Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

thebigdog360 - Prescreening Advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • thebigdog360 - Prescreening Advice

    Hello, would appreciate any feedback regarding these business jets. In order, N443QS, C-GSAT, & C-FACO.
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Not a screener, but
    All 3 soft
    1 borderline noisy
    2 aircraft not centered (too low)

    Comment


    • #3
      Copy of my reply in your previous post.

      Not a screener, but I would have doubts about the mentioned HOT status.
      - N443QS would be a first registration in database (but the airframe is from 2021).
      - C-FACO is an older CN550 and there are many photos in the database, except for this c/s. As far as I can see, C-FACO is currently assigned to a CN560.
      - C-GSAT would be indeed new, as the reg was an Air Transat A310 before. So you may give priority to this photo in order to keep the HOT criteria.
      My 5 cents.
      Regards AKH

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AKH View Post
        Copy of my reply in your previous post.

        Not a screener, but I would have doubts about the mentioned HOT status.
        - N443QS would be a first registration in database (but the airframe is from 2021).
        - C-FACO is an older CN550 and there are many photos in the database, except for this c/s. As far as I can see, C-FACO is currently assigned to a CN560.
        - C-GSAT would be indeed new, as the reg was an Air Transat A310 before. So you may give priority to this photo in order to keep the HOT criteria.
        My 5 cents.
        Regards AKH
        As N443QS registration is not in the DB, it is definitely hot, the hot text field should not even be filled as such a shot is hot automatically, regardless of whether the airframe is 1 year old, or 20.
        This C-FACO livery is also not present yet, so it most likely is hot either.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JuklicekCZ View Post

          As N443QS registration is not in the DB, it is definitely hot, the hot text field should not even be filled as such a shot is hot automatically, regardless of whether the airframe is 1 year old, or 20.
          This C-FACO livery is also not present yet, so it most likely is hot either.
          I mean to tick the "HOT" box when uploading. So N443QS would qualify and also C-GSAT for sure. I still woudl doubt C-FACO since this particular aircraft is no longer active as such.
          However, my point of view, the screeners will always decide if HOT or not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JuklicekCZ View Post

            As N443QS registration is not in the DB, it is definitely hot, the hot text field should not even be filled as such a shot is hot automatically, regardless of whether the airframe is 1 year old, or 20.
            This C-FACO livery is also not present yet, so it most likely is hot either.
            Yes I was basing the claims of these being hot off of these points as well as what AKH mentioned about C-GSAT in an earlier reply.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by AKH View Post

              I mean to tick the "HOT" box when uploading. So N443QS would qualify and also C-GSAT for sure. I still woudl doubt C-FACO since this particular aircraft is no longer active as such.
              However, my point of view, the screeners will always decide if HOT or not.
              I'm not sure I understand what you mean by FACO not being active? All the photos in the database show FACO as being a CN560 since the very first photo, and I am no expert in private jets, but the FACO I photographed does seem to be a CN560 as well?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by arseni628 View Post
                Not a screener, but
                All 3 soft
                1 borderline noisy
                2 aircraft not centered (too low)
                Thank you, I know you are not a screener but I have made some adjustments based on your feedback:
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by thebigdog360 View Post

                  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by FACO not being active? All the photos in the database show FACO as being a CN560 since the very first photo, and I am no expert in private jets, but the FACO I photographed does seem to be a CN560 as well?
                  You are right...ignore my comment regarding C-FACO...need glasses

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Also have this, which I am less confident in, but would coincidentally be new to the database .

                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by thebigdog360 View Post

                      Thank you, I know you are not a screener but I have made some adjustments based on your feedback:
                      All images slightly soft and show editing halos to various extents (overprocessed).

                      Originally posted by thebigdog360 View Post
                      Also have this, which I am less confident in, but would coincidentally be new to the database .
                      Soft, blurry, too low, overprocessed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                        All images slightly soft and show editing halos to various extents (overprocessed).
                        Is there anything specific when editing that causes the halos or is it overall an issue? Thanks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by thebigdog360 View Post

                          Is there anything specific when editing that causes the halos or is it overall an issue? Thanks.
                          Without knowing your exact workflow, couldn't tell you, but usually the result of settings related to shadow/highlight, dehaze, vibrance, clarity, etc..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                            Without knowing your exact workflow, couldn't tell you, but usually the result of settings related to shadow/highlight, dehaze, vibrance, clarity, etc..
                            Ok thanks, I don't want to dwell on these three photos but here I hopefully fixed the issues they had:
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by thebigdog360 View Post

                              Ok thanks, I don't want to dwell on these three photos but here I hopefully fixed the issues they had:
                              1. soft, dirty
                              2-3. soft, overprocessed

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X