Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 363

Thread: wkd001- Editing advice

  1. #101
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,376

    Default

    Those 757 and 777 rejections, I would recommend an appeal.

    The Easyjet and the KKLM 737 look ok to me

    Regards
    Alex

  2. #102
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    Those 757 and 777 rejections, I would recommend an appeal.

    The Easyjet and the KKLM 737 look ok to me

    Regards
    Alex
    Thabk you Alex for your kind words.

    Won't appeal at the AA as the re-edit is already in the queue, although I still don't agree with the reason. Exposure was too low as the Histogram also said that.
    Had a Delta T7 accepted from the same day with more exposure and some kind of the same contrast.
    Appealed at the KLM Asia T7 and the appeal was accepted.
    Last edited by wkd001; 01-24-2018 at 10:48 AM. Reason: a change of facts

  3. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Som edits for check up...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0324.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	563.1 KB 
ID:	13294
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0327.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	803.5 KB 
ID:	13295
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0436.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	876.7 KB 
ID:	13296
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0448.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	858.0 KB 
ID:	13297
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0493.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	13298

    Thanks in advance...

  4. #104
    JetPhotos.Net Crew Julian S.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    near EDFH, Germany
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Som edits for check up...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0324.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	563.1 KB 
ID:	13294
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0327.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	803.5 KB 
ID:	13295
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0436.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	876.7 KB 
ID:	13296
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0448.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	858.0 KB 
ID:	13297
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0493.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	13298

    Thanks in advance...
    Hey,

    i think they can profit from a little bit more contrast by adjusting the levels, but otherwise they should be acceptable.
    This is only my personal opinion, so probably there are another opinons too.

    Hope this helps, have a nice evening!
    Best Regards from Germany,
    Julian S.​

  5. #105
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Som edits for check up...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0324.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	563.1 KB 
ID:	13294
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0327.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	803.5 KB 
ID:	13295
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0436.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	876.7 KB 
ID:	13296
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0448.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	858.0 KB 
ID:	13297
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0493.JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	13298

    Thanks in advance...
    Maybe a touch soft in places, but otherwise no major issues for me.

  6. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Maybe a touch soft in places, but otherwise no major issues for me.
    Dana, thank you for your time again.

    Want to offer five again for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0420.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	851.3 KB 
ID:	13400
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0429.JPG 
Views:	13 
Size:	867.1 KB 
ID:	13401
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0470.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	880.8 KB 
ID:	13402
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8812.JPG 
Views:	15 
Size:	609.2 KB 
ID:	13403
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8837.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	494.0 KB 
ID:	13404

    Nr 1-3 will have contrast issues. want to know if they are at least borderline.
    Struggled with nr 5 with exposure and highlights ( want to know if this is passable.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko

  7. #107
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Dana, thank you for your time again.

    Want to offer five again for check up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0420.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	851.3 KB 
ID:	13400
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0429.JPG 
Views:	13 
Size:	867.1 KB 
ID:	13401
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0470.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	880.8 KB 
ID:	13402
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8812.JPG 
Views:	15 
Size:	609.2 KB 
ID:	13403
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8837.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	494.0 KB 
ID:	13404

    Nr 1-3 will have contrast issues. want to know if they are at least borderline.
    Struggled with nr 5 with exposure and highlights ( want to know if this is passable.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko
    Yes, 1-3 borderline for contrast. 3 also soft. 5 a bit dark.

  8. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Dana thanks again.

    Nr 3 of the previous post remains personal. It seems also blurred to me especially towards the nose.Will try one of the first two. If it gets rejected for contrast No problem.
    Tried to raise the exposure of the BA A380, but there is something close the cockpit that seems like some kind of a halo. It is not, as it's already in the original.
    Will include it and ask for an opinion about it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8837.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	520.6 KB 
ID:	13483

    I want to upload one of these three. Want to know which one should be the best.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8522.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	541.2 KB 
ID:	13484
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8523-2.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	804.9 KB 
ID:	13485
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8527.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	688.4 KB 
ID:	13486

    My time to struggle with the horizon this time as almost no good vertical references in the back this time...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_9794.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	1.21 MB 
ID:	13487

    Best regards.

