Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre-screening Help

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

  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Looking for feedback on this photo. I want to know if contrast, exposure, and sharpness are sufficient. If any other issues are visible please let me know. Thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06305 N758SS 021020.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	407.8 KB
ID:	1093882

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Got it. Additional clarification had cleared things up. I must've wizzed thru guidelines. Apologies. With that being said, what what you suggest be the best way to counteract this type of glare on the aircraft?
    Shoot when the aircraft is not at such an angle to the sun as to cause such glare.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Got it. Additional clarification had cleared things up. I must've wizzed thru guidelines. Apologies. With that being said, what what you suggest be the best way to counteract this type of glare on the aircraft?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    I do believe the guidelines explicitly have it as the glare/dirt section, but focus on a glare through a window. It does not build on why a photo may be rejected of just the glare of the sun directly on the aircraft versus through a window. Thank you for your clarification, although I am still unclear why this rejection is under 'window glare/dirt' when it should be more elaborate under a specific glare category.
    Ok.. let's try this again:

    4.4 Glare/Dirt

    Glare from the sun and reflections on windows are the main culprits here...

    Glare from the sun (off of the surface of the aircraft) and reflections on windows (including glare from the sun) are two different things. The former may cause a rejection because it is distracting, and quite frankly, kind of ugly, not to mention avoidable - the same as with reflections/glare on images taken through a window. In the same way, we may reject an image taken at night if there is lens flare visible due to light entering the lens from a certain angle even if the photo was taken outside with no window in the frame.

    Hopefully you can understand now that this rejection reason doesn't apply only to images taken through a window.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    I do believe the guidelines explicitly have it as the glare/dirt section, but focus on a glare through a window. It does not build on why a photo may be rejected of just the glare of the sun directly on the aircraft versus through a window. Thank you for your clarification, although I am still unclear why this rejection is under 'window glare/dirt' when it should be more elaborate under a specific glare category.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    What I don't understand is how it can be designated as a window glare/dirt if I am standing outside and there is no dirt visible in the photo? If there is harsh light, wouldn't that be more of a contrast or exposure rejection?
    Maybe the guidelines aren't clear enough, but it does say "Glare from the sun and reflections on windows are the main culprits here.."

    Clearly your example is of the former rather than the latter, so being outside has no bearing on this decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    What I don't understand is how it can be designated as a window glare/dirt if I am standing outside and there is no dirt visible in the photo? If there is harsh light, wouldn't that be more of a contrast or exposure rejection?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8247178

    Before I appeal the photo I wanted to reach out and understand what was the issue with this photo. I measured the fuselage in the photo and I didn't not get an unequal amount for 'bad composition' and as for the window glare/dirt. There were two C-130s that took off before this aircraft which may account for the added stuff underneath the aircraft.

    Please let me know your thoughts before I submit an official appeal. Thank you.
    Centering is fine. I will talk to the screener involved, since he is still in training. The glare rejection is for the harsh reflections off the nose and winglet and is within reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8247178

    Before I appeal the photo I wanted to reach out and understand what was the issue with this photo. I measured the fuselage in the photo and I didn't not get an unequal amount for 'bad composition' and as for the window glare/dirt. There were two C-130s that took off before this aircraft which may account for the added stuff underneath the aircraft.

    Please let me know your thoughts before I submit an official appeal. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Would these re-edits be more sufficient? I decreased the amount of shadows while attempting to not hinder the contrast on each aircraft. Please let me know if these fixed the issues from above. Thank you.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01318-2 N531JL 092919.jpg
Views:	76
Size:	736.6 KB
ID:	1093542Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01464-2 EILBT 092919.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	845.3 KB
ID:	1093543
    With the light as it was in both images, don't think you will be able to get better than borderline now matter much more editing you do.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Would these re-edits be more sufficient? I decreased the amount of shadows while attempting to not hinder the contrast on each aircraft. Please let me know if these fixed the issues from above. Thank you.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01318-2 N531JL 092919.jpg
Views:	76
Size:	736.6 KB
ID:	1093542Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01464-2 EILBT 092919.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	845.3 KB
ID:	1093543

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Worried about contrast and lighting for these photos. I would love your insight please and thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01318 N351JL 092919.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	742.1 KB
ID:	1093534Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01464 EILBT 092919.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	855.1 KB
ID:	1093535
    On both the shadows are too strong, more on #2 than on #1

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Worried about contrast and lighting for these photos. I would love your insight please and thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01318 N351JL 092919.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	742.1 KB
ID:	1093534Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01464 EILBT 092919.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	855.1 KB
ID:	1093535

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    I will just give myself a big face palm and apologize for my mistake. Attached you will find the correct size files.

    Looking for feedback on these two photos. With evening photos, looking to make sure, contrast and exposure are satisfactory and making sure that there are not any issues of softness. Thanks.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01990 A7BAK 050120.jpg
Views:	87
Size:	329.8 KB
ID:	1093370Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06101 N962TX 062620.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	364.4 KB
ID:	1093371
    1. dark, contrast. probably not fixable
    2. borderline contrast/vignetting

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    I will just give myself a big face palm and apologize for my mistake. Attached you will find the correct size files.

    Looking for feedback on these two photos. With evening photos, looking to make sure, contrast and exposure are satisfactory and making sure that there are not any issues of softness. Thanks.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01990 A7BAK 050120.jpg
Views:	87
Size:	329.8 KB
ID:	1093370Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06101 N962TX 062620.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	364.4 KB
ID:	1093371

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X