Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Huy Do - Editting advices

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    I recently got this rejection due to bad info: aircraft. After appealing I was also rejected and the comment was "U206G Stationair 6 II". However the FAA's database, this blog "http://davidspeyers.blogspot.com/2008/06/turbo-206-pictures.html", and a few other websites stated that it's a TU206G Stationair. Did I miss something somewhere?
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=9322955
    This is the photo editing forum. Is there a question about the editing of the image?

    Leave a comment:


  • huytrando
    replied
    I recently got this rejection due to bad info: aircraft. After appealing I was also rejected and the comment was "U206G Stationair 6 II". However the FAA's database, this blog "http://davidspeyers.blogspot.com/2008/06/turbo-206-pictures.html", and a few other websites stated that it's a TU206G Stationair. Did I miss something somewhere?
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=9322955
    As promised, here are some shots of our new Turbo charged 206. These were taken during an inspection by the government. They had to check an...

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    Hi, would these crops considered acceptable? Thank you in advance!
    1. no
    2. no
    3. possibly, but better if you got more dof to actually get Rainier in focus.

    Leave a comment:


  • huytrando
    replied
    Hi, would these crops considered acceptable? Thank you in advance!
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    Would these two belows gonna be rejected for "similar", considering I already uploaded this one? https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9332633
    1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]25285[/ATTACH]
    2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]25286[/ATTACH]
    And would these be considered "backlit"?
    3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]25287[/ATTACH]
    4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]25288[/ATTACH]
    5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]25289[/ATTACH]
    Thank you in advance!
    The answer is yes to both questions.

    Leave a comment:


  • huytrando
    replied
    Would these two belows gonna be rejected for "similar", considering I already uploaded this one? https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9332633
    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	KBFI12005.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.08 MB
ID:	1039919
    2. Click image for larger version

Name:	KBFI12004.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.28 MB
ID:	1039920
    And would these be considered "backlit"?
    3. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-RZA1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	675.2 KB
ID:	1039921
    4. Click image for larger version

Name:	TF-ICC1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	724.6 KB
ID:	1039922
    5. Click image for larger version

Name:	D-AMAA1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	743.6 KB
ID:	1039923
    Thank you in advance!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    Hello, I was wondering if these shots would be considered obstruction, and whether the last one should be upload as DQ-TFL reg? Best Regards.
    1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24957[/ATTACH]
    2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24958[/ATTACH]
    3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24959[/ATTACH]
    Yes, obstruction on the first two; use DQ-TFL on the third unless you have a wider crop, in which case Airport Overview - Ramp would be better.

    Leave a comment:


  • huytrando
    replied
    Hello, I was wondering if these shots would be considered obstruction, and whether the last one should be upload as DQ-TFL reg? Best Regards.
    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-HAW1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	883.7 KB
ID:	1035534
    2. Click image for larger version

Name:	EI-HAV1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	796.9 KB
ID:	1035535
    3. Click image for larger version

Name:	DQ-TFL1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	807.3 KB
ID:	1035536

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    Can I get pre-screen on these pics? Thank you in advance!
    1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24271[/ATTACH]
    2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24272[/ATTACH]
    3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24273[/ATTACH]
    4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24274[/ATTACH]
    5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]24275[/ATTACH]
    1-2 borderline soft/compression in sky
    3. soft/blurry
    4-5 soft, contrast

    Leave a comment:


  • huytrando
    replied
    Can I get pre-screen on these pics? Thank you in advance!
    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	HL80411200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	588.7 KB
ID:	1034961
    2. Click image for larger version

Name:	N943JT1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	646.3 KB
ID:	1034962
    3. Click image for larger version

Name:	A6-EDF1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	723.4 KB
ID:	1034963
    4. Click image for larger version

Name:	B-52701200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	571.2 KB
ID:	1034964
    5. Click image for larger version

Name:	02-11591200.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	503.7 KB
ID:	1034965

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    Can I get pre-screen on these, please? Thank you in advance!
    1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]23019[/ATTACH]
    2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]23020[/ATTACH]
    3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]23021[/ATTACH]
    4.[ATTACH=CONFIG]23022[/ATTACH]
    5.[ATTACH=CONFIG]23023[/ATTACH]
    1. blurry, compression
    2. soft/blurry
    3. soft, blurry, contrast
    4. ok
    5. blurry, contrast

    Leave a comment:


  • huytrando
    replied
    Can I get pre-screen on these, please? Thank you in advance!
    1.Click image for larger version

Name:	15-51181200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	975.9 KB
ID:	1033957
    2.Click image for larger version

Name:	13-50731200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	607.2 KB
ID:	1033958
    3.Click image for larger version

Name:	1668971200.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	549.6 KB
ID:	1033959
    4.Click image for larger version

Name:	A21-1812001.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	488.5 KB
ID:	1033960
    5.Click image for larger version

Name:	16-57971200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	330.8 KB
ID:	1033961

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    Hello, can I get some advices on the following pics, and whether the no. 1 or 2 pic would be better to submit into the queue? Thank you!
    1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22969[/ATTACH]
    2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22970[/ATTACH]
    3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22971[/ATTACH]
    4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22972[/ATTACH]
    5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22973[/ATTACH]
    1-2 similar
    3. borderline centering
    4. soft, contrast, obstruction
    5. soft, contrast

    Leave a comment:


  • huytrando
    replied
    Hello, can I get some advices on the following pics, and whether the no. 1 or 2 pic would be better to submit into the queue? Thank you!
    1. Click image for larger version

Name:	G-BNLY12001.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	389.6 KB
ID:	1033920
    2. Click image for larger version

Name:	G-BNLY1200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	527.5 KB
ID:	1033921
    3. Click image for larger version

Name:	KPDX12001.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	733.9 KB
ID:	1033922
    4. Click image for larger version

Name:	78-01251200.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	783.5 KB
ID:	1033923
    5. Click image for larger version

Name:	02-11591200.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	503.7 KB
ID:	1033924

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by huytrando View Post
    I recently did a photo ops, and was wondering what kind of pics would be acceptable with the staircase attached. I couldn't help to noticed a few pics on JP were accepted with staircase's attached and was wondering if it's up to the personal preference of each screener?

    1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22860[/ATTACH] - longshot at best but I figured I'd include it in the pre-screen since it's a 777X.
    2. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22859[/ATTACH]
    3. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22861[/ATTACH] - was rejected for Obstructing objects/foreground cluster, which led me to the question above.
    4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22862[/ATTACH]
    5. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22863[/ATTACH]

    Thank you in advance!
    From the air, it is more subjective than from the ground, but generally the more obstruction, the less likely it is to be accepted. Of these 5, only #4 would have a good chance (#5 is backlit). #1 possibly also, simply for interest factor, since I believe that's the first image of the new 777. Without the obstruction on the nose, for me it would be totally fine since many people would like to see this aircraft, even with the airstairs blocking part. But with the scaffolding on the nose, the chances are less, and I would probably vote reject myself.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X