Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre-screening Help

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

  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    I wasn't involved, but most likely because it is too dark. FR24 prefers the whole aircraft/livery to be seen easily.
    Ah, okay. Understandable. I was just looking for an explanation. Thank you Dana

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Hello forum crew. I was going through some photos of mine and was curious as to why this particular photo has been excluded from FR24?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9975238
    I wasn't involved, but most likely because it is too dark. FR24 prefers the whole aircraft/livery to be seen easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Hello forum crew. I was going through some photos of mine and was curious as to why this particular photo has been excluded from FR24?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9975238

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    So this is my first attempt at photography from an aircraft and I would like to know if this photo meets the standards for JP for an airport photo.
    I'd say probably not: too many soft spots, and the contrast is not great, though the latter is not really your fault.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    So this is my first attempt at photography from an aircraft and I would like to know if this photo meets the standards for JP for an airport photo. In terms of exposure, sharpness, and contrast, does this meet the standards? Also, would there be an issue with color/hue? Thank you in advance

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC00191 KMSP 022021.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	889.5 KB
ID:	1111588

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    For this photo, are there any issues that you see with softness/haze as well as contrast and exposure? Also, is framing sufficient? Thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02161 N906FX 081320.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	624.3 KB
ID:	1111371
    Borderline for haze, yes. Can see it a bit on the nose, and for sure on the mlg.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    For this photo, are there any issues that you see with softness/haze as well as contrast and exposure? Also, is framing sufficient? Thank you

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC02161 N906FX 081320.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	624.3 KB
ID:	1111371

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    With this photo, I am looking for feedback on whether the horizon is level and if there is any prominent haze that will render this photo rejected. Thank you in advance.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08362 N407DX 030621.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	654.9 KB
ID:	1111114
    Horizon looks ok to me. Haze is somewhat noticeable.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    With this photo, I am looking for feedback on whether the horizon is level and if there is any prominent haze that will render this photo rejected. Thank you in advance.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08362 N407DX 030621.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	654.9 KB
ID:	1111114

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post

    Thank you for the feedback Dana, in terms of suggested rotation for horizon would you suggest CW or CCW?
    At least 0.5 degrees CW.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Would be rejected for horizon and soft/heathazed. Quality is not there for 1920pix.
    Thank you for the feedback Dana, in terms of suggested rotation for horizon would you suggest CW or CCW?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Hello Dana, and other pre-screening screeners, I could really use your assistance with this one. One of the main issues that I think might be an issue is the horizon and would like your input on the matter. Along with the horizon, could you tell me if my contrast, exposure and sharpness are sufficient, especially at 1920px. Thank you very much in advance

    Click image for larger version  Name:	DSC08063 91-0349 030421.jpg Views:	0 Size:	1.37 MB ID:	1110985
    Would be rejected for horizon and soft/heathazed. Quality is not there for 1920pix.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Hello Dana, and other pre-screening screeners, I could really use your assistance with this one. One of the main issues that I think might be an issue is the horizon and would like your input on the matter. Along with the horizon, could you tell me if my contrast, exposure and sharpness are sufficient, especially at 1920px. Thank you very much in advance

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08063 91-0349 030421.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	1.37 MB
ID:	1110985

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    I almost never use the histogram to check contrast. For screening purposes, histogram better suited for checking exposure than contrast since the histogram refers to the whole frame rather than just the subject we are concerned about, the aircraft. As such, if the whole frame is well balanced, but there is poor light on the aircraft itself, this will not be apparent by looking at the histogram.

    In your specific image, you've got some rather harsh light coming off the aircraft itself which you've tried to compensate for by bringing down the exposure which is not a great combination. Histogram is not going to tell you that, in fact as your post highlights, the histogram in this case is going to show that the frame overall is well balanced.
    Thank you for the detailed explanation. This will help me understand contrast better moving forward if and or when there might be poor/harsh lighting on the aircraft. I will learn to rely less on the histogram for contrast in cases like these. Thanks again for explaining this from a screeners perspective

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8919883

    For this rejection, I was curious if this lacked contrast on the whites or the blacks side as the histogram showed the peaks reaching the edges.

    OR

    If it caused the rejection because the peaks in the histogram were not prominent enough which also caused the too little contrast rejection.

    Some insight would be appreciated so that I can evaluate photos in the future to make the histogram, and ultimately the photo(s), more acceptable. Thank you.
    I almost never use the histogram to check contrast. For screening purposes, histogram better suited for checking exposure than contrast since the histogram refers to the whole frame rather than just the subject we are concerned about, the aircraft. As such, if the whole frame is well balanced, but there is poor light on the aircraft itself, this will not be apparent by looking at the histogram.

    In your specific image, you've got some rather harsh light coming off the aircraft itself which you've tried to compensate for by bringing down the exposure which is not a great combination. Histogram is not going to tell you that, in fact as your post highlights, the histogram in this case is going to show that the frame overall is well balanced.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X