Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prescreen advice?

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

  • pandapilot
    replied
    Did some sunset pictures. Are they acceptable (of course I'll upload only one), or color/exposure is off?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0703-3.jpg
Views:	7
Size:	524.1 KB
ID:	1124143Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0648-5.jpg Views:	0 Size:	774.8 KB ID:	1124140

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post

    So the "acceptable WB for JP should be around 5500/0 no matter the time of day?
    No, the WB should be set as appears natural enough. This is subjective of course, but I would never say a single value must be applied to all images.

    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    Another not exactly the prescreening question, but not to create another thread: what are JP limits for aircraft being an aircraft? If I'll upload pictures of a 2019 birdstricken A321 remains (parts of fuselage/wings/cockpit) and a picture of a Tupolev 134 cockpit instrument boards we have in my university (still have aircraft registration on them) — would it be enough?
    Possibly. Would need to see the potential images before commenting further.

    Leave a comment:


  • pandapilot
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Bit of a greenish-yellow tint. Adjust it so that it is more neutral, like the left side here:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	51907_1628175763.jpeg
Views:	46
Size:	416.3 KB
ID:	1121433
    So the "acceptable WB for JP should be around 5500/0 no matter the time of day? Got it.

    Another not exactly the prescreening question, but not to create another thread: what are JP limits for aircraft being an aircraft? If I'll upload pictures of a 2019 birdstricken A321 remains (parts of fuselage/wings/cockpit) and a picture of a Tupolev 134 cockpit instrument boards we have in my university (still have aircraft registration on them) — would it be enough?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9360304
    What is wrong with color here? The picture was taken during the early sunset, I left the tint at 0 (always keep it zero to avoid hue) and temperature at 5950, same as I do with my other sunset photos. The yellowish-like tint on the plane was there because of the low sun, and was not added during the postprocessing. Is it worth appealing it? Thanks!
    Bit of a greenish-yellow tint. Adjust it so that it is more neutral, like the left side here:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	51907_1628175763.jpeg
Views:	46
Size:	416.3 KB
ID:	1121433

    Leave a comment:


  • pandapilot
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9360304
    What is wrong with color here? The picture was taken during the early sunset, I left the tint at 0 (always keep it zero to avoid hue) and temperature at 5950, same as I do with my other sunset photos. The yellowish-like tint on the plane was there because of the low sun, and was not added during the postprocessing. Is it worth appealing it? Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    Hello! I am concerned about postprocessing here — does the sky and sky gradient look overprocessed or is this editing OK? Thanks!
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7662.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	513.7 KB
ID:	1120612Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7500-2.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	415.9 KB
ID:	1120613
    Processing should be acceptable.

    Leave a comment:


  • pandapilot
    replied
    Hello! I am concerned about postprocessing here — does the sky and sky gradient look overprocessed or is this editing OK? Thanks!
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7662.jpg
Views:	57
Size:	513.7 KB
ID:	1120612Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7500-2.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	415.9 KB
ID:	1120613

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9315238
    Got another "jpg compression" rejection on a completely uncropped and very close-up (by airport standards) photo... The second photo from the same day, taken from the same point, with same camera/editing settings got accepted: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10239221 What did I do wrong and what is wrong with the rejected picture?
    The compression is more visible in the sky, and the rejected image had more sky visible so it was more easily noticed.

    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    Here are my export settings in LR (JP compresses image): https://imgur.com/a/VJRBQgg
    Easy to see the issue, you've set a limit to the file size. This will automatically compress the image to fit that size (495k)

    Leave a comment:


  • pandapilot
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9315238
    Got another "jpg compression" rejection on a completely uncropped and very close-up (by airport standards) photo... The second photo from the same day, taken from the same point, with same camera/editing settings got accepted: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10239221 What did I do wrong and what is wrong with the rejected picture? Here are my export settings in LR (JP compresses image): https://imgur.com/a/VJRBQgg
    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    Is contrast here acceptable for JP? Thanks! Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6726-9.jpg
Views:	86
Size:	582.1 KB
ID:	1120041
    Borderline, but if I had to guess it would be no. Also a little heat haze visible.

    Leave a comment:


  • pandapilot
    replied
    Is contrast here acceptable for JP? Thanks! Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6726-9.jpg
Views:	86
Size:	582.1 KB
ID:	1120041

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    This picture was rejected for "jpg compression artifacts".

    Could it be cause of a relatively big cropping of a picture taken already in a crop-camera (Canon 7d)?
    Yes, that is almost certainly the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • pandapilot
    replied
    This picture was rejected for "jpg compression artifacts". This is the first time ever I have this rejection and all my previous accepted photos (even 2 of the very same batch) were exported with the same settings as this one. What is wrong with this photo (I can not see anything distinguishing on my screen or I don't know there to look) and how do you avoid it? Could it be cause of a relatively big cropping of a picture taken already in a crop-camera (Canon 7d)? Thanks!Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5630-2.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	456.2 KB
ID:	1119647Click image for larger version

Name:	procimages (1).jpeg
Views:	49
Size:	576.3 KB
ID:	1119648

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by pandapilot View Post
    Hello! I took this picture of a Vologda Air Yak-40 and I don't know if it belongs into "special scheme" category or not. Vologda Air have 5 active Yak-40's now and each one has a different scheme.
    One is grey, another is white and red logo, one more white has only one thin blue stripe and no logo, 4th is grey with blue stripes of different shades of blue and here is this one. Every plane is unique, there is no standart airline livery. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5707.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	645.7 KB
ID:	1119292
    Not special.

    Leave a comment:


  • pandapilot
    replied
    Hello! I took this picture of a Vologda Air Yak-40 and I don't know if it belongs into "special scheme" category or not. Vologda Air have 5 active Yak-40's now and each one has a different scheme.
    One is grey, another is white and red logo, one more white has only one thin blue stripe and no logo, 4th is grey with blue stripes of different shades of blue and here is this one. Every plane is unique, there is no standart airline livery. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5707.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	645.7 KB
ID:	1119292

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X