Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
YanS - Editing Advice
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by YanS View PostHi everyone,
Thanks dlowwa for your feedback again.
I have got a few new ones for pre-screening:
1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21333[/ATTACH]
2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21334[/ATTACH]
3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21335[/ATTACH]
4.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21336[/ATTACH]
Thanks for your answers,
Best regards,
Yannick
Comment
-
Hello everyone,
A feedback on these would be great .
1. (horizon looks a bit unlevelled to me but the verticals seem ok)
2. (not sure if it's too similar to this one: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9188422 )
3.
4.
5. (too dark/too harsh contrast?)
Thanks for your answers,
All the best,
Yannick
Comment
-
Originally posted by YanS View PostHello everyone,
A feedback on these would be great .
1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21521[/ATTACH] (horizon looks a bit unlevelled to me but the verticals seem ok)
2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21522[/ATTACH] (not sure if it's too similar to this one: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9188422 )
3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21523[/ATTACH]
4.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21524[/ATTACH]
5.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21525[/ATTACH] (too dark/too harsh contrast?)
Thanks for your answers,
All the best,
Yannick
3, 4, 5) OK
Comment
-
Hello everyone,
Yesterday I had the chance to take a photo of this Bae Jetstream 32. The serial is 842. As far as I know the aircraft is stored at EDDW since 2010. Now it has a new livery and a new reg. (HB-ARFF).Previously it was SP-KWE. My questions would be if I should
enter 'private' for Airline as it doesn't have the 'JetAir'-titles anymore and if the picture would have a chance to be accepted as a new reg. .
Thanks for your help,
Best regards,
Yannick
Comment
-
HB-ARFF isn't a valid reg so as it's fake I would recommend using the real one (last one) or upload without reg at all, just the cn
Regards
Alex
To check any HB- reg - this is the place to go : https://app02.bazl.admin.ch/web/bazl/fr/#/lfr/search
Comment
-
Comment
-
Hi everyone,
Thanks Alex, for your answer!
Today this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7106062 ) was rejected for being to soft and horizon unlevel.
Personally I do not agree with these two aspects:
For me the aircraft is not soft enough for a rejection and the verticals in the beckground seem to be ok to me.
But of course this is only a personal opinion so I ask here if this one would be worth an appeal.
Thanks for your help,
Best regards,
Yannick
Comment
-
Originally posted by YanS View PostHi everyone,
Thanks Alex, for your answer!
Today this picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7106062 ) was rejected for being to soft and horizon unlevel.
Personally I do not agree with these two aspects:
For me the aircraft is not soft enough for a rejection and the verticals in the beckground seem to be ok to me.
But of course this is only a personal opinion so I ask here if this one would be worth an appeal.
Thanks for your help,
Best regards,
Yannick
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by YanS View PostHi everyone,
Thanks dlowwa, for your help!
A feedback on these three would be great. I'm not sure about horizon and contrast/soft on these.
1.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21807[/ATTACH] (would this be ok as first reg. ? It would be the second Ryan Navion H in the database)
2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21808[/ATTACH]
3.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21809[/ATTACH]
Thanks for your answers,
Best regards,
Yannick
Comment
-
Hi everyone,
I tried to improve no. 3 now:
1. ( I think it's now bright enough but I'm afraid it's too soft now )
...And a new one for pre-screening:
2.
Thanks for your answers,
All the best,
Yannick
PS: feel free to ignore the Piper for now, I attached it accidently and a 6th image would be out of the 24h limit
Comment
-
Originally posted by YanS View PostHi everyone,
I tried to improve no. 3 now:
1. [ATTACH=CONFIG]21833[/ATTACH] ( I think it's now bright enough but I'm afraid it's too soft now )
...And a new one for pre-screening:
2.[ATTACH=CONFIG]21834[/ATTACH]
Thanks for your answers,
All the best,
Yannick
PS: feel free to ignore the Piper for now, I attached it accidently and a 6th image would be out of the 24h limit
Comment
-
Comment
Comment