Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[PhilDernerJr]

Well, we have a thread for acceptances, but how about a palce to show the photos that people wouldn't otherwise get to see?

Post links to your rejected JetPhotos.net or Airliners.net photos here!

PLEASE do not use this thread for complaining. There is a clear difference between showing disappointment for a rejection and complaining.

Post em!

[Iberia A340-600]

I was waiting for a thread like this to start :)

The only problem is that I think the links will no longer work after 7 days?


These were rejected:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1346063
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1345437

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... n752ew.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070310_lavion752ew.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... ewr762.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070305_silverjetewr762.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... fkside.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070303_ar742jfkside.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 20wing.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070214_af320wing.jpg)

[njgtr82]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1362212

[PhilDernerJr]

The only problem is that I think the links will no longer work after 7 days?

I thought about this. Often, the older replies, especially the ones 7 days old, will be buried and no longer looked at by people. Since people will post them here probably within the first day of being rejected, I doubt many will end up looking at bad links.

Folks are also welcome to use other hosting sites for their pics, as many do.

Also keep in mind that Airliners.net rejections often go to MyAviation.net (if you selected that), which is permanant.

[LGA777]

Great thread idea Phil. Some of us, myself VERY MUCH included have shots that don't make the grade but we still want to share with the group and maybe the world. So here is my first of many for this thread I'm sure, this is from yesterday. This A-380 shot was just to soft and my weak PS skills could not get it any better. While it is soft I like the angle showing off the flaps and the white belly illuminated by the snow on the ground !

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1361704

Cheers

Ron Peel

[MarkLawrence]

Darn - I'll have to work on this one a little - first time I'd seen Caribbean Star - too much/little contrast - this was one of my first raw pictures too...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1361752

[Greeney]

Now that I look at it its kind of dark, but it got rejected for not being centered.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1362270

[T-Bird76]

Now that I look at it its kind of dark, but it got rejected for not being centered.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1362270

Jordan the Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered) rejection doesn't just mean centering. When a photo is sized to an odd size we use this rejection to. In your case you edited the photo to 823x670. The pic itself is pretty much centered just the size is odd.

[Greeney]

Now that I look at it its kind of dark, but it got rejected for not being centered.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1362270

Jordan the Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered) rejection doesn't just mean centering. When a photo is sized to an odd size we use this rejection to. In your case you edited the photo to 823x670. The pic itself is pretty much centered just the size is odd.
That makes sense, that was my first upload to JPnet, so I was a little confused

[pgengler]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1361986

This one was rejected as "overexposed." I don't know if my monitor calibration differs that much from JP screeners, but I've had a couple of others rejected for same (e.g, A380 photos) and I end up toning down the image so that it looks underexposed on my monitor. There aren't (m)any blown highlights, according to ACR, so is there just something I'm missing?

[nwafan20]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1361986

This one was rejected as "overexposed." I don't know if my monitor calibration differs that much from JP screeners, but I've had a couple of others rejected for same (e.g, A380 photos) and I end up toning down the image so that it looks underexposed on my monitor. There aren't (m)any blown highlights, according to ACR, so is there just something I'm missing?

Yeah, I would deffinatly say that is overexposed.

[JRadier]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1361986

This one was rejected as "overexposed." I don't know if my monitor calibration differs that much from JP screeners, but I've had a couple of others rejected for same (e.g, A380 photos) and I end up toning down the image so that it looks underexposed on my monitor. There aren't (m)any blown highlights, according to ACR, so is there just something I'm missing?
There are no real highlites, but it is too light in general.

[njgtr82]

whats your guys take on these 2:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1363207
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1363077
On the second one I only resized and sharpened.. so whats bad processing?

[njgtr82]

Disregard the second one, I appealed it and they accepted it

[T-Bird76]

whats your guys take on these 2:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1363207
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1363077
On the second one I only resized and sharpened.. so whats bad processing?

The first one is dead on with the rejection. Not sure if you can save it.

[moose135]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1360791

Thoughts on this one? Was rejected for:

- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Undersharpened (Soft)

I'm concerned about the bad composition - I've gotten a couple of those lately, and I can't see what the problem is.

[MarkLawrence]

Moose - absolute laymans look - too much air above the plane compared to underneath - that's what I've found when I've had those...

[Mellyrose]

Like Mark said, it looks low in the frame and it might fit a bit better if you had a tad more space in the front and rear of the plane.

[T-Bird76]

John besides low in the frame what size are you cropping the photo to? The size looks to be on of those odd sizes. If you cropping to 1024, set your size to 1024x703.

[moose135]

John besides low in the frame what size are you cropping the photo to? The size looks to be on of those odd sizes. If you cropping to 1024, set your size to 1024x703.

I'm using a 5 to 3 ratio, so it comes out 1024x614 - almost everything I've uploaded to JP.net has been that size.

Usually for vertical centering, I put the center point of the crop box on the centerline of the fuselage (around window level) but with the size of the tail on this one, I tried to have similar spacing between the top of the tail and the bottom of the fuselage to the borders. Guess I'll go back and have another shot at that.

[Iberia A340-600]

Un-level horizon

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1363007

[T-Bird76]

Un-level horizon

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1363007

Gordan that's an easy fix, just give the photo some CW rotation of about .8 and you should be fine.

[Iberia A340-600]

[quote="Iberia A340-600":8b138]Un-level horizon

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1363007

Gordan that's an easy fix, just give the photo some CW rotation of about .8 and you should be fine.[/quote:8b138]

Thanks Tommy, I re-edited it and re-uploaded it.

Got another rejection:

Overexposed

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1364347

[NIKV69]

I'm using a 5 to 3 ratio, so it comes out 1024x614 - almost everything I've uploaded to JP.net has been that size.

Moose, use either 3 to 2 or 14.45cm to 9.64cm. When resizing just put either 1024 or higher (depending on the quality) for the width and don't put anything for height, click ok and PS will choose the best height automatically.

[lijk604]

Am I missing something? This was rejected for "Jaggies"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 07_JFK.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070328_HL7472_031907_JFK. jpg)

[njgtr82]

Am I missing something? This was rejected for "Jaggies"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 07_JFK.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070328_HL7472_031907_JFK. jpg)

I don't think you did, I would appeal that one.

[Matt Molnar]

Am I missing something? This was rejected for "Jaggies"

I see a TINY bit on the tail and side logos.

[Corey]

Oversharpened:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... -07JFK.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070328_A6-EBW3-19-07JFK.jpg)
Soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 7JFKCR.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070328_F-WWJB3-19-07JFKCR.jpg)
Quality,contrast,soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... -07JFK.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070328_N563JB3-19-07JFK.jpg)
Distance?:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... -07JFK.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070328_N258JB3-19-07JFK.jpg)
Oversharpened:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... -07JFK.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070328_HL74723-19-07JFK.jpg)
Centered,oversharpened:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... -07JFK.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070328_JA778A3-19-07JFK.jpg)

:cry: Been doing the same technique with the same equipment for three years w/o a problem.....ugh

Corey

[eric8669]

Quality

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 31807a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070401_c6-bgk_Bahamasair_737_mia_031807a.jpg)

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 31807a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070401_n472ta_Taca_a320_mia_031807a.jpg)


Quality & over sharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 807_1a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070401_n926js_EOS_757_031807_1a.jpg)

[njgtr82]

Ouch,
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1380112
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1380027
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1380079

[T-Bird76]

Ouch,
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1380112
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1380027
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1380079

Bill each of those are easy fixes in the editing process, I'd play with them again and reupload them.

[MarkLawrence]

Put a little too much into this one

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1380556

[njgtr82]

Thanks Tommy, I think I got 2 of them, but what do I need to do to fix the Fedex? Thanks
Bill

[MarkLawrence]

Is this one fixable?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381020

[nwafan20]

Any advice on these ones?:

Too much or too little contrast: (Which one?):
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381595

bad quality (I just don't see where the quality is bad, can someone point it out?):
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381615

I am especially interested in hearing Tommy's opinion

[T-Bird76]

Is this one fixable?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381020

I screened that pic and accepted it, I don't think there's that much noise at all, the exposure is well within acceptable limits IMO. Try to appeal it.

[T-Bird76]

Thanks Tommy, I think I got 2 of them, but what do I need to do to fix the Fedex? Thanks
Bill

Make it a touch brighter and add some more contrast. I think it will be fine. Are you using Photoshop?

[T-Bird76]

Any advice on these ones?:

Too much or too little contrast: (Which one?):
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381595

bad quality (I just don't see where the quality is bad, can someone point it out?):
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381615

As for the first one, add a bit of contrast to it. The second won't be able to be saved, the nose is blurry, no way to fix that.

[MarkLawrence]

Is this one fixable?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381020

I screened that pic and accepted it, I don't think there's that much noise at all, the exposure is well within acceptable limits IMO. Try to appeal it.

Thanks for the advice Tommy - it's in the appeal queue.

[T-Bird76]

Is this one fixable?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1381020

I screened that pic and accepted it, I don't think there's that much noise at all, the exposure is well within acceptable limits IMO. Try to appeal it.

Thanks for the advice Tommy - it's in the appeal queue.

Ok hope it gets in, I don't screen appeals though, only head screeners.

[MarkLawrence]

Nope - rejection on the appeal too - admin comments - Sorry, not up to JP standards - I'll wait for the next opportunity to get Shamu..

[Iberia A340-600]

All dark/underexposed

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1382325
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1382326
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1382333
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1382334

Very sad about these two:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1382328
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1382332

[nwafan20]

Can someone help me with this?

The first one was rejected for too much/too little contrast, Tommy told me to bump the contrast, I did. Now it was rejected for being undersharpened and too much/ too little contrast. Does it need even more or did I put too much in?

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1390229

[T-Bird76]

Can someone help me with this?

The first one was rejected for too much/too little contrast, Tommy told me to bump the contrast, I did. Now it was rejected for being undersharpened and too much/ too little contrast. Does it need even more or did I put too much in?

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1390229

Matt email me the orginal and let me see what I can do with it. I think the screeners who screened it were bit to picky. I think the contrast is fine considering the light it was taken in.

my email is [email protected]

[njgtr82]

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1392833
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1392821
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1392815

[Iberia A340-600]

No surprise whatsoever:

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1393011

[Qantas_787]

This one suprises me alot.

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1392239

Matt

[stuart schechter]

Where's the blur?

[T-Bird76]

This one suprises me alot.

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1392239

Matt

The blur very visable on the "All day every day low fares" and on the "Jetstar.com." Boost your shutter speed and that should fix future problems.

[njgtr82]

I thought this El Al would be good, but I guess I was wrong
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1397612

[Iberia A340-600]

A little surprised but I agree, the photos are overexposed. However I think it was in PS that they ended up that way.

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1397500
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1397503
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1397516

[Bellucciman]

I thought this one wouldn't make it........and was right!
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1400612

[lijk604]

I thought the surroundings added to this photo, guess not...

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1402124

These two I'm a little bummed on, any more sharpening and I get the "jaggies" as is, it's too soft. Oh well.

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1402127

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1402128

[nwafan20]

What did I do wrong here? This is the first photo of the kind I have uploaded.

Rejected: Bad Info: Registration

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1402703

[T-Bird76]

What did I do wrong here? This is the first photo of the kind I have uploaded.

Rejected: Bad Info: Registration

http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1402703

Put the airport code in the regi field.

[Iberia A340-600]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1403647
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1403648
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1403650
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1403651
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1403653

[Iberia A340-600]

http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1405329

[lijk604]

http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1405389

RATS!
http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1405371

[TallDutch]

Dedicated to all spotters around the world!!

http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5965821

[heeshung]

Oops... Didn't get the whole panel in. I wonder what categories I forgot...
http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1408145

Already pretty sure this one wouldn't make it because of the backlight.
http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1408141

Forgot about the stairs, and guess they wanted to see the whole rotor.
http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1408103

[grazysub]

I thought this El Al would be good, but I guess I was wrong
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1397612

I think it's level! Only the aircraft is unlevel due the take-off

[T-Bird76]

I thought this El Al would be good, but I guess I was wrong
http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1397612

I think it's level! Only the aircraft is unlevel due the take-off

Nope its not level, if you look at the various poles in the background they all are tilting to the right. I'd rotate the shot .1 or .2 CCW and sharpen it up a bit, should be good to go then.

[MarkLawrence]

Oh dear...got some work to do...or..probably..it's the time of day that I can get out of the office to do somew shooting...12 noon is probably not the best...

http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1409000
http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1408998
http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1408996

[nwafan20]

*Sigh* reject:

http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1409968

[moose135]

*Sigh* reject:

http://web01.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1409968

The light poles, and even the roofs in the background, look to be leaning left. I thought someone mentioned that up thread when you first posted this one. Shouldn't be difficult to fix.

[NIKV69]

The light poles, and even the roofs in the background, look to be leaning left

Don't get hung up on just the poles. They can be deceiving especially if they are not sitting stright. The trick is the horizon. Look at the picture without concentrating on the plane and you will instantly see how the shot is leaning to the left. Once you get some practice you will be able to look at the horizon and then the buildings as a whole and see how level the shot is without trusting poles.

[flyboy 28]

I was kind of bummed about this one..

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... net1jt.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070503_anet1jt.jpg)

[moose135]

I was kind of bummed about this one..

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... net1jt.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070503_anet1jt.jpg)

That's way too artistic for a.net - looks too dark too!

[flyboy 28]

I was kind of bummed about this one..

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... net1jt.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070503_anet1jt.jpg)

That's way too artistic for a.net - looks too dark too!

Shucks. I rather liked it. :)

[Iberia A340-600]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1418063
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1414183
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1409816
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1408380

[pgengler]

Looks like it's time for me to learn how to use "Noise Ninja":
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420070
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420071
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420073
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420076

Can you find the dust spots? (I sure can't)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420074
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420077
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420085

[T-Bird76]

Looks like it's time for me to learn how to use "Noise Ninja":
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420070
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420071
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420073
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420076

Can you find the dust spots? (I sure can't)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420074
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420077
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420085

Phil equalize the pictures and you'll see the dust spots. I can see them without equalizing the pictures. You have some in the upper right and lower left corners. The one on the lower left is rather large.

Lower your ISO to, looks like you were shooting in ISO 400 or above. My recommendation for shooting at the Marina, first only shoot there after 2 PM from May to October otherwise the light is really harsh. Second, shoot in shutter mode at 500th of a second at ISO 100 or 200. On a bright sunny day ISO 100 is your best bet.

[moose135]

Phil, another tip, in addition to what Tommy noted about ISO...it looks like the sky is grainy in some of your shots. When you sharpen the photo, do you select only the aircraft? If not, that can cause you problems with grain in the sky as well.

[pgengler]

Actually, the ISO for those was only 250 (which I used over 100 because I wanted to keep the shutter speed up, especially with the big 100-400 lens)

Going back to the originals, it looks like there's noise in the sky even without sharpening (sigh); I'll have to try just selecting the plane for sharpening, though. Thanks.

[ATAIndy]

Since I'm new to the photo processing concept, what exactly do you use to sharpen the photo? Is it just the sharpen tool in Photoshop, or is there something else?

[nwafan20]

Unsharp mask in photoshop (Filter-sharpen-unsharp mask) You will also hear it called USM (UnSharp Mask)

[ATAIndy]

Cool, thanks nwafan20!

[nwafan20]

Cool, thanks nwafan20!

No problem.

[pgengler]

You might find this older thread (http://nycaviation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5616) useful with settings for USM.

[MarkLawrence]

WOW...I'm suprised ..but..I guess I have work to do on these...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1421056
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1421063
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1421068

[wunaladreamin]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1420081

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1421449

[hiss srq]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1426490
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1426453
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1426485

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1426490
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1426453
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1426485

Ryan how on earth do you get your pictures rejected for bad info and on American metal?? All you have to do is fill in the regi field and it autofills the CN number for you? For that you should be banned! LOLOL :twisted:

[Iberia A340-600]

No surprise:

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1427647

[stuart schechter]

No surprise:

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1427647

Since when did JFK have mountains in the back? Wrong place!

[Iberia A340-600]

[quote="Iberia A340-600":ac635]No surprise:

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1427647

Since when did JFK have mountains in the back? Wrong place![/quote:ac635]

I could have sworn I fixed that...

[NIKV69]

About to say JFK never looked that good!

[Mateo]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1424323

Bad framing/composition. Anything lower, and it's all fence and barbed wire. I think it does the job of showing an airplane on the ground, but, ca marche...

[wunaladreamin]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1432491

Bad scan/dust, ok. that'll be fixed, but what was with the "Categories wrong or missing"? Tommy???

[nwafan20]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1432491

Bad scan/dust, ok. that'll be fixed, but what was with the "Categories wrong or missing"? Tommy???

did you select it as "cargo"?

[wunaladreamin]

I believe so. Is that incorrect?

[nwafan20]

No, that is what is supposed to be done.

[G-BOAD]

I never posted here before because i typically can find the errors and the rejection is justified. but in this batch, i don't know what i did wrong, of course, stuff like bad framing i can fix, but i think I'm having most trouble with the "Over Processed / Bad postprocessing"
Thanks in advance for feedback
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1433971
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1433015
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1431135
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1432396
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1432985
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1432404

[T-Bird76]

Over Processed/bad postprocessing means that the there was to much editing done to the photo. A few of these have a glow around the plane which indicates you edited them to the point the shot doesn't look real. The one's that are oversharpen do have alot of jaggies. What are you using to edit your pics?

[nwafan20]

Ok, I understand the "Bad framing", but overexposed???? Is it my monitor or is it really overexposed?

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1437463

[stuart schechter]

It's overexposed. The white is very bright. There is a stripe of white below the tan body but the body looks brighter than the stripe in the front.

[nwafan20]

Man... I need to caliberate my monitor then lol

[G-BOAD]

Thanks Tom,
i tired to fix it, but...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1438942
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1438952
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1438954
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1439041
feedback is welcome
thanks

[nwafan20]

I like the photos man, but I think those are going to be for your personal collection.

[heeshung]

Hmm...maybe forgot the business category?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1444019

Never realized it was unlevel
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1444011

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1444014

[T-Bird76]

Hmm...maybe forgot the business category?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1444019

Never realized it was unlevel
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1444011

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1444014

I'm not sure what the screener meant by categories, its not a biz jet, they might have been looking for "vintage." I'd sharpen it up a touch and re-upload it. Leave the screener a comment it was rejected for categories but your not sure if it should be vintage or not. Sometimes the screener will check the right category if that's the case.

[njgtr82]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1451893
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1451902

[lijk604]

Wasn't level... :(
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070604_N2825B_052607_FRG.jpg

[wunaladreamin]

Not the best pic but I liked the moon in with it and I figured what the hell...
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1453819

[eric8669]

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 11407a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070609_n712ck_Kalitta_747_lax_011407a.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 11407a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070609_dq-fjl_Fiji_747_lax_011407a.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 11307a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070609_9v-sfl_SingaporeAirlinesCargo_747_lax_011307a.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 11307a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070609_b-6051_ChinaEastern_a340_lax_011307a.jpg)

My post processing does not seem to be working for acceptence to Airliners any longer. Anybody have suggestios?

Thanks

Eric

[Iberia A340-600]

Eric, those are a nice batch of shots but I can see why the Air Pacific might have gotten rejected. It appears that the nose of the aircraft blends into the white tank behind it. The Singapore shot looks a little over exposed at well but then again what do I know! :lol:

Not sure why the MU got rejected, looks fine to me.

[MarkLawrence]

Darn - just can't get things right on this BBJ with a fuel trail...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1460376

[stuart schechter]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1461617

[stuart schechter]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1466135

[wunaladreamin]

That's a tough edit. If you fix the exposure on the plane it darkens the sky terribly. It's one for the personal collection me thinks.

[nwafan20]

That's a tough edit. If you fix the exposure on the plane it darkens the sky terribly. It's one for the personal collection me thinks.

Use the curves and shadow/highlight

[G-BOAD]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1470795

[nwafan20]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1470795


Nice shot, but I think that ones for the personal collection my friend.

[wunaladreamin]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1472206

[MarkLawrence]

That's a great shot Kenny - shouldn't take a lot of editing to get that accepted!

[T-Bird76]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1472206

Kenny you have some noise issues with the shot to, it might not get in on the second attempt. The screener probably just rejected for the comp/center reason since that stands out without checking off any other reason. What ISO were you using?

[moose135]

I guess the Stearman struts got in the way of this airport overview shot:

"Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter"

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1477023

[T-Bird76]

I guess the Stearman struts got in the way of this airport overview shot:

"Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter"

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1477023

John I might appeal that one, the struts IMO give the shot some character, give it a go.

[NIKV69]

I guess the Stearman struts got in the way of this airport overview shot:


Unfortunately so, great shot Moose but they are obscuring the entrance to that cul de sac and the runway. Forgot how beautiful Bayport is.

[Tom_Turner]

I guess the Stearman struts got in the way of this airport overview shot:

"Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter"

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1477023

John I might appeal that one, the struts IMO give the shot some character, give it a go.

Good Grief...
I'll go with Tommy on that one Moose. Nice shot.

Tom

[Mateo]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478114
Overexposed. The front is a little bright, but no worse than a lot of other shots in the database. I've got a couple other in the sequence that may prove more workable. Also soft, but that's still me getting a feel between my personal tolerance for sharpness and what the screeners want.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478110
Didn't know whether to submit with the whole rotor, or to cut off the front blade, and crop to the body. A little brighter and a little sharper on the edit, fine, whatever. Again, by the time I think something looks too altered for the brightness or too over-sharp, it's just getting started for them.

[wunaladreamin]

ouch

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1476495

[wunaladreamin]

Kenny you have some noise issues with the shot to, it might not get in on the second attempt. The screener probably just rejected for the comp/center reason since that stands out without checking off any other reason. What ISO were you using?

Sorry Tommy, was away from the computer for a few days. I was using ISO 250. I was also at max zoom on a 300mm and I know it gets a bit soft.

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478114
Overexposed. The front is a little bright, but no worse than a lot of other shots in the database. I've got a couple other in the sequence that may prove more workable. Also soft, but that's still me getting a feel between my personal tolerance for sharpness and what the screeners want.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478110
Didn't know whether to submit with the whole rotor, or to cut off the front blade, and crop to the body. A little brighter and a little sharper on the edit, fine, whatever. Again, by the time I think something looks too altered for the brightness or too over-sharp, it's just getting started for them.

Both def need a bit more USM, I'd give about 140 percent and the Helio I think you can increase the levels without doing any harm to the pic. Not sure why it was rejected though for composition, looks fine to me. I wouldn't have rejected it for that. I think you can save these two shots with a bit more work.

[T-Bird76]

ouch

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1476495

To bad about this shot, the boggiest issue is its overexposed otherwise I think you could have had a real winner. The heat distortion is hardly noticeable if at all. As for the framing that would have been an easy fix. Can't fix an over espoused shot unless you shot it raw, to bad really.

[wunaladreamin]

I was just happy seeing the damned thing. Still not bad for a shot taken a 40mph hanging out my bro's passenger side window.

[Greg_NY]

A centering issue:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1483394

Maybe move it up slightly?

[T-Bird76]

A centering issue:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1483394

Maybe move it up slightly?



No, there's way to much sky on the right and left, it needs to be cropped much tighter.

[Greg_NY]

Thanks Tommy, perhaps I will redo it in portrait orientation.

[MarkLawrence]

Hmmmm...backlit?? - maybe I don't understand the definition of backlit...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1484294

[T-Bird76]

Hmmmm...backlit?? - maybe I don't understand the definition of backlit...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1484294

Its really more top lit then backlit. We use the backlit rejection for shots like that although the light on that for the time of day really isn't that bad. You might be able to appeal that Mark.

[eric8669]

I tried to get one of my Qantas shots up.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1483256
Dark / Underexposed

I guess it was just to dark. Any suggestions I do shoot .RAW.
thanks


Eric

[NIKV69]

I guess it was just to dark. Any suggestions I do shoot .RAW.
thanks

Looks like there wasn't enough light Eric. You can try to add some light in PS. Without seeing how the pic looks as shot it's hard to say. I don't like to make big changes in exposure or white balance in ACR. Give it a try though.


Its really more top lit then backlit. We use the backlit rejection for shots like that although the light on that for the time of day really isn't that bad. You might be able to appeal that Mark

Kind of looks the sun was directly above the plane. With that fuselage not much to do. I think an appeal would not be successful.

[eric8669]

Made another attempt with my Wunala Shot.

Got it brighter, now rejected for undersharpened.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1491222

[Greg_NY]

Looks like I hit all the rejections...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1495494

I was wondering if anyone has any feedback on the "Part of aircraft cut off" rejection category. I understand what it means, but I have seen countless photos on jetphotos and the other site, where part of an aircraft has been cut off. (Such as the ends of the wings.) When is it OK to do? Is it a symmetry issue in this case?

Thanks

[lijk604]

Looks like I hit all the rejections...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1495494

I was wondering if anyone has any feedback on the "Part of aircraft cut off" rejection category. I understand what it means, but I have seen countless photos on jetphotos and the other site, where part of an aircraft has been cut off. (Such as the ends of the wings.) When is it OK to do? Is it a symmetry issue in this case?

Thanks

I think the aircraft cut-off refers to the fact that your picture only has half of the #1 engine. If you submitted with either the whole engine in OR out of the picture that one would probably get cleared up. Am I right Tommy?

[Greg_NY]

I think the aircraft cut-off refers to the fact that your picture only has half of the #1 engine. If you submitted with either the whole engine in OR out of the picture that one would probably get cleared up. Am I right Tommy?

Thanks for the reply, I'll try some other shots without cutting off the engines etc...

[njgtr82]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1496752
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1496751

[nwafan20]

Could someone please help me?

I did the auto-fill, shouldn't all options have been chosen?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1499455

- Categories wrong or missing
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Genre

I'm confused....

[moose135]

Could someone please help me?

I did the auto-fill, shouldn't all options have been chosen?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1499455

- Categories wrong or missing
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Genre

I'm confused....

You need to select Civilian or Military, that is one thing that auto-fill doesn't do for you. It's easy to overlook.

[nwafan20]

Could someone please help me?

I did the auto-fill, shouldn't all options have been chosen?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1499455

- Categories wrong or missing
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Genre

I'm confused....

You need to select Civilian or Military, that is one thing that auto-fill doesn't do for you. It's easy to overlook.

Ahh ok, thanks.

[nwafan20]

I don't see the bad post processing, can someone point it out to me???

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500965

[nwafan20]

Alright, I must be REALLY bad at this whole Military and formation thing in identifying what fields should be filled out... All rejected only for some sort of "bad info" or "categories wrong or missing"

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500980
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500974
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500977

[Derf]

They are not P-51's but T-6 Texans'

[lijk604]

Alright, I must be REALLY bad at this whole Military and formation thing in identifying what fields should be filled out... All rejected only for some sort of "bad info" or "categories wrong or missing"

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500980
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500974
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500977

Did you check off Warbird or Vintage as well? (I can't remember the category name right now). That's a must too.

[moose135]

Matt,

On your P-47, the missing serial number is 44-90447, from the FAA N-Number registry (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... nquiry.asp (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.asp)) Don't know what category you selected, but for war birds, with a civilian registration, you should select "Civilian" not "Military".

As Fred mentioned, the two formation shots are not P-51s as you indicated.

[nwafan20]

I did select Civilian, but apparently they thought it was military??

My bad, not good with my military planes, and I either read the reg wrong or auto fill screwed up on it.

I will have to upload them later and double check with someone on IM on the categories or something... I hate getting photos rejected just because of wrong info.

[hiss srq]

I expected Fed Ex to get rejected buttossed it up anyhow hopeing Tommy might let me slide lol.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503536

And I wanted this one up BAD! Oh well...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503534

[T-Bird76]

I expected Fed Ex to get rejected buttossed it up anyhow hopeing Tommy might let me slide lol.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503536

And I wanted this one up BAD! Oh well...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503534

I didn't screen those shots...and I wouldn't let them slide! lol Speed up you're shutter a bit the next time out.

[hiss srq]

Another flipping catagories /blurry rejection. anyone want to take astab at this one ?http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504106

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504115


http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504120

[moose135]

Ryan, the NWA DC-9 is an easy one - based on the "9974" number, the registration/serial is N9338 / 47347. It's in the JP database here:http://www.jetphotos.net/census/listing.php?model=DC9 and there are a bunch of photos of it on JP.net

[T-Bird76]

Another flipping catagories /blurry rejection. anyone want to take astab at this one ?http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504106

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504115


http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504120

Ryan what are you using to edit your pictures? If its PS make sure your save settings are set to the maximum, otherwise you'll get those nasty artifacts. As for the regi just do what Moose said, but in the future try to take a "regi shot", not one you'll upload but one that will simpy get you the regi.

[hiss srq]

I reuploaded the 9 on JP with correct information. If it gets accepted you guys will enjoy this picture trust me.

[T-Bird76]

I reuploaded the 9 on JP with correct information. If it gets accepted you guys will enjoy this picture trust me.

What are you talking about? You only have one picture in the que right now the NWA DC-9.

[njgtr82]

[quote="hiss srq":327f9]I reuploaded the 9 on JP with correct information. If it gets accepted you guys will enjoy this picture trust me.

What are you talking about? You only have one picture in the que right now the NWA DC-9.[/quote:327f9]

Lol, I think he meant DC-9

[hiss srq]

Tommy needs more coffee that is all. The 9 means DC-9 tommy.

[T-Bird76]

Tommy needs more coffee that is all. The 9 means DC-9 tommy.

Or someone who uses proper grammer! :twisted:

[MarkLawrence]

Okay - I have a question on this one...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1505655

The building in front is level - but the runway and taxiway might not be...if I levle the taxiway, then the building will not be level - is this worth editing again of is it one that will never make it because something will not be level?

[nwafan20]

Your not supposed to have everything in the picture level... It's just to have the photo taken at a true 90 degree angle to the ground, so level with the taxiway, the building was at an angle.

[hiss srq]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1506334

The DC-9 got rejected again, compression. On my office computer which is glass screen I do not see it. I really wanted this one up though. I have a bunch of other shots that should be in que by the ned of the week though. We shall see.

[adam613]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1506334

The DC-9 got rejected again, compression. On my office computer which is glass screen I do not see it. I really wanted this one up though. I have a bunch of other shots that should be in que by the ned of the week though. We shall see.

It does have some JPEG artifacts around the NWA logo and the windows, and also on the tail. But I only noticed it because I spent two years working for a company that makes image compression software. You might be able to fix the windows in PS, if the problem exists in your source image. And you should definitely be able to fix the tail.

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1508328

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1508321

Should've really gotten that last piece of tail!

[moose135]

Should've really gotten that last piece of tail!

Story of my life :wink:

[stuart schechter]

May seem off-topic, but after looking at Ryan's DC-9, what the flip is jpeg artifacting?

[nwafan20]

May seem off-topic, but after looking at Ryan's DC-9, what the flip is jpeg artifacting?

I don't think thats off topic

Jpeg artifacting is when you compress an image into a smaller file size, some data is is discarded by the program that is changing the file size. Technically speaking, since Jpeg images aren't lossless, all images suffer from artifacting, but usually that is not noticeable. Basically, there are a few types of compression, contouring, posterizing and blockiness.

If you open up a photo in photoshop and go to save it, drag the quality bar less than 12 and save it (lets say, save it as 3) now look at the file, you will notice the artifacting, in the case of Ryans Dc-9 photo, you can see it around parts of the fuselage, like the nwa symbol and windows. Iv'e seen rejections at A.net and Jetphotos for compression, but it was actually oversharpening, but its not likely in this case, because the rest of the image is not super-sharp.

Ryan, is your photoshop quality setting set to 12 (highest)?

I hope that answers your question.

[hiss srq]

Thanks for the help Matt. I am going to give it a shot again tonight. I have the orig file still.

[hiss srq]

Another crock of **** Airliners rejection.


http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 2-redo.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070719_Picture002-redo.jpg)

Soft and quality my ass.

[nwafan20]

Another crock of **** Airliners rejection.


http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 2-redo.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070719_Picture002-redo.jpg)

Soft and quality my ass.

Actually, I would agree with both of them

[NIKV69]

Ryan it looks like it could use a little more sharpening. Not sure why you got the bad quality rejection tho.

[T-Bird76]

Ryan it looks like it could use a little more sharpening. Not sure why you got the bad quality rejection tho.

Bad quality is a BS reason to reject a picture like this. According to some Anet screeners, Anet uses this reason when they feel a picture is overall "ok" but doesn't meet with their standards and they can't pinpoint what exactly they should reject it for, sort of a contradiction IMO. A quality rejection should only be given to a picture that is really bad.

[NIKV69]

Bad quality is a BS reason to reject a picture like this. According to some Anet screeners, Anet uses this reason when they feel a picture is overall "ok" but doesn't meet with their standards and they can't pinpoint what exactly they should reject it for, sort of a contradiction IMO. A quality rejection should only be given to a picture that is really bad.


It's clearly stated on anet that the rejection reason for bad quality is just that so what is the issue? It's their standards, not ours. I took at look Justin Idle's pic of the same aircraft in the same position, I am assuming they shot together but his looks a tad better and a little more sharp on this crappy work monitor. A better edit may be all it needs.

[Chris102]

Dust spots?? :shock:

Please tell me they made a mistake? I hope I don't have a dust problem :shock:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1512508

[njgtr82]

Dust spots?? :shock:

Please tell me they made a mistake? I hope I don't have a dust problem :shock:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1512508
try equalizing it in photoshop and then take a look at the pic... you'll know then

[njgtr82]

This was the last thing I thought this shot might be rejected for
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... LN-RKH.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070721_sasLN-RKH.jpg)

[stuart schechter]

What'd it get rejected for. The frame that says rejected for is gone.

[T-Bird76]

Dust spots?? :shock:

Please tell me they made a mistake? I hope I don't have a dust problem :shock:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1512508

Chris sorry to say all of those rejections reasons are spot on. You do have three large dust spots in the lower left of the picture. The conditions at the time just don't look as though you would have got very good results. The lack of light and the dark body of the helio just don't mix well.

[mirrodie]

I can see how frustrating uploading can be. I thought I had a knack for this. :| :|

This was rejected for soft.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... N17244.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070723_2006-12-16-KEWR-N17244.jpg)


And this was rejected for soft and bad centering.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... UPmd11.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070723_2006-12-16-KEWR-N272UPmd11.jpg)

Can you please yield some advice guys? I'm truly at a loss especially with the CO photo since I thought it might be a touch OVERSHARP.

advice?

[nwafan20]

They do seem a bit soft, but not too bad. Just a quick sharpening should be good.

[moose135]

I'm truly at a loss especially with the CO photo since I thought it might be a touch OVERSHARP.

It's a fine line Mario. I've gotten a number of rejections on photos I thought were oversharpened. Usually when I think it's good, I give it another pass of USM. I guess it's the difference in calibration between my eyes and the screeners. 8)

[AirtrafficController]

What do they mean by dirty scan/CMOS dust spots?
I know there is one dust spot but what is a CMOS dust spot?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1515061

[njgtr82]

What do they mean by dirty scan/CMOS dust spots?
I know there is one dust spot but what is a CMOS dust spot?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1515061
You have dust/dirt on your sensor, which is why you have a few dust spots on the image. Try cloning them out and use equalize to see where the spots are easier. But don't clone while equalize is on.

[moose135]

Try cloning them out and use equalize to see where the spots are easier. But don't clone while equalize is on.

Here's a trick I learned for PhotoShop (should work in PS Elements as well) - create a duplicate layer, and equalize that layer so you can see the dust spots (actually, I select just the sky and equalize that, it helps them stand out even more.) In your layer control window (not sure if that's what it's really called) select the original layer, but leave the top, equalized, layer visible. I then clone as I normally would, but you won't see any results as you go along. When I think I've gotten them all, I discard the equalized layer, and check the original layer (equalizing if needed). If I missed any dust spots, I simply repeat the process.

[AirtrafficController]

Thanks guys I did take away the dust spots.

Another one : :cry: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1515325

[stuart schechter]

You see how you have a line in the sky that looks like you just did it with a paint brush? The picture is also soft. I don't know if it is salvageable.

[NIKV69]

It's low in the frame and dark too. Badquality all around. Make it easier on yourself and shoot in ideal conditions while you get your feet wet.

[nwafan20]

*Categories wrong or missing*
What did I do wrong here?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519268
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519263

[MarkLawrence]

Just out of interest Matt, did you have the special scheme checked? That's one I always forget.

[nwafan20]

Ahh, that must have been it, does that not auto-fill???

[MarkLawrence]

Not that I have seen - it's usually something you have to fill in yourself.

[eric8669]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519209
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519206
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519204
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519203

Any suggestions...

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519209
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519206
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519204
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1519203

Any suggestions...

TAM
Eric you use PS correct? The TAM seems like you over did it. I'd reduce the HUE and the sharpening. Also are you deselecting the sky? If not I would. I always leave the sky as is and never increase the blueness of it, when you do it seems the entire photo looks to worked over.

Southern Air
I don't think the Southern Air is soft, in fact to me it looks over sharpened, its def overexposed. Try shooting in TV mode next time at 500th to 800th of a second, I know you have a 30D and that's what I've been using with great success.

Emirates
Same suggestion as the TAM, it’s not soft though.

LAN
Same suggestion as the Southern Air, again it’s not soft. I don't know why the screener though it was soft.

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1519985

Now that I look at it, it is boring.

[Vince]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517974
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517967
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517949
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517703
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517687
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1517678
many rejections! :|

[mirrodie]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... .jpg-1.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070803_2006-12-16-KEWR-N667AW.jpg-1.jpg)


rejected for jagged areas....help?

[NIKV69]

I remember that day Mario! Pic is oversharpened. Re edit and back off the USM a bit.

[lijk604]

Mario, the flag on the tail. I got hit with the same type on the same paint scheme into JFK.

[mirrodie]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 39U-bk.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070804_2006-12-16-KEWR-N7639U-bk.jpg)


And another. I dunno., I'll back off, but I find that with Anet, I'm getting rejected for either sharp or soft. I can't win.

[NIKV69]

Mario the two shots you posted are oversharpened big time. Here is my shot from that day of the 727. I purposedly did a little less sharpening and figured the subject would make it easier to get in.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1167738/L/

On your Emery you have jaggies all over the place and the overall look is way overdone. Back off a bit. The light was perfect when we shot at Ikea so you shouldn't need much USM.

[Mateo]

This photo was pretty much DOA out of the camera, but I'm a big fan of the T-6, so I took a stab. It was donked for the contrast - anything more and the sky behind gets totally blown out. Oh, well.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1531974

[nwafan20]

Ugh,

Categories wrong or missing
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536858
Comment: cargo category needed

Over Processed / Bad postprocessing
Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536854
Comment: Halos (WHAT? Can someone help me here with what the screener ment?) Can someone also show me where the dust spot is because I could not find it, I just tried every trick in the book (it doesn't help that my screen is dirty though)

Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536857
Again, can anyone spot it?

[AirtrafficController]

The last two photos are great, I see no dustspots.

[NIKV69]

Can someone also show me where the dust spot is because I could not find

I think I see one above the Delta title 6 windows back or so. Looks big too. As for the overprocessing after I equalized it I see this big mess at the bottom left corner where it looks like you went ape with the spot healing brush. Use clone stamp to clean dust spots. Also clean your camera so you don't get them.

Also if you equalize it the halo is clear as day.

As for the Delta 757 you have a huge dust spot in the upper left corner right against the border.

[nwafan20]

Alright guys, I saw it now.

My button must have gotten stuck by accident (hence the "ape" usage of the spot brush)

Saw the halo too, what causes that/what can I do about it?

[moose135]

Here's a helicopter shot from Pocono

- Horizon unlevel (Soft also)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1538048

I knew this would be a tough shot - there isn't really anything I can see to level it. The copter isn't level as it comes down to land, the race track in the background angles away from you, so the wall and building behind it aren't really straight as you view them, and the campers in the infield are at all sorts of angles. Any ideas, or does this stay in the personal collection?

[NIKV69]

Saw the halo too, what causes that/what can I do about it?



Halos appear when you use USM improperly. Check the radius you are using. If it's too much you will get the halo effect.

[Mateo]

The Netjets scheme isn't easily rescued. Even before sharpening, it was starting to get a case of the jaggies. I'll take another stab at this one.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1543315

The lighting conditions were tough - I was hoping a good composition and the uniqueness of the Osprey would help, but I guess not. The levels on the haze grey body are about as high as they can go before the sky becomes a blinding white blob.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1543386

Bad framing. It's 117 pixels from the top of the winglet to the edge, 130 pixels from the lowest point on the wing; 9 pixels on the left, 16 pixels on the right. I'm not whiny enough to appeal, but it's not worth the effort to re-edit, either.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1543448

[stuart schechter]

For the AS plane I just think it's too high in the picture. Everywhere else looks fine.

[T-Bird76]

Mateo I think you can save all three of those, the bizjet just needs to be sharpened less, all biz jets will have jaggies in the cheatlines. When you sharpen it just watch the edges for jaggies to appear. The Osprey I think can be corrected using levels pretty easily and again just watch the sharpening. The AS is an easy fix but again all three can be redited and sent back up, not bad shots at all.

[Iberia A340-600]

I've accumulated these in the past couple of weeks:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1544116
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542185
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542183
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542180
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542177
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542171
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1541594
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1539282
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1539273
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1537940
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536852
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536850
(This one pissed me off because I got a reject a little while ago for putting Song)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536849
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536846
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1534257
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1528234

[jakbar]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1534257
Gordon, I think your 707JT shot is great. I am a little surprised it was rejected solely for "clutter" when all that is present besides the plane are a couple of cones on the ground and the stairs at the front door. I have seen pictures on both a.net and jp.net with both cones and stairs present in the picture.

That being said, on my screen there appears to be a very slight blue cast in the picture. If you fix that, I'd try uploading to a.net.

Great job on that picture.

Josh

[T-Bird76]

I've accumulated these in the past couple of weeks:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1544116
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542185
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542183
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542180
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542177
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1542171
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1541594
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1539282
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1539273
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1537940
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536852
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536850
(This one pissed me off because I got a reject a little while ago for putting Song)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536849
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1536846
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1534257
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1528234

I think if you appeal the 707 it will get in, the staircase isn't that much of an obstruction.

[Iberia A340-600]

Thanks Josh and Tommy, it's been appealed.

Josh, I actually had the picture in the a.net queue but when I saw it was rejected on jp I took it out. I'll work on the blue tint and throw it back in.

Here is a rejection I got from anet this morning for quality:

http://airliners.net/addphotos/big/read ... fkland.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/APPEAL_20070814_american752wingletjfkland.jpg)

I really don't see what is wrong with the quality so I appealed.

edit: The 707 shot just got rejected again "That is a typical obstruction/clutter rekection." Man that was fast!

[nwafan20]

Gordon, airliners.net will use the quality rejection for too little contrast, try boosting the contrast a bit, it does seem to need a bit.

[nwafan20]

Overexposed:

http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... .07035.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070814_SpottingJFK8.5.07035.jpg)

[wunaladreamin]

I had gone 14 for my last 14 into jnet until this:
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1545641

[stuart schechter]

I can see how that is hard. If you brighten it, it blows the rear section of the hump out of proportion.

[T-Bird76]

I had gone 14 for my last 14 into jnet until this:
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1545641

Hmm I don't think that is to soft considering other shots in the database. Give it a small dose of USM and send it back up.

[wunaladreamin]

Thanks Tommy, I had the same thoughts you had and put it back up.

[T-Bird76]

Thanks Tommy, I had the same thoughts you had and put it back up.

Did you add some USM?

[lijk604]

I had gone 14 for my last 14 into jnet until this:
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1545641

In my very humble opinion, it looks a little overexposed near the tail on top of the fuselage.

[wunaladreamin]

Did you add some USM?
Yes sir I did :)

In my very humble opinion, it looks a little overexposed near the tail on top of the fuselage.
You may be right, but it's up to the judge to decide. :)

[stuart schechter]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1550342

I measured from the wheels down and from the tail up...

[moose135]

Looks low to me Stuart. It may measure out the same from the wheels down and tail up, but it appears unbalanced to me. What I usually do when cropping is put the center point (cross-hairs) of the crop box on the window line of the fuselage, that usually results in a crop that "feels" centered. I may need to vary it a little depending on the aircraft type or angle of the shot, but that gives me a good starting point.

[lijk604]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1550342

I measured from the wheels down and from the tail up...

Stuart, this is the same method I use, BUT, you have to measure from the lowest part of the aircraft and the uppermost part of the aircraft. I "measured" your pic and you have 1.75 inches from the top to the top of tail and only 1.5 inches from the bottom to the nose gear. It needs to go UP in the frame about 1/4 of an inch to balance it out. The angle of the aircraft doesn't help you as the fuselage is angled up due to the fact its not a true side-on.

[NIKV69]

I measured from the wheels down and from the tail up...

I would avoid doing things like that. Use the grid but also look at the pic without the grid. Center the fuselage. It takes a lot of practice but you can get a feel for what is properly centered by eye.

[stuart schechter]

I used the grid to help when measuring and will move the picture up. I was told by the screener to make the windowline the center.

[njgtr82]

Ok I'm a little frustrated right now:
Oversharpened and common, over sharpened maybe but common my ass, theres only one shot of this plane in the US:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... mrdewr.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070819_9mmrdewr.jpg)

Then quality and soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 057ewr.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070819_N66057ewr.jpg)

[NIKV69]

theres only one shot of this plane in the US:


The common rejection is based on pics in the DB not a certain area. There is 200 pics of that bird so the bar is very high to get it accepted.
As for the sharpness it looks marginal. Try it with a little less USM.

[T-Bird76]

Ok I'm a little frustrated right now:
Oversharpened and common, over sharpened maybe but common my ass, theres only one shot of this plane in the US:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... mrdewr.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070819_9mmrdewr.jpg)

Then quality and soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 057ewr.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070819_N66057ewr.jpg)

Common is a total BS rejection... The plane is being shown in a different place at a different time and I don't know too many people who can get a shot of it from EWR tower with that angle, so please don't tell me the bar is raised, Bill would be the one raising the bar.

The second one needs a bit of USM but quality.....again complete and utter bull**** and a slap in the face. Bill's shot is a good shot and certainly not bad quality, a picture taken with a cell phone camera is bad quality. Both those shots would get over 10k views as A.net, no doubt. I wonder how happy Demand Media would be if they saw how much revenue would be lost because of decisions like this? I'm happy I'm associated and volunteer with a site that sees this hobby from and enthusiast standpoint. The screeners who rejected those shots should be ashamed of themselves.

[NIKV69]

Common is a total BS rejection... The plane is being shown in a different place at a different time and I don't know too many people who can get a shot of it from EWR tower with that angle, so please don't tell me the bar is raised, Bill would be the one raising the bar.


Tommy you love to argue points we have no control over. It's not what we think it's what they want in the DB. The common rejection is not BS, it simply states if there is a lot of pictures of a certain aircraft the quality has to be of the highest for acceptance. Thats all. Bill's pic is nice but has some minor flaws that can probably be fixed.


a picture taken with a cell phone camera is bad quality

Huh?


I wonder how happy Demand Media would be if they saw how much revenue would be lost because of decisions like this?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/905683/conspiracy.jpg


I'm happy I'm associated and volunteer with a site that sees this hobby from and enthusiast standpoint. The screeners who rejected those shots should be ashamed of themselves.


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/905683/makeitstop.jpg

Tommy this enthusiast stuff is so old and should be put to bed. The screeners on anet are just as much enthusiasts as everyone else in the hobby and are not in the business of rejecting stuff for reasons detremental to the hobby. There are other avenues to deal with rejections, such as appeal, posting the pic and seeing if it can be saved with a new edit etc. A rant on the conspiracy theory is not the way and is counterproductive.

[T-Bird76]

Nick stop drinking the Anet Kool Aid. I never said a thing about a conspiracy. I simply stated that....

1. Bill's shot is not common, it was taken from EWR tower....hardly a common shot.
2. Bill's shots are of good quality and that the quality rejections should be used for truly bad shots like ones that are taken and uploaded from a camera phone.
3. I think I'm allowed to state my support and appreciation for working for JP.net.
4. Its dollars and sense, Bill's shot would have been a big hitter adding a few bucks to A.net's bottom line.

[NIKV69]

Bill's shot is not common, it was taken from EWR tower....hardly a common shot.


Read this.

COMMON
The aircraft depicted in your photos was very common in the Airliners.net database, with many photos of this aircraft already present on the website.

In this case the standards for acceptance are higher than for aircraft of which we have fewer or no photographs on the database, and only photos of exceptional quality will be accepted.


Please understand that this is not a judgement on your abilities, as your picture may be of a technical quality which may be very decent. However, due to the common nature of the aircraft photographed, the highest standard is applied to avoid substantial duplication.


2. Bill's shots are of good quality and that the quality rejections should be used for truly bad shots like ones that are taken and uploaded from a camera phone.


Why is that? Camera phone? I think we passed that level long time ago. Anet standards are exactly that. Their own. If you upload you have to understand this.


3. I think I'm allowed to state my support and appreciation for working for JP.net.


We are all well aware of this Tom. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/905683/nopity.gif


4. Its dollars and sense, Bill's shot would have been a big hitter adding a few bucks to A.net's bottom line.


If you have a crystal ball that can tell how many hits a pic will get that's great but I think we're reaching here. I would encourage Bill to try to save the shot with another edit. Possibly contact the screener that rejected the shot and seek his advice.

[T-Bird76]

Nick you always have to have the last word so I won't argue with you anymore, I'd have a more fruitful conversation with a tree.

[NIKV69]

Nick you always have to have the last word so I won't argue with you anymore

No Tom I am just trying to discuss the matter of Bill's shots without interjecting bias as you do. You want everyone to buy into some notion that anet is not for aviation enthusiasts because they reject shots you feel should be accepted. This is not only crazy but I feel prevents photogs from taking a pic that has been rejected and doing the work in PS to get it accepted. As I have shown the common rejection on anet is well explained and not BS as you claim. If you read the last line it said it is NOT a judge of one abilities. I just feel that this is a photography forum and people here seek help not propaganda. As a screener yourself I would bet you get emails on pics you rejected as you can do at anet. The screeners there are very helpful and accomadating and always aere willing to help. I would bet if Bill posted either or both of his pics in av-photo on anet and asked the screener who rejected it as to what is needed to fix the shot he would get a response and with another edit could get the pics uploaded.

[njgtr82]

Well I wasn't intending on getting anyone all fired up over this but thanks for the advice guys. I don't know if I will even attempt to reupload them, because most of the time I do end up getting frustrated. I see lots of people having shots rejected that are fantastic. I understand the standards they have, but sometime theres no rhyme or reason it seems. But I will argue with anyone that tries to tell me that that is a common shot, its not. The thousands and thousands pictures in the database of airborne side profile shots is common.

[NIKV69]

I don't know if I will even attempt to reupload them, because most of the time I do end up getting frustrated

That is unfortunate Bill. Those shots can most likely be saved with some patience and work in PS.


But I will argue with anyone that tries to tell me that that is a common shot, its not. The thousands and thousands pictures in the database of airborne side profile shots is common.


Arrrg. Bill you have to undertand the common rejection. Anet is not saying your shot is common. They are saying that with 200 pics of an aircraft in the DB the standards are much higher. Now, with this said your shot can have a minor flaw with a # of things that is not giving it the quality to get accepted., usually with something that is easily fixable in PS. As usual here people have bought into the conspiracy theory about the screening of anet. Now you can either sit here and give up or you can take the steps to find out why the shot was rejected and fix it and get it uploaded.

[T-Bird76]

Nick you just contradicted what the common shot means... By all means it means its a common shot to the database and unless there is something special about it, its going to be rejected. As I stated Bill's shot is far from common. First off there's not to many pics of it from the U.S and its from EWR tower. So how anyone says that his shot is common dosn't know what they are talking about.

[jakbar]

By all means it means its a common shot to the database and unless there is something special about it, its going to be rejected.

Actually, I don't think that's what the Common rejection means, at least at a.net. It doesn't need to be "special" so much as the quality just needs to really be up there. Indeed, plenty of "common" planes are featured in the newest pictures in the database on a daily basis -- the quality just happens to be really good in the particular pictures. Nick's explanation of the Common rejection is correct:


They are saying that with 200 pics of an aircraft in the DB the standards are much higher. Now, with this said your shot can have a minor flaw with a # of things that is not giving it the quality to get accepted., usually with something that is easily fixable in PS.

On this shot, I can see how it would have been rejected for oversharpened. Since the Common rejection is only used in combination with other rejection reasons, the screener here was telling Bill that this shot can be accepted if re-edited and less sharpening is used. Pretty straightforward.


As I stated Bill's shot is far from common. First off there's not to many pics of it from the U.S and its from EWR tower. So how anyone says that his shot is common dosn't know what they are talking about.

A.net is a global database, and its definition of "common" does not depend on where a particular plane was photographed, but instead is simply based on the number of pictures featuring the particular registration. I'm sure that JP adopts a different view towards that rule, but that doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". There is logic to the a.net approach, although I agree with you that this particular picture is not "common" in the literal sense. That being said, regardless of whether the plane is "common" in the database, the standards for acceptance (i.e., oversharpened pictures will be rejected) are not lowered simply because a plane was photographed in a new location for the first time.

[mirrodie]

-There is 200 pics of that bird so the bar is very high to get it accepted.

While I can understand the prinicple there, I can't wait to see what the next photo of 9M-MRD looks like.

-Tommy you love to argue points we have no control over.

And Nick, you love to argue. Period.

-If you have a crystal ball that can tell how many hits a pic will get that's great but I think we're reaching here. I would encourage Bill to try to save the shot with another edit. Possibly contact the screener that rejected the shot and seek his advice.

I too would encourage contacting the screener. It is hit or miss whether you will get an answer.

-I'd have a more fruitful conversation with a tree.

OMG, thanks for making me laugh.


-There are other avenues to deal with rejections, such as appeal, posting the pic and seeing if it can be saved with a new edit etc.


Nick, if you want, I'll email you what my travels down those avenues were like. Seriously,I would like to continue this offsite. My only gripe is this: Anet, in the act of applying stringent standards to an art like photography, makes up 'benchmarks' based on some sort of logic.

In a recent recjection of bad double, I saw someone else's shot of the same 'double' nature accepted. So when I inquired, shown them the photos accepted and showed them mine, well, let's say their logic was nil and the final answer I got was silence.

To me, when you are discussing something and you don't have an answer, that's just wrong and doesn't help create clear lines of communication or understanding.

[NIKV69]

And Nick, you love to argue. Period.


Well if you want to subscrube to this fine. I don't. This is America, let the people speak. Besides there are some here that share my views yet think it's useless to discuss. I am beginning to see why.


Nick, if you want, I'll email you what my travels down those avenues were like. Seriously,I would like to continue this offsite. My only gripe is this: Anet, in the act of applying stringent standards to an art like photography, makes up 'benchmarks' based on some sort of logic.

I can email you my travels too, all positive. In fact the screeners continue to help me even when I don't ask. Maybe if you didn't call screeners out when you get a picture of your ass rejected you would get a more positive response. As for benchmarks Mario it's their site. They can do whatever they want. If they want stringent standards it's fine. There are other sites to upload. Rather than embark on logic and accusing them of all sorts of stuff I would think it makes more sense to upload elsewhere. It just makes it worse for everyone involved. Including people new to the site.

As for your double why not try to email Gary Watt who is a head screener. His door is always open as far as I am concerned and I am sure he can give you an answer.

[Chris102]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1538844

Do you think there's anyway I could fix this one in Photoshop?