wkd001- Editing advice

[wkd001]

Maybe a touch soft in places, but otherwise no major issues for me.

Dana, thank you for your time again.

Want to offer five again for check up.







Nr 1-3 will have contrast issues. want to know if they are at least borderline.
Struggled with nr 5 with exposure and highlights ( want to know if this is passable.

Best Regards.

Wilko

[dlowwa]

Dana, thank you for your time again.

Want to offer five again for check up.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13400[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13401[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13402[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13403[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13404[/ATTACH]

Nr 1-3 will have contrast issues. want to know if they are at least borderline.
Struggled with nr 5 with exposure and highlights ( want to know if this is passable.

Best Regards.

Wilko

Yes, 1-3 borderline for contrast. 3 also soft. 5 a bit dark.

[wkd001]

Dana thanks again.

Nr 3 of the previous post remains personal. It seems also blurred to me especially towards the nose.Will try one of the first two. If it gets rejected for contrast No problem.
Tried to raise the exposure of the BA A380, but there is something close the cockpit that seems like some kind of a halo. It is not, as it's already in the original.
Will include it and ask for an opinion about it.



I want to upload one of these three. Want to know which one should be the best.





My time to struggle with the horizon this time as almost no good vertical references in the back this time...



Best regards.

Wilko

[dlowwa]

Tried to raise the exposure of the BA A380, but there is something close the cockpit that seems like some kind of a halo. It is not, as it's already in the original.
Will include it and ask for an opinion about it.

Should be ok.

I want to upload one of these three. Want to know which one should be the best.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13484[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13485[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13486[/ATTACH]

Don't see much difference in quality among the three.

My time to struggle with the horizon this time as almost no good vertical references in the back this time...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13487[/ATTACH]

Use the background verticals, which in this case suggest if anything slight CW, but probably ok as is.

[wkd001]

Hello Everyone.

Struggling with this reject. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6358367
It was my second reject and I didn't agree so I appealed on it.
After appealing only the undersharpening maintained.

Now I did sharpening on this one and now it looks even blurry/oversharpened to me.
This is the one.



I do have a capture of this one a second earlier.
Edited it as well.



In both cases the jetwash of the engines seems to damage the sharpness on especially the back of the aircraft.

Now I want to one if one of these two should be acceptable.

Best Regards.

Wilko

[dlowwa]

Hello Everyone.

Struggling with this reject. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6358367
It was my second reject and I didn't agree so I appealed on it.
After appealing only the undersharpening maintained.

Now I did sharpening on this one and now it looks even blurry/oversharpened to me.
This is the one.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13614[/ATTACH]

I do have a capture of this one a second earlier.
Edited it as well.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13615[/ATTACH]

In both cases the jetwash of the engines seems to damage the sharpness on especially the back of the aircraft.

Now I want to one if one of these two should be acceptable.

Best Regards.

Wilko

Sharpened version looks acceptable to me.

[wkd001]

Sharpened version looks acceptable to me.

Thank you Dana.
Pulled the sharpened version in the queue.

Finally had some time to go to the airport again.
Want to offer five new for check-up.







Note to 3-5. As I was a little toying with my settings due to the very sunny weather. Consequence seems trouble. Especially nr 4 and 5 seem to have a lot of compression in the sky and 3 a little less
Do have a lot of doubts about the acceptance of these. if you could provide a good check of these I would be very thankful.

Best Regards.

Wilko

[wkd001]

Thank you Dana.
Pulled the sharpened version in the queue.

Finally had some time to go to the airport again.
Want to offer five new for check-up.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13632[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13633[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13634[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13635[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13636[/ATTACH]

Note to 3-5. As I was a little toying with my settings due to the very sunny weather. Consequence seems trouble. Especially nr 4 and 5 seem to have a lot of compression in the sky and 3 a little less
Do have a lot of doubts about the acceptance of these. if you could provide a good check of these I would be very thankful.

