StefBrat - Editing and Screening advice

[StefBrat]

You are correct, I will fix this for you.

Thanks for this.

I tried leveling and added more clockwise rotation as the screener wrote. No I used a fine raster to check with the red/white pole in the back. But it always looks strange. Then I took a ruler and left of the pole I had 0,2cm the whole pole. But on the right it was 0,3 and 0,4cm. Now I corrected the right side a bit and then I had left the discrepancy. Maybe the pole is so old (old military field) that I better use the windows which look good so far for me with the uploaded edit.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8617006

___________

Sun was on the left of the photo and shining with the aircraft creating the nice shine but did not edit anything special then else on other photos

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8617089

[dlowwa]

I tried leveling and added more clockwise rotation as the screener wrote. No I used a fine raster to check with the red/white pole in the back. But it always looks strange. Then I took a ruler and left of the pole I had 0,2cm the whole pole. But on the right it was 0,3 and 0,4cm. Now I corrected the right side a bit and then I had left the discrepancy. Maybe the pole is so old (old military field) that I better use the windows which look good so far for me with the uploaded edit.

All vertical references are leaning left, so needs CW rotation, probably around 1 degree.
___________

Sun was on the left of the photo and shining with the aircraft creating the nice shine but did not edit anything special then else on other photos

Slight editing halos and shadows a bit weak (which is consistent with the halo effect). Might also need a touch of CCW rotation.

[StefBrat]

I leveled again with your suggestion but for me it looks not that better. Don't know why but the tower in the back seems to be always leaning to the side. But windows looking better now..


______________
Is this now better for the Aegan?

[dlowwa]

I leveled again with your suggestion but for me it looks not that better. Don't know why but the tower in the back seems to be always leaning to the side. But windows looking better now..


______________
Is this now better for the Aegan?

1. I'd still give it a bit more CW, myself.
2. better than previous. borderline still, but would be ok for me.

[StefBrat]

I uploaded the picture as above but with a little bit more rotation as suggested by Dana but it was rejected with the comment that I rotated to the wrong direction. But with the horizon tool the windows leftside looking good. The pole is not adjustable in anyways, not even sure it is leveled in real life as its a former air base and not well maintained and partly destructed

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8644573

[dlowwa]

I uploaded the picture as above but with a little bit more rotation as suggested by Dana but it was rejected with the comment that I rotated to the wrong direction. But with the horizon tool the windows leftside looking good. The pole is not adjustable in anyways, not even sure it is leveled in real life as its a former air base and not well maintained and partly destructed

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8644573

There is no difference between the last one you posted that I said was still unlevel, and the one you actually uploaded, so not sure why this result would be surprising.

[StefBrat]

There is no difference between the last one you posted that I said was still unlevel, and the one you actually uploaded, so not sure why this result would be surprising.

The result is indeed surprising as it is not the same photo even you don't see one. You know about Lightroom editing history? I can see what I have did and at what time. And it is clear I exported to upload an 1hr after your response I made a change to the level (only around 0,2°) and exported again. So its not the same...
I also refered to the comment of the screener saying it need CCW rotation where the first screener said and you CW rotation.

I tried on the original photo different options but they all look and feel not leveled. It seems impossible to get a result where JP and I are happy with. But there is another one

_______

[dlowwa]

And it is clear I exported to upload an 1hr after your response I made a change to the level (only around 0,2°)

Which is in effect such a small change (and in the wrong direction!!) as to be no difference.

I also refered to the comment of the screener saying it need CCW rotation where the first screener said and you CW rotation.

Maybe you should read the comments on the rejection again: "Needs CW rotation, not CCW." Perhaps you are the one who was a little unclear? I also clearly said I would give it more CW..but you did a miniscule adjustment in the OTHER direction.

Again, you made only the slightest of changes, in the wrong direction no less, so there should be no surprise as to the result from my point of view.

[StefBrat]

But there is another one

_______

?

You can see that the reg and parts of the aircraft are already getting stranges edges and also on the front door you see this and therefore more sharpening wouldn't the best idea.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8677964

[StefBrat]

?

You can see that the reg and parts of the aircraft are already getting stranges edges and also on the front door you see this and therefore more sharpening wouldn't the best idea.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8677964

No news?

[dlowwa]

No news?

News about..?

[StefBrat]

News about..?

About the post where I asked for screening advice. But now the old military plane is already accepted but still not sure with the Eurowings night shot.

Also for that, it says Bad Info SN Number. As usual it does not show the entered SN Number (since years). I checked the uploadform where FireFox saves my manual taken entries like reg an serial. And there the correct serial was insert which is 1416

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8924396

[dlowwa]

Also for that, it says Bad Info SN Number. As usual it does not show the entered SN Number (since years). I checked the uploadform where FireFox saves my manual taken entries like reg an serial. And there the correct serial was insert which is 1416

Maybe you checked the wrong FireFox manual taken entry uploadform:



Doesn't look like 1416 to me.

[StefBrat]

And why do I and maybe other users do not see that in the rejection? I believe you okay will reupload now but when the rejection page would show that there would be no need to ask here. Could save a bit of time for you.

But thanks anyway...

[dlowwa]

And why do I and maybe other users do not see that in the rejection? I believe you okay will reupload now but when the rejection page would show that there would be no need to ask here. Could save a bit of time for you.

But thanks anyway...

Yes, could have saved us all a bit of time if you had checked yourself:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8924396

You and maybe other users do not see that in the rejection?