llpilch - prescreening request

[llpilch]

It looks like serial number was missing in your upload.

That's weird, every time I try the Auto-fill with "PP-MIG" it fills correctly the serial number with "3159".

If it was really the case, ok, I could've seen that the SN field remained empty and manually filled it, but let's be honest: the upload in JP is so simply and works so good that it's easy to just look over and see that the airport and aircraft model was correctly filled, assuming everything is ok to upload as the database already has the data of this aircraft screened before. Since there are another photos accepted of this aircraft with the serial number, I believe that some error occured with the Auto-Fill and I didn't pick it up.
Well, that's not completely my fault, can this rejection be reverted? It's sad to loose a slot and get the acceptance ratio reduced by a "site induced error". The photo is ok and just fill the serial number is pretty simple to do...

[cyx323]

Hello! Need some help here, I really didn't understand this rejection:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10750353

On the email was said the wrong info is the Serial Number/CN. Well, on the queue or the rejected photos the serial number field is always empty, so now I can't see which serial number I sent when uploaded this image, but the Auto-Fill was used, and simulating another upload for this registration, the Auto-Fill fills the serial number field with "3159", which is correct for this aircraft, so, what is the matter here?

It looks like serial number was missing in your upload.

[llpilch]

Hello! Need some help here, I really didn't understand this rejection:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10750353

On the email was said the wrong info is the Serial Number/CN. Well, on the queue or the rejected photos the serial number field is always empty, so now I can't see which serial number I sent when uploaded this image, but the Auto-Fill was used, and simulating another upload for this registration, the Auto-Fill fills the serial number field with "3159", which is correct for this aircraft, so, what is the matter here?

[dlowwa]

Hi!

It was rejected once because of the blues on the ground, they were "unnatural" and I had to agree... I admit I've appealed it but after the second rejection I find out the hue was strange on the blues and uploaded it again after fixing that. But now I really think it's ok... The airplane was lit by the yellow airport sodium lights, the sky was something like a blueish white/gray, the very wet tarmac was reflecting the sky and after doing the white balance, what was white became blue! That's normal and doing white balance was always allowed here, so, I really don't understand what is the issue now. I think this blue is ok for this time of the day, very dark already but not night yet. Take a look on the taxiway lights, which are blue, they looks normal, if I had changed the hue and modified the blue color, those lights would the the color changed also. Again, all I did was the white balance, the colors are consistent whith this WB.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10629893

thanks

Try with a warmer setting on the WB.

[llpilch]

Hi!

It was rejected once because of the blues on the ground, they were "unnatural" and I had to agree... I admit I've appealed it but after the second rejection I find out the hue was strange on the blues and uploaded it again after fixing that. But now I really think it's ok... The airplane was lit by the yellow airport sodium lights, the sky was something like a blueish white/gray, the very wet tarmac was reflecting the sky and after doing the white balance, what was white became blue! That's normal and doing white balance was always allowed here, so, I really don't understand what is the issue now. I think this blue is ok for this time of the day, very dark already but not night yet. Take a look on the taxiway lights, which are blue, they looks normal, if I had changed the hue and modified the blue color, those lights would the the color changed also. Again, all I did was the white balance, the colors are consistent whith this WB.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10629893

thanks

[llpilch]

Thank you!

[dlowwa]

Thanks for the tip!

I processed the Beluga image again. Both upper corners are more lit now, what do you think about vignetting?

About the banding: I did exactly what you said (RAW - TIFF 16bit - edit - JPG) and actually didn't see much difference.
I attacched a crop in full size of the RAW and the "banding" is already there. Also there is the photo equalized, and in this one a thing become pretty evident: close to the horizon, right above the plane, the sky is VERY dark. Like I said before, in that direction there is a big city with dry weather, a lot of dust in the air, in a space of few pixels the orange sky fades to black, there is no smooth transition there, I believe THIS is creating the banding, not a processing neither a compression issue

Honestly, neither are really big issues for me, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I hope others see it that way as well

[llpilch]

For me (as you may have guessed), the processing was not an issue. Try converting the raw file to a 16-bit TIFF first, doing all of your editing, then resizing, and then saving as jpeg. I find that usually eliminates most or all banding.

I can see the vignetting pretty easily, even in the thumbnails. Given its location in both corners, it's pretty obvious it's from your lens.

Thanks for the tip!

I processed the Beluga image again. Both upper corners are more lit now, what do you think about vignetting?

About the banding: I did exactly what you said (RAW - TIFF 16bit - edit - JPG) and actually didn't see much difference.
I attacched a crop in full size of the RAW and the "banding" is already there. Also there is the photo equalized, and in this one a thing become pretty evident: close to the horizon, right above the plane, the sky is VERY dark. Like I said before, in that direction there is a big city with dry weather, a lot of dust in the air, in a space of few pixels the orange sky fades to black, there is no smooth transition there, I believe THIS is creating the banding, not a processing neither a compression issue

[dlowwa]

Thank you! But please, as a senior screener, what do you think about it? Is it REALLY an issue here? Does it worth appealing?

