

Hmmm. The manual focus lens sounds like it could be the issue. In the past most lenses had an 'infinity' mark which, once set at, put everything over a certain distance (typically 12 metres) in focus. Today's lenses work slightly differently and it's not so straight forward.

I wouldn't, however, discount the other theories, including too slow a shutter speed and focusing issues. Why don't you check the original files for confirmation? Very easy to spot blur in a large file, even if it's only 6mp.

Karl

Runway28L · Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:34 am

Hey all. What does anyone think of these three that were just rejected?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 030b532d9b
Soft, Underexposed

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4d3cc70449
Color, Oversharpened, PM "colors are oversaturated"

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d5c4b5d650
Blurry, Soft, Color, PM "colors are oversaturated"

1. I fail to see how that's considered underexposed. I had a nearly identical image that I took just before that one which got accepted no problem.
2. I can reduce the sharpening no problem, but I'm not sure how the image is oversaturated. I have contrast at +15, vibrance at +7, and saturation at 0, which is typical of me when editing in Lightroom.
3. Same as the one above, I have my color settings at levels I normally go with. Since it got rejected for blurry, I'm probably just going to bin this one anyways.

jelpee · Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:50 pm

1. AC CRJ: ex[osure looks OK to me. I'd say blurry (titles/nose) more than soft.
2. UA A320: Agree with over sharpening. Disagree with saturation.
3. AC CRJ:Agree with blurry. Disagree with saturation.

Jehan

Runway28L · Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:45 pm

Thanks Jehan! Just fixed the United and re-uploaded it.

Runway28L · Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:50 pm

Also, I seem to be having a lot of issues lately with photographing Air Canada's new livery. It seems like my lens will consistently refuse to focus on the cockpit area, likely due to the black mask that AC added to the livery. That is likely the issue in the third image I linked. Has anyone who has caught the new AC livery yet been having a similar problem? And is there a way anyone had found to work around it?

airkas1 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:22 pm

I caught a MAX, 777 and 787 at LHR months ago, just checked some files, but they don't seem to have a significantly softer/more OOF cockpit area. It could be because of the large different in contrast, but can't say for sure. Likely there isn't much that can be done about it. Similarly, I've been having trouble with our 'local' ATR's for years now and rarely get them sharp front to back.

Runway28L · Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:07 am

I guess I'll have to either get a close up of the new livery next time I get on the ramp or try another angle and see if I get different results. I caught the new livery again this week from the same location and I ended up with the same result.

Funny you mention the ATRs. I've had a similar history with some of the CRJs and ERJs here. I usually have to put in more effort to try and get crisp images of them, likely because they are on the edge of my lens' ideal focal length due to their small size.

Thanks for the response! :wave:

Runway28L · Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:24 pm

The United I posted above just got rejected again, but this time for Blurry, OS, and High Contrast.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 9871e4cd04

Having a hard time seeing any justification for all three if I’m being quite honest.

jelpee · Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:37 pm

Don't see blur or high contrast, but it is showing jaggies particularly around the nose gear and cockpit windows.

Jehan

airkas1 · Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:38 pm

The back looks slightly blurry, but passable for me. I do agree with Jehan on an OS nosegear.

Runway28L · Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:36 am

Hmmm alrighty. Looks like I may have gone overboard with the sharpening tool in those areas. Will make note of the changes I make and try one more time. Thanks Kas and Jehan!

Runway28L · Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:02 pm

Anyone have second opinions regarding this image? It was rejected for Low in Frame and Underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d9c77ede2b

spompert · Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:36 pm

I don't find it to be low in frame. Underexposed maybe a bit.

jelpee · Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:55 pm

I do not find it to be low in frame nor underexposed. A tad over sharpened (along the window frames, but passable for me.

Jehan

Runway28L · Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:21 am

Just appealed it, fingers crossed. Thanks Jehan and Stefan!

Runway28L · Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:25 pm

Looks like it was rejected once again but for High in Frame this time. The screener left a PM mentioning that but also said exposure was fine.

airkas1 · Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:05 pm

Centering is fine for me as well, although it looks a bit OS to compensate for blur.

Runway28L · Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:24 am

Hey Jehan, did you happen to screen this photo earlier?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e3326c79ec
Rejected for Underexposed, PM

Just fixed it and re-uploaded, how does it look now?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 6b99f1ab40

jelpee · Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:12 pm

Runway28L wrote:
Hey Jehan, did you happen to screen this photo earlier?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e3326c79ec
Rejected for Underexposed, PM

Just fixed it and re-uploaded, how does it look now?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 6b99f1ab40

Wasn't me

. Your second one should be good though.

Jehan

airkas1 · Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:15 pm

Second one is better

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net