wkd001- Editing advice

[wkd001]

1. borderline soft/dark/compression. If the original is good, something happening with your editing.
2. soft
3. technically not obstructed, but clutter is a bit distracting, so borderline.

Thanks for that Dana,

Apparently I've made a mistake and I want to apologise for that and for wasting your valuable time on that

This edit of the Embraer E2 in the previous post was taken from a different RAW-file from the same aircraft as he rejected version and it took heavier cropping which would make clear at least partly the compression and softness issue.

For getting things better I made a re-edit of the rejected version again and I will show that now and ask for pre-screen.
Again I did no heavy editing only adding some contrast, removing dust and adding sharpening (sensor is dirty unfortunately,and no time for cleaning yet)



The RAW-file of the reject I can't upload here due to the size limitations here.

Thanks in Advance

[dlowwa]

I've taken another snap of the rejected photo, edited it and want to offer it for prescreening now.,

I would also like a prescreen on these two photos

1. borderline soft/dark/compression. If the original is good, something happening with your editing.
2. soft
3. technically not obstructed, but clutter is a bit distracting, so borderline.

[wkd001]

I don't really see any oversharpening, but there is some banding/compression faintly visible in the sky.



1. borderline soft/noisy
2. dark, borderline soft
3-4. soft/heat haze

Thank you for all Dana,

I've taken another snap of the rejected photo, edited it and want to offer it for prescreening now.,



There were som ethin layers of clouds visible in the background, Maybe they are the issue for creating artefacts.
Did not a lot of editing on this one, only adding some contrast and sharpening, but curious if it stands a chance now.

I would also like a prescreen on these two photos


INew edit of this one where I've tried to adress the issues you've mentioned, but honestly I'm afraid that the conditions and the softness (I'm almost sure it's still there )
will kill this one



Curious if all the material is not too disturbing ( the aircraft should be unobstructed though) and at least the horizon/ softness and contrast.

Thanks in advance

[dlowwa]

Hello,

I got home from holiday this week and during my holiday I've received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10425984

I don't really see any oversharpening, but there is some banding/compression faintly visible in the sky.

Also I would like prescreen on four photos.

1. borderline soft/noisy
2. dark, borderline soft
3-4. soft/heat haze

[wkd001]

Hello,

I got home from holiday this week and during my holiday I've received this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10425984
The oversharpen I don;t really see tbh and jpg compression I've never had that one before,
Now I do see some strange kind of almost horizontal lines in the check for dust tool, But i really don't know how they got there.
I've only added some contrast and sharpening and nothing more.
I also save the final jpg on the highest quality possible
This photo was taken just after the rejected photo and got accepted https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10702643
So, maybe someone could help me here, bacause I'm a litlle confused on this one,

Also I would like prescreen on four photos.


I've had this one queued, but deleted it because I think it's way too soft.


Taken out of the window of my holiday charter, but thinking it's at leat too soft and dirty, and even thinking it;s unfixable
But it was the only option to get an unobstructed view here.

Possible issues for me here, soft, contrast, horizon, heathaze and maybe color


Same story as previous.

Thanks in advance

[dlowwa]

Also thank you for that, Unfortunately I have another photo which makes me unsure

Main concerns are at least softness (I think it is) and maybe contrast.

A bit soft yes. Contrast also borderline, but ok for me.

[wkd001]

Yes soft, borderline dark but exposure would have been passable for me.

Thank you for that Dana, I've tried to rework it, could give the exposure a slight bump and added far more sharpening, As I ramin unsure of it I would like a prescreen of it,



Yes, softness/heat haze is somewhat noticeable, especially on the second.

Also thank you for that, Unfortunately I have another photo which makes me unsure

Main concerns are at least softness (I think it is) and maybe contrast.



Thank you in Advance

[dlowwa]

Thanks for that Dana,

I've tried my luck with the LH.

Today I received this reject. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10364587. I can imagine it being soft, but the underexposure I disagree on with the histogram being fully stretched. Adding more exposure would blow the whites out IMHO , but I agree rhe glare isn't helping either. So I wonder if this one is fixable, as other snaps of this aircraft do have worse quality in my eyes.

Yes soft, borderline dark but exposure would have been passable for me.

At second I would like a prescreen for two photos.

Because I think both are soft/heathazed. Maybe contrast/exposure also comes into play.

Yes, softness/heat haze is somewhat noticeable, especially on the second.