As I said on the "comments to screener" when I uploaded it, and as I said in the post #92, there is absolutely nothing on the post processing creating this bandings, it's just a lot of shades of orange fading to black in a dark sky almonst an hour before sunrise in a 8 bit JPG file with sRGB color space.

I tried my best on the second upload, the banding was reduced, not even in the equalized image the banding is so strong. If it's possible to eliminate it from the JPG photo, I really don't know how...

Being honest with you as much as possible: not even the vignetting is there, I uploaded a wingview as example of photo with similar conditions, it's natural, the rest of the sky is black...
Unfortunately the print screen on post #92 is too small and it is not visible, but the lens profile is activated with vignetting correction, there is no vignetting on both lower corners of the frame...

Thank you for you attention and help

For me (as you may have guessed), the processing was not an issue. Try converting the raw file to a 16-bit TIFF first, doing all of your editing, then resizing, and then saving as jpeg. I find that usually eliminates most or all banding.

I can see the vignetting pretty easily, even in the thumbnails. Given its location in both corners, it's pretty obvious it's from your lens.

[llpilch]

Screener who rejected it said it was for the banding in the sky, not any halos.

Thank you! But please, as a senior screener, what do you think about it? Is it REALLY an issue here? Does it worth appealing?

As I said on the "comments to screener" when I uploaded it, and as I said in the post #92, there is absolutely nothing on the post processing creating this bandings, it's just a lot of shades of orange fading to black in a dark sky almonst an hour before sunrise in a 8 bit JPG file with sRGB color space.

I tried my best on the second upload, the banding was reduced, not even in the equalized image the banding is so strong. If it's possible to eliminate it from the JPG photo, I really don't know how...

Being honest with you as much as possible: not even the vignetting is there, I uploaded a wingview as example of photo with similar conditions, it's natural, the rest of the sky is black...
Unfortunately the print screen on post #92 is too small and it is not visible, but the lens profile is activated with vignetting correction, there is no vignetting on both lower corners of the frame...

Thank you for you attention and help

[dlowwa]

ok, thank you!

Screener who rejected it said it was for the banding in the sky, not any halos.

[llpilch]

Can't really say much about the vignetting. It is there, probably should have been mentioned in the first rejection.

As for the bad processing, I've contacted the screener involved to see what they thought the issue was, and I'll post here when I find out.

ok, thank you!

[dlowwa]

Hi, asking for help with the same photo again

Can't really say much about the vignetting. It is there, probably should have been mentioned in the first rejection.

As for the bad processing, I've contacted the screener involved to see what they thought the issue was, and I'll post here when I find out.

[llpilch]

Banding visible in the sky. May be compression rather than processing. Needs CW rotation.

Hi, asking for help with the same photo again

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10459184

First, thanks for the tip of the horizon, taking another look I had to agree with the unlevel, so I applied 0,3° CW, looks better!

Now about the vignetting, which wasn't even an issue on the first rejection: there is no vignette at all, dark corners are visible only in the upper part of the image, the lenses does vignette in all corners. The image was taken in the early moments of dawn at about 45 minutes before sunrise, the sun rises exactly in that part of the sky seen in the image (see planet Venus next to the tail), that part is more lit than the rest of the sky, it's natural, just a bit up this frame the sky was black.
It is an 4 seconds exposure image, the sky was very dark.

And then comes again the overprocessed/bad post processed. I'm assuming it is due to the banding again, which is way weaker than the first rejected upload and should not be a problem, but as I said: dawn, dark sky, a lot of orange tones in a fading to black sky, pollution and dust in the air from a big and dry-weather city close to the horizon, even in the raw file some banding is visible, imagine it after converting to a 8 bit JPG in sRGB color space! It is impossible this conditions will provide a smooth color transition...

I attached a print screen of the original RAW. In this image only the color profile and and lens correction were applied as my Lightroom is set to do it by default when importing the files.
Notice how the corners in the sky are dark even with the lens correction and the ground are not, how the pollution close to the horizon creates a strong and sharp division between the orange and the black, how the sky fades to darkness to the left, right, and up.

Plus, see how the image was cropped cutting off the corners, the most affected area by vignette

Sorry for the long text, thanks in advance for your attention and help.

[dlowwa]

Hi, please some help here:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392896

I can't see any sign of over processing or bad post processing, no halo at all, no noise reduction, looks normal.

About the horizon: there is no good reference, the horizon itself is not visble due to rugged terrain, but the photo looks ok. There's only a tower hard to be seen above the tail, and a pole under the tail, wich looks vertical. By the way, not reliable references since it is too much to the left of the frame, taken with a wide lens. More to the center there is some equipment with vertical lines which looks ok also. The plane doesn't seem to be "climbing or descending a hill"

Banding visible in the sky. May be compression rather than processing. Needs CW rotation.