Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

YanS - Editing Advice

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

  • Originally posted by YanS View Post
    Hi everyone,

    Thanks Julian!

    Today this picture (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6964417) was rejected for an unlevelled horizon and the plane being too far. To be honest I do not agree with these aspects.

    Horizon:
    Looks a bit off to me too but checking the verticals I think it is ok.

    Too far:
    I could crop it a bit closer to the plane but I don‘t think it‘s enough for a rejection.


    Of course this is my personal opinion, so I ask here if it‘s worth an appeal.

    Thanks for your help,
    All the best,
    Yannick
    Borderline on the crop (it could be a bit tighter), but agree the verticals indicate the horizon should be ok.

    Comment


    • Hi everyone,

      Thanks dlowwa, for your help!
      I appealed the LH and it was accepted. Thanks to the involved screeners!

      Best regards,
      Yannick

      Comment


      • Hi everyone,

        It would be good to know for me if one of these could work.

        1.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8082v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.06 MB
ID:	1031743
        2.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8120v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.03 MB
ID:	1031744
        3.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8558v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.05 MB
ID:	1031745
        4.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9121v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	959.0 KB
ID:	1031746
        5.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9224v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	981.1 KB
ID:	1031747 (not sure about horizon here)

        Thanks for your replies,
        Best regards,
        Yannick

        Comment


        • Originally posted by YanS View Post
          Hi everyone,

          It would be good to know for me if one of these could work.

          1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20357[/ATTACH]
          2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20358[/ATTACH]
          3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20359[/ATTACH]
          4.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20360[/ATTACH]
          5.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20361[/ATTACH] (not sure about horizon here)

          Thanks for your replies,
          Best regards,
          Yannick
          Borderline softness on a couple of them, but would be ok for me. Yes, maybe a touch of ccw needed on last.

          Comment


          • Hi everyone,

            A feedback on these four would be great .

            1.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9535v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	960.2 KB
ID:	1032062
            2.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9545v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.01 MB
ID:	1032063
            3.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9551v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.03 MB
ID:	1032064
            4.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9553v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.05 MB
ID:	1032065

            I'm not sure about colour and horizon on them. They look a bit unlevelled but the verticals seem ok (to me)

            As always, thanks for your answers,
            All the best,
            Yannick

            Comment


            • Originally posted by YanS View Post
              Hi everyone,

              A feedback on these four would be great .

              1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20758[/ATTACH]
              2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20759[/ATTACH]
              3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20760[/ATTACH]
              4.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20761[/ATTACH]

              I'm not sure about colour and horizon on them. They look a bit unlevelled but the verticals seem ok (to me)

              As always, thanks for your answers,
              All the best,
              Yannick
              Color shouldn't be an issue, and horizon can't really see anything wrong, but the last three are relatively poorly lit, especially #2 & 4.

              Comment


              • Hi everyone,

                Thanks dlowwa, for your answer. I gave #1 and a (hopefully) improved version of #2 a chance.

                I also have some new photos for pre-screening:

                1.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8038v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	994.3 KB
ID:	1032080
                2.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8279v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	915.2 KB
ID:	1032081
                3.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8542v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.02 MB
ID:	1032082
                4.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9355v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.04 MB
ID:	1032083 ( 'special scheme'-categroy, right?)

                Thanks for your replies,
                have a good start in the year 2019 and thank you to everyone who answered my questions and (pre-)screened my pictures this year!

                Yannick

                Comment


                • Originally posted by YanS View Post
                  Hi everyone,

                  Thanks dlowwa, for your answer. I gave #1 and a (hopefully) improved version of #2 a chance.

                  I also have some new photos for pre-screening:

                  1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20777[/ATTACH]
                  2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20778[/ATTACH]
                  3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20779[/ATTACH]
                  4.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20780[/ATTACH] ( 'special scheme'-categroy, right?)

                  Thanks for your replies,
                  have a good start in the year 2019 and thank you to everyone who answered my questions and (pre-)screened my pictures this year!

                  Yannick
                  2 looks a tad soft and overexposed, rest looks acceptable, 4 needs special scheme indeed

                  Comment


                  • Hi everyone,

                    Yesterday this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7036051 ) was rejected for the aircraft being obstructed by the push-back-truck. As far as know they are generally allowed but of course this one was not technically in service when the photo was taken. As it went through pre-screening (which is no guarantee ,of course ) I thought it might be OK in this case.

                    My question would be if this one is worth an appeal.

                    Thank you for your replies,
                    Best regards,
                    Yannick

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by YanS View Post
                      Hi everyone,

                      Yesterday this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7036051 ) was rejected for the aircraft being obstructed by the push-back-truck. As far as know they are generally allowed but of course this one was not technically in service when the photo was taken. As it went through pre-screening (which is no guarantee ,of course ) I thought it might be OK in this case.

                      My question would be if this one is worth an appeal.

                      Thank you for your replies,
                      Best regards,
                      Yannick
                      I wouldn't appeal it. The push back truck is not doing anything with the aircraft itself. Some moments later, it would be gone.
                      My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                      Comment


                      • Thanks Gerardo

                        Have a nice evening,
                        Yannick

                        Comment


                        • Hi everyone,

                          A feedback on these would be great.
                          1.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0046v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.01 MB
ID:	1032529
                          2.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0197v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	939.0 KB
ID:	1032530
                          3.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0330v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1,016.1 KB
ID:	1032531

                          Thanks for your help,
                          best regards,
                          Yannick

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by YanS View Post
                            Hi everyone,

                            A feedback on these would be great.
                            1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21301[/ATTACH]
                            2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21302[/ATTACH]
                            3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21303[/ATTACH]

                            Thanks for your help,
                            best regards,
                            Yannick
                            1 borderline soft
                            2 vignetting, borderline soft
                            3 clutter

                            Comment


                            • Hi everyone,

                              Thanks dlowwa. I gave #1 a chance (with some improvements).

                              What about these two A319s ?
                              1.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0225v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1,008.7 KB
ID:	1032538
                              2.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0381v2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	946.0 KB
ID:	1032539

                              Thanks for your feedback,
                              All tha best,
                              Yannick

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by YanS View Post
                                Hi everyone,

                                Thanks dlowwa. I gave #1 a chance (with some improvements).

                                What about these two A319s ?
                                1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21310[/ATTACH]
                                2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21311[/ATTACH]

                                Thanks for your feedback,
                                All tha best,
                                Yannick
                                Maybe a touch soft and needing slight CW, but otherwise ok.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X