[wkd001]

1. borderline. some light on the tail, but also in shadow.
2. ok for me, but some might see it as soft.

Thanks for that Dana,

I've tried my luck with the LH.

Today I received this reject. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10364587. I can imagine it being soft, but the underexposure I disagree on with the histogram being fully stretched. Adding more exposure would blow the whites out IMHO , but I agree rhe glare isn't helping either. So I wonder if this one is fixable, as other snaps of this aircraft do have worse quality in my eyes.

At second I would like a prescreen for two photos.



Because I think both are soft/heathazed. Maybe contrast/exposure also comes into play.

Thanks in advance.

[dlowwa]

Thank you for that Dana,

I'll refrain from uploading the 2nd one.
Today I received this reject for backlit https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10330357 , I know it's not the most ideal photo but I disagree here with the backlit note as I can clearly see light falling on the tail.
TBH, I even have seen photos with this (and even worser ) kind of tail-light getting accepted.
With a contrast note I could have dealt, but don't really know what to do with it as JP is pretty strict to backlit unfortunately.

Second question.
I think this one is also soft. Do I see that right?

1. borderline. some light on the tail, but also in shadow.
2. ok for me, but some might see it as soft.

[wkd001]

1. subjective decision. ok for me, but obviously not for whoever screened it. May have chance of success at appeal, but couldn't promise.
2. yes, already noticeably soft.

Thank you for that Dana,

I'll refrain from uploading the 2nd one.
Today I received this reject for backlit https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10330357 , I know it's not the most ideal photo but I disagree here with the backlit note as I can clearly see light falling on the tail.
TBH, I even have seen photos with this (and even worser ) kind of tail-light getting accepted.
With a contrast note I could have dealt, but don't really know what to do with it as JP is pretty strict to backlit unfortunately.

Second question.
I think this one is also soft. Do I see that right?


Thanks in advance

[dlowwa]

I ran into two other issues.
First this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10294143
I wanted to leave it , but as it's buzzing me I would like to ask.
I thought this kind of crop was acceptable, didn't cut through engine, wheels or windows.
Or is this just counting on a real side on shot as that's not the case here as the aircraft is turning onto the runway here.
The RAW-file is only a bit longer with around half of the other engine also. so entire aircraft was not included here.
Or am I wrong or is this screeners discretion?
If I'm wrong I will refrain from ever uploading these angles again.

At second one prescreen request,

Main question. Is this one already soft?
Especially aroud the windows?

1. subjective decision. ok for me, but obviously not for whoever screened it. May have chance of success at appeal, but couldn't promise.
2. yes, already noticeably soft.

[wkd001]

All still borderline harsh contrast, but ok for me. I still see faint dust spots in all of the images.

Thanks a lot for that Dana.

I will see , if I have enough time to upload, double check on dust, rework, delete and reupload again five times on dust as my Lightroom is abandoning me in this cases at this point.
Otherwise I'll drop them

I ran into two other issues.
First this reject https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10294143
I wanted to leave it , but as it's buzzing me I would like to ask.
I thought this kind of crop was acceptable, didn't cut through engine, wheels or windows.
Or is this just counting on a real side on shot as that's not the case here as the aircraft is turning onto the runway here.
The RAW-file is only a bit longer with around half of the other engine also. so entire aircraft was not included here.
Or am I wrong or is this screeners discretion?
If I'm wrong I will refrain from ever uploading these angles again.

At second one prescreen request,



Main question. Is this one already soft?
Especially aroud the windows?

Thanks in Advance

[dlowwa]

I've reduced some contrast and added sharpening on all of them.
I've tried to remove dust as far as i could see, at least on the Gullivair I've found two spots and removed.
Also on other i've tried to remove things what in my eyes could have translated as dust
Could you check these revised versions again please and especially on dust eventually specify which ones could still contain dust.
Because my lightroom is not that great in recognising them sometimes.

All still borderline harsh contrast, but ok for me. I still see faint dust spots in all of the images.

[wkd001]

Borderline soft/(harsh) contrast. Some dust spots visible, yes.

Thanks for that Dana,

I've reduced some contrast and added sharpening on all of them.
I've tried to remove dust as far as i could see, at least on the Gullivair I've found two spots and removed.
Also on other i've tried to remove things what in my eyes could have translated as dust
Could you check these revised versions again please and especially on dust eventually specify which ones could still contain dust.
Because my lightroom is not that great in recognising them sometimes.






Thanks in advance and apologies for probably being annoying with these.