Advice/Confirmation requested by jakerepp

[jakerepp]

Both slightly soft for me. No halos.

Okay, thanks. I'll probably add sharpening and upload the Finnair and dump the Citation for now.

[dlowwa]

Do you think these look better?

Both slightly soft for me. No halos.

[jakerepp]

Maybe the bad processing could actually be caused by applying too much noise reduction, but its just a guess.

That's what I had assumed, but when I checked on it, I really didn't apply 'that much' (which is obviously subjective, but it was a lot less than I had thought I must've applied). Plus Dana said processing was fine, so I dunno. I don't feel like I see a bunch of lost detail or anything. Just the nature of the game.

[JuklicekCZ]

I can see the horizon now. I was surprised about the processing rejection reason. I barely touched it outside of sharpening and NR.

Are you seeing halos on the Finnair?

Do you think these look better?

Maybe the bad processing could actually be caused by applying too much noise reduction, but its just a guess.

[jakerepp]

Borderline soft/overprocessed, so a bit better.



Sharpening and processing are fine. I can maybe see the horizon being off a bit, but otherwise I would have suggested an appeal.

I can see the horizon now. I was surprised about the processing rejection reason. I barely touched it outside of sharpening and NR.

Are you seeing halos on the Finnair?

Do you think these look better?

[dlowwa]

Do you think it's a similar story on this Finnair as the Lingus?

Borderline soft/overprocessed, so a bit better.

That biz jet night shot was rejected also https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10588939. Massive difference of opinion on those between you and whoever screened it, I guess . Oh well. Maybe I'll just move past those.

Sharpening and processing are fine. I can maybe see the horizon being off a bit, but otherwise I would have suggested an appeal.

[jakerepp]

1. soft, overprocessed (too much NR), borderline dark
2. ok for me

Rejected image does indeed need brightening.

Do you think it's a similar story on this Finnair as the Lingus?

That biz jet night shot was rejected also https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10588939. Massive difference of opinion on those between you and whoever screened it, I guess . Oh well. Maybe I'll just move past those.

[dlowwa]

Thanks.

I had one of this Aer Lingus in the queue for a while and kept getting uneasy that it was too dark so I deleted it. I increased the exposure on it to upload here.

Also another night shot and hot photo. I'm assuming the flapping red flag off the wingtip wouldn't lead to a rejection for blur or something, but I hate losing slots.

Edit: And this night shot from a couple comments back was just rejected for Dark and Undersharpened. Maybe it was undersharpened, but the aircraft is well lit so I'm not sure how it's supposed to look to make it not 'dark'.
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10587117

1. soft, overprocessed (too much NR), borderline dark
2. ok for me

Rejected image does indeed need brightening.

[WalterLai]

Thanks.

I had one of this Aer Lingus in the queue for a while and kept getting uneasy that it was too dark so I deleted it. I increased the exposure on it to upload here.

Also another night shot and hot photo. I'm assuming the flapping red flag off the wingtip wouldn't lead to a rejection for blur or something, but I hate losing slots.

Edit: And this night shot from a couple comments back was just rejected for Dark and Undersharpened. Maybe it was undersharpened, but the aircraft is well lit so I'm not sure how it's supposed to look to make it not 'dark'.
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10587117

I think you need to add more whites to the second photo

[jakerepp]

Ok for me.

Thanks.

I had one of this Aer Lingus in the queue for a while and kept getting uneasy that it was too dark so I deleted it. I increased the exposure on it to upload here.

Also another night shot and hot photo. I'm assuming the flapping red flag off the wingtip wouldn't lead to a rejection for blur or something, but I hate losing slots.

Edit: And this night shot from a couple comments back was just rejected for Dark and Undersharpened. Maybe it was undersharpened, but the aircraft is well lit so I'm not sure how it's supposed to look to make it not 'dark'.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10587117

[dlowwa]

Does this night shot work? Not sure if its too much NR and not enough sharpening.

Ok for me.

[jakerepp]

No on the first, borderline on the second.

Thanks.

Does this night shot work? Not sure if its too much NR and not enough sharpening.

[dlowwa]

These are from sets that were pretty much all heat hazed to varying degrees. I don't know that I'd even upload it. They were new registrations at the time but aren't anymore. I'm just wondering if having them it only 1024 hides the haze enough, for my future reference.

No on the first, borderline on the second.

[jakerepp]

These are from sets that were pretty much all heat hazed to varying degrees. I don't know that I'd even upload it. They were new registrations at the time but aren't anymore. I'm just wondering if having them it only 1024 hides the haze enough, for my future reference.

[jakerepp]

The 5 pics appear ok to me

Regards
Alex

Thanks Alex!

Was primarily unsure about the DC9 since I had never attempted anything in that kinda of lighting before.