bstolle - prescreening request/rejection advice please

[bstolle]

I've uploaded this photo and the reason for rejection was besides 'undersharpened', 'too much or too little contrast'.
Since contrast looks correct to me,''too much or too little contrast' isn't really helpful to decide how to improve the photo.



The rejection reasons for the next photo are somewhat puzzling. The only changes I made were an increased contrast and a different method of sharpening.
While undersharpened was gone now, dark/underexposed was added, but I don't see a significant difference.
The reason 'categories wrong or missing' is impossible to solve by myself because I can't find out how to fill out the form correctly if it's a new airplane which hasn't been uploaded before.
Since there's no info about this airplane, I used 'unknown' which is apparently wrong.



For another new registration airplane, (G-GJIM) I initially used the S/N (62-261) and 'private' due the official owner (james hartley).
This was apparently wrong because the rejection reason was 'categories wrong or missing'.

On my second attempt I used 'unknown' an no S/N since previously the categories were wrong or missing,
This time the rejection reason was again 'categories wrong or missing', plus 'bad info'.

Any help on how to solve these issues would be greatly apprectiated.

Best regards

Bernt Stolle Capt.ret. Austrian Airlines

My airplane art:
Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America

[TRTPUwU]

The categories in my opinion should be : small prop. That is all in my opinion, and exclude from FR24 if you want to, but it is NOT a : night shot, wing view, cockpit/cabin shot, air to air , accident, helicopter, carbo, buiness jet, lighter than air, vintage or special scheme.
Also, the second photo IS darker than the first (look at the shadow below the aircraft) and maybye has a bit too much contrast. You can ask about the info. of the aircraft in the forums, maybye some of the long time photographers know some goverment or public websites that track aircraft registrations and have their information.

[jakerepp]

I can't find info about the aircraft either, but I don't think its worth trying given the very poor weather/light conditions.

[TRTPUwU]

Yeah, the aircraft seems to be registred in pakistan, there is generally not so much info for civilian aircraft registred in third world countries, even less of military or private aviation, so good luck finding the reg.

[Felipe Garcia]

Since contrast looks correct to me,''too much or too little contrast' isn't really helpful to decide how to improve the photo.

Unfortunately this is due to the weather, and it's not fixable.

[dlowwa]

I've uploaded this photo and the reason for rejection was besides 'undersharpened', 'too much or too little contrast'.
Since contrast looks correct to me,''too much or too little contrast' isn't really helpful to decide how to improve the photo.

The rejection reasons for the next photo are somewhat puzzling. The only changes I made were an increased contrast and a different method of sharpening.
While undersharpened was gone now, dark/underexposed was added, but I don't see a significant difference.
The reason 'categories wrong or missing' is impossible to solve by myself because I can't find out how to fill out the form correctly if it's a new airplane which hasn't been uploaded before.
Since there's no info about this airplane, I used 'unknown' which is apparently wrong.

For another new registration airplane, (G-GJIM) I initially used the S/N (62-261) and 'private' due the official owner (james hartley).
This was apparently wrong because the rejection reason was 'categories wrong or missing'.

On my second attempt I used 'unknown' an no S/N since previously the categories were wrong or missing,
This time the rejection reason was again 'categories wrong or missing', plus 'bad info'.

Categories wrong or missing: should be Small Prop
Bad Info: 'unknown' not acceptable as S/N or Airline. Please use 62-261 and Private
Too much or too little contrast: bad light due to overcast conditions. Unfortunately this will not be easy to fix with editing. If possible, you should try to get a photo(s) with better light.

[bstolle]

TRTPUwU Thanx for your reply. On the second photo the shadows are darker, but that's due to the increased contrast. Otherwise lighting looks IMO identical to the second photo, that's why I don't have an idea how to correct an underexposed picture which previously wasn't considered underexposed.
Since LOAN is where the Diamonds are being built, I'm pretty sure that this specific airplane has just been completed and there doesn't exist any info about it (yet).

jakerepp Thanx for your opinion. I know that the conditions were less then perfect, but since this is a brand new Pakistani registered Diamond, it will be most likely impossible to make any further photos once it has been delivered. So I HAD to give it a try.

Felipe Garcia Thanx for you reply.

dlowwa Thank you for taking time for your detailed reply and I'd like to apologize for partially wasting your time. I didn't realize before posting that there are numerous sticky and very helpful threads which answer most of my questions. I didn't even notice that there are useful sub forums until I had numerous recjections.
During my decades of photographing airplanes I never bothered with histograms etc. I will dig into serious photo editing before opening a prescreening thread to see if an upload for this very rare bird makes sense.


Best regards

Bernt Stolle Capt.ret. Austrian Airlines

My airplane art:
Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America

[bstolle]

Since my 5 first ever uploads were rejected, I thought that I would rather post here first and ask how the chances are for these 3 since my photoshop editing skills have improved...at least I think so.
Thanx in advance.

[dlowwa]

Since my 5 first ever uploads were rejected, I thought that I would rather post here first and ask how the chances are for these 3 since my photoshop editing skills have improved...at least I think so.

Hello,

Please read here carefully when you get the chance, especially #4:

https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/aviation-photography-videography-forums/digital-photo-processing-forum/63048-suggestions-when-asking-for-editing-advice-prescreening-from-crew

I've moved your post to your previous thread, and any future editing/prescreening/requests should be made here.

1-2. dirty, overprocessed, borderline (harsh) contrast
3. dark/contrast, dirty, overprocessed

[bstolle]

Hi,

I did read all the points, but since I was unable to edit the header of my intial post, I thought I had to create a new one.

Here's my next attempt which I'd like to get feedback for:

Thanx in advance

[Julian S.]

Hello,

1. dark, contrast, tad soft...overall bad lighting which is not fixable for our database
2. tad dark and soft, overprocessed

Have a nice day

[bstolle]

Thanx a lot for your detailed reply Julian. Really helpful, so here's my next attempt:

Best regards

Bernt Stolle Capt.ret. Austrian Airlines

My airplane art:
Bernt Stolle - Art for Sale | Fine Art America

[dlowwa]

Thanx a lot for your detailed response. Really helpful, so here's my next attempt:

Both are soft/dirty.

[bstolle]

Thanx for the feedback Dana. Slooowly getting there I hope, since I found a (for me) new way of sharpening.

The third one is more than 20 years old and has been taken with my first digital camera (Olympus E-20) when the pilot decided to overfly the spectators and drop the water load onto us from a very low altitude. Something unthinkable today, hence I'm asking for a prescreening despite the clipped wingtip.

[dlowwa]

Thanx for the feedback Dana. Slooowly getting there I hope, since I found a (for me) new way of sharpening.

The third one is more than 20 years old and has been taken with my first digital camera (Olympus E-20) when the pilot decided to overfly the spectators and drop the water load onto us from a very low altitude. Something unthinkable today, hence I'm asking for a prescreening despite the clipped wingtip.

1. dark (dark paint not helping)
2. borderline soft
3. cut off (yes, unfortunately)