Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pre-screen photos at dawn

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    Thx dlowwa.



    ah. easy stuff then .
    Regarding the missing files, strange indeed. Well, looking further on the resolution topic.

    I have one additional question regarding a vignette rejection

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10211154

    When looking at the original image, I thought that the crop region was from a reasonable vignette free zone, special in the low part of the plane..
    Looking a the rejected image , it looks indeed that it has some vignetting... but at the same time it looks also the shape it's an oval instead of a circle... like if it was an optical vignette illusion.
    Your comments/recommendations please.


    /rgds
    a.m.
    It's noticeable, and as you can see from the cropped original, it's not really an illusion, simply the corners in the cropped image are still darker than the rest of the frame - which is the definition of vignetting. It only looks like an oval because that's how you cropped it.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Thx dlowwa.

    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    1. histogram; spike along the right edge indicates overexposure
    ah. easy stuff then .
    Regarding the missing files, strange indeed. Well, looking further on the resolution topic.

    I have one additional question regarding a vignette rejection

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10211154

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2022-06-22 at 11.26.50.png
Views:	27
Size:	206.6 KB
ID:	1139423Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2022-06-22 at 11.26.31.png
Views:	14
Size:	165.9 KB
ID:	1139424

    When looking at the original image, I thought that the crop region was from a reasonable vignette free zone, special in the low part of the plane..
    Looking a the rejected image , it looks indeed that it has some vignetting... but at the same time it looks also the shape it's an oval instead of a circle... like if it was an optical vignette illusion.
    Your comments/recommendations please.


    /rgds
    a.m.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post

    Hi Dlowwa.
    How's life the universe and everything ? hope well.

    I need your help understanding and future avoiding these two type of rejections.

    1) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10208618. Where can I verify it's overexposed ?

    2) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208605
    3) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208619

    are these "Under-sharpened (Soft)" a problem at origin or lack of processing ?
    I'm including the original image and a new processing.

    thx for your time and help
    Hi,

    1. histogram; spike along the right edge indicates overexposure
    2-3. unfortunately the originals do not appear to be attached, as such I can only comment on the rejections/edits; both appear to show soft areas (still), so perhaps it's not the editing and a lower resolution might be necessary to hide those soft areas

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied


    Hi Dlowwa.
    How's life the universe and everything ? hope well.

    I need your help understanding and future avoiding these two type of rejections.

    1) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10208618. Where can I verify it's overexposed ?

    2) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208605
    3) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208619

    are these "Under-sharpened (Soft)" a problem at origin or lack of processing ?
    I'm including the original image and a new processing.

    thx for your time and help
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post

    Thx dlowwa. wow, what a setback. basically I was convinced that those light poles were ok. my mistake then.
    As both I, and the other senior screener mentioned in your appeal, when the obstruction appears to be easily avoidable, we generally consider it as such, even if relatively minor.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Since you've already appealed, and the comments were nearly identical to the ones I made several months ago, I don't think there is much to add. As for the two 'similar' accepted images, one should have been rejected (EC-MEL), and in the other the obstruction is much more minor.
    Thx dlowwa. wow, what a setback. basically I was convinced that those light poles were ok. my mistake then.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    I need your help to understand these 3 rejections for: Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter, ( It's the first time I've receive an "Obstruction rejection")
    Since you've already appealed, and the comments were nearly identical to the ones I made several months ago, I don't think there is much to add. As for the two 'similar' accepted images, one should have been rejected (EC-MEL), and in the other the obstruction is much more minor.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Hi dlowwa. How's life ? hope fine .
    I need your help to understand these 3 rejections for: Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter, ( It's the first time I've receive an "Obstruction rejection")

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9644617
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9644612
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9643356

    I've appealed for the first , in order to get some feedback, but can't understand it, then my request for help.
    "when a small obstruction like here is easy to avoid then it gets rejected".

    I believe the "small obstruction" is the runway lights in front of the wheel.
    If that's the case, then I'm completed puzzled.

    Sure I could have not upload such photo... if I knew it would broke a rule... but so far, that wasn't been a problem.

    As one of these coincidences, in my last post above, I've asked advise on a small wired in front of the wheel. It was considered obstruction.
    And I understand why.. the wired is an external factor to the "environment"...

    So, I believe I'm acquainted to the obstruction rules,

    During this 3 years I've uploaded lots of files in the same position, therefore with the same lights in front of the wheels.
    Still in the previous batch, 2 other photos in the same exact position where accepted.

    Can you please shed some light ?

    Thx for your time and help




    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Understood , thx. Unfortunately I’m already in the angle limit to take the photo. Maybe next time, they park it one yard away. Thx

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by a.m. View Post
    Hi dlowwa. Long time no see/talk. how's life ? hope fine .
    Can you please review this one, specifically regarding the iron string over the wheel. Would it be be considered obstruction ?
    thx
    Yes, obstruction. Minor, but seems like it would be avoidable by changing the angle slightly. Also a touch soft towards the nose.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Hi dlowwa. Long time no see/talk. how's life ? hope fine .
    Can you please review this one, specifically regarding the iron string over the wheel. Would it be be considered obstruction ?
    thx Click image for larger version  Name:	DSC_1715_cs-tkh .jpg Views:	0 Size:	1.70 MB ID:	1123639

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Thx dlowwa

    I agree that head shots, really don’t identify the aircraft.. so that’s understandable to remove these.

    But never tough that CS-TUE could be removed for that reason. The registration number it’s clearly seen In the middle of the picture, along with the tail. There’s no other special thing on this livery to be seen.

    Strangely , enough I took 5 or so photos in sequence and I choose this one because it show the plane on a different angle. In my “ingenuity” I was thinking on creating diversity and avoid always the same angle. Damn.. it looks I’ve failed.. but this angle rule is/will be something very difficult to master.

    Back to the drawing board..

    /rgds
    a.m.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Head on shots are almost always excluded since the full livery is not visible. The image of CS-TUE is not at the best angle to see the livery, so it may have been excluded for that reason, though I did not screen it myself, and you may find other examples from a similar angle on FR24. Basically, if you want to lower your chances of having images excluded, best to choose an angle that shows the whole livery/aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Hi dlowwa, long time no see/talk . How's life ? hope well.

    I just realize that several photos don't show up on FR.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9810851

    is there any particular situation for this ?
    thx for your time and help

    /rgds
    a.m.



    (these ones, have already been replaced by a newer one... so case close for them , but they have never appeared.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9795451
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9795450
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9796364
    )

    Leave a comment:


  • a.m.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Honestly, it's no issue checking one or two images once in a while, especially if you are specific about your concerns. It's the guys who constantly post the max 5 images every 24 hours with only comments 'pre-screening please' that start to get on my nerves a bit
    Thx dlowwa, great feedback, highly appreciated. "5 images every 24 hours".. I've done that... so that's the kind of situation I was trying to avoid .
    Great. See you then one of this days with a tuff problem.

    /rgds
    a.m.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X