Best Regards.

Wilko

Or I was between 24 Hours with this request ( in that case it was unattended ,my apologies) or this one has been missed...

[pdeboer]

Or I was between 24 Hours with this request ( in that case it was unattended ,my apologies) or this one has been missed...

No. 3 and 5 seem to lean to the right, no. 1 looks a bit harsh on contrast (darks look very dark), rest looks acceptable

[wkd001]

No. 3 and 5 seem to lean to the right, no. 1 looks a bit harsh on contrast (darks look very dark), rest looks acceptable

Thank you Pamela.

Five others for check and advices.







Thanks in Advance.

Best Regards,

Wilko

[dlowwa]

Thank you Pamela.

Five others for check and advices.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13788[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13789[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13790[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13791[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13792[/ATTACH]

Thanks in Advance.

Best Regards,

Wilko

Some borderline soft spots, and #4 will be borderline for contrast, otherwise no major issues.

[wkd001]

Some borderline soft spots, and #4 will be borderline for contrast, otherwise no major issues.

Thanks Dana,

Will check for the soft spots, and see what I do with the TK A330.

No screening request but A question right now.

Don't know If this is the right thread for it . if not please apologise,

If an older existing aircraft receives a new livery, for example the renewed scheme of an airline would it be considered as hot?

Thanks in advance for the answer.

Best Regards.

Wilko

[Julian S.]

Thanks Dana,

Will check for the soft spots, and see what I do with the TK A330.

No screening request but A question right now.

Don't know If this is the right thread for it . if not please apologise,

If an older existing aircraft receives a new livery, for example the renewed scheme of an airline would it be considered as hot?

Thanks in advance for the answer.

Best Regards.

Wilko

As from the Guidelines:

2.5 Hot Photo


The following will be accepted as hot for 48 hours after the first photo got accepted:


1. New aircraft type produced by a manufacturer. (including subtypes)
2. New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force. (including roll-outs or test flights at the factory)
3. First appearance of a new airline colour scheme. (incl. for all subtypes)
4. First appearance of a special scheme for an airline or air force. Air force special scheme must be at least a full tail marking or similar size on the fuselage. (also for subtypes). Airline special scheme includes all alliance schemes such as Star Alliance, One World etc.
5. Other Newsworthy events at the discretion of the screening team. (typical hand over ceremonies, promotion tours by new airliner types,..)
6. photos of airliners with a registration not in the database will count as hot. (the 48h hours guideline will not apply to those)
7. Please note that new routes are not considered as hot.




Hot photos for which the 48 hour guideline does not apply


In order to improve the cooperation with FlightRadar24 and have the most up to date photo available for the FlightRadar24 site the following will be accepted as hot for the first photo accepted only.


1. A new delivery of an aircraft type that already exists in the fleet.
2. An existing aircraft in the fleet that is repainted in a new colour scheme.
3. Any change to the colour scheme (for example: removal of a special scheme, new stickers) or to the aircraft itself (Winglets, Sharklets)
4. Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe


Remember, these are hot only for the first accepted image.

Hope this helps, have a nice evening!

[wkd001]

As from the Guidelines:


Hope this helps, have a nice evening!

Thanks a lot Julian it helped indeed.
In two attempts ( first one rightful rejected for underexposure ) I could add my first hot photo.

Three for check-up now.





Thanks in advance.

Best Regards,

Wilko

[Julian S.]

Thanks a lot Julian it helped indeed.
In two attempts ( first one rightful rejected for underexposure ) I could add my first hot photo.

Hey,
No Problem, glad to hear that .

Three for check-up now.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13845[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13846[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13847[/ATTACH]

Thanks in advance.

Best Regards,

Wilko

#1 borderline backlit IMO as the tail is completely in shadow but otherwise OK (may another screener disagree, either positive or negative)
#2 too high in frame
#3 should be OK

Have a good Night.