    Wilko

  9. #109
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Tried to raise the exposure of the BA A380, but there is something close the cockpit that seems like some kind of a halo. It is not, as it's already in the original.
    Will include it and ask for an opinion about it.
    Should be ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    I want to upload one of these three. Want to know which one should be the best.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8522.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	541.2 KB 
ID:	13484
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8523-2.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	804.9 KB 
ID:	13485
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_8527.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	688.4 KB 
ID:	13486
    Don't see much difference in quality among the three.

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    My time to struggle with the horizon this time as almost no good vertical references in the back this time...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_9794.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	1.21 MB 
ID:	13487
    Use the background verticals, which in this case suggest if anything slight CW, but probably ok as is.

  10. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Hello Everyone.

    Struggling with this reject. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6358367
    It was my second reject and I didn't agree so I appealed on it.
    After appealing only the undersharpening maintained.

    Now I did sharpening on this one and now it looks even blurry/oversharpened to me.
    This is the one.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0388.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	1.18 MB 
ID:	13614

    I do have a capture of this one a second earlier.
    Edited it as well.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0387.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	1,009.6 KB 
ID:	13615

    In both cases the jetwash of the engines seems to damage the sharpness on especially the back of the aircraft.

    Now I want to one if one of these two should be acceptable.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko

  11. #111
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Hello Everyone.

    Struggling with this reject. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6358367
    It was my second reject and I didn't agree so I appealed on it.
    After appealing only the undersharpening maintained.

    Now I did sharpening on this one and now it looks even blurry/oversharpened to me.
    This is the one.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0388.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	1.18 MB 
ID:	13614

    I do have a capture of this one a second earlier.
    Edited it as well.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0387.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	1,009.6 KB 
ID:	13615

    In both cases the jetwash of the engines seems to damage the sharpness on especially the back of the aircraft.

    Now I want to one if one of these two should be acceptable.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko
    Sharpened version looks acceptable to me.

  12. #112
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Sharpened version looks acceptable to me.
    Thank you Dana.
    Pulled the sharpened version in the queue.

    Finally had some time to go to the airport again.
    Want to offer five new for check-up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0555.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	918.7 KB 
ID:	13632
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0572.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	937.2 KB 
ID:	13633
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4731.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	999.1 KB 
ID:	13634
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4812.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	930.7 KB 
ID:	13635
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4837.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	702.9 KB 
ID:	13636

    Note to 3-5. As I was a little toying with my settings due to the very sunny weather. Consequence seems trouble. Especially nr 4 and 5 seem to have a lot of compression in the sky and 3 a little less
    Do have a lot of doubts about the acceptance of these. if you could provide a good check of these I would be very thankful.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko

  13. #113
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Thank you Dana.
    Pulled the sharpened version in the queue.

    Finally had some time to go to the airport again.
    Want to offer five new for check-up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0555.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	918.7 KB 
ID:	13632
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0572.JPG 
Views:	21 
Size:	937.2 KB 
ID:	13633
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4731.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	999.1 KB 
ID:	13634
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4812.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	930.7 KB 
ID:	13635
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4837.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	702.9 KB 
ID:	13636

    Note to 3-5. As I was a little toying with my settings due to the very sunny weather. Consequence seems trouble. Especially nr 4 and 5 seem to have a lot of compression in the sky and 3 a little less
    Do have a lot of doubts about the acceptance of these. if you could provide a good check of these I would be very thankful.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko
    Or I was between 24 Hours with this request ( in that case it was unattended ,my apologies) or this one has been missed...

  14. #114
    JetPhotos.Net Crew pdeboer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    near EHAM/AMS
    Posts
    3,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Or I was between 24 Hours with this request ( in that case it was unattended ,my apologies) or this one has been missed...
    No. 3 and 5 seem to lean to the right, no. 1 looks a bit harsh on contrast (darks look very dark), rest looks acceptable

  15. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdeboer View Post
    No. 3 and 5 seem to lean to the right, no. 1 looks a bit harsh on contrast (darks look very dark), rest looks acceptable
    Thank you Pamela.

    Five others for check and advices.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0627.JPG 
Views:	15 
Size:	963.2 KB 
ID:	13788
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0654.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	1.01 MB 
ID:	13789
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0678.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	830.4 KB 
ID:	13790
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0743.JPG 
Views:	18 
Size:	847.4 KB 
ID:	13791
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4781.JPG 
Views:	15 
Size:	989.8 KB 
ID:	13792

    Thanks in Advance.

    Best Regards,

    Wilko

  16. #116
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Thank you Pamela.

    Five others for check and advices.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0627.JPG 
Views:	15 
Size:	963.2 KB 
ID:	13788
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0654.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	1.01 MB 
ID:	13789
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0678.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	830.4 KB 
ID:	13790
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0743.JPG 
Views:	18 
Size:	847.4 KB 
ID:	13791
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4781.JPG 
Views:	15 
Size:	989.8 KB 
ID:	13792

    Thanks in Advance.

    Best Regards,

    Wilko
    Some borderline soft spots, and #4 will be borderline for contrast, otherwise no major issues.

  17. #117
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Some borderline soft spots, and #4 will be borderline for contrast, otherwise no major issues.
    Thanks Dana,

    Will check for the soft spots, and see what I do with the TK A330.

    No screening request but A question right now.

    Don't know If this is the right thread for it . if not please apologise,

    If an older existing aircraft receives a new livery, for example the renewed scheme of an airline would it be considered as hot?

    Thanks in advance for the answer.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko

  18. #118
    JetPhotos.Net Crew Julian S.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    near EDFH, Germany
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Thanks Dana,

    Will check for the soft spots, and see what I do with the TK A330.

    No screening request but A question right now.

    Don't know If this is the right thread for it . if not please apologise,

    If an older existing aircraft receives a new livery, for example the renewed scheme of an airline would it be considered as hot?

    Thanks in advance for the answer.

    Best Regards.

    Wilko
    As from the Guidelines:
    2.5 Hot Photo


    The following will be accepted as hot for 48 hours after the first photo got accepted:


    1. New aircraft type produced by a manufacturer. (including subtypes)
    2. New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force. (including roll-outs or test flights at the factory)
    3. First appearance of a new airline colour scheme. (incl. for all subtypes)
    4. First appearance of a special scheme for an airline or air force. Air force special scheme must be at least a full tail marking or similar size on the fuselage. (also for subtypes). Airline special scheme includes all alliance schemes such as Star Alliance, One World etc.
    5. Other Newsworthy events at the discretion of the screening team. (typical hand over ceremonies, promotion tours by new airliner types,..)
    6. photos of airliners with a registration not in the database will count as hot. (the 48h hours guideline will not apply to those)
    7. Please note that new routes are not considered as hot.




    Hot photos for which the 48 hour guideline does not apply


    In order to improve the cooperation with FlightRadar24 and have the most up to date photo available for the FlightRadar24 site the following will be accepted as hot for the first photo accepted only.


    1. A new delivery of an aircraft type that already exists in the fleet.
    2. An existing aircraft in the fleet that is repainted in a new colour scheme.
    3. Any change to the colour scheme (for example: removal of a special scheme, new stickers) or to the aircraft itself (Winglets, Sharklets)
    4. Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe


    Remember, these are hot only for the first accepted image.
    Hope this helps, have a nice evening!
    Best Regards from Germany,
    Julian S.​

  19. #119
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julian S. View Post
    As from the Guidelines:


    Hope this helps, have a nice evening!
    Thanks a lot Julian it helped indeed.
    In two attempts ( first one rightful rejected for underexposure ) I could add my first hot photo.

    Three for check-up now.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0502.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	967.3 KB 
ID:	13845
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0565.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	687.4 KB 
ID:	13846
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4753.JPG 
Views:	18 
Size:	864.9 KB 
ID:	13847

    Thanks in advance.

    Best Regards,

    Wilko

  20. #120
    JetPhotos.Net Crew Julian S.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    near EDFH, Germany
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Thanks a lot Julian it helped indeed.
    In two attempts ( first one rightful rejected for underexposure ) I could add my first hot photo.
    Hey,
    No Problem, glad to hear that .

    Quote Originally Posted by wkd001 View Post
    Three for check-up now.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0502.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	967.3 KB 
ID:	13845
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0565.JPG 
Views:	20 
Size:	687.4 KB 
ID:	13846
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_4753.JPG 
Views:	18 
Size:	864.9 KB 
ID:	13847

    Thanks in advance.

    Best Regards,

    Wilko
    #1 borderline backlit IMO as the tail is completely in shadow but otherwise OK (may another screener disagree, either positive or negative)
    #2 too high in frame
    #3 should be OK

    Have a good Night.
    Last edited by Julian S.; 02-15-2018 at 08:50 PM.
    Best Regards from Germany,
    Julian S.​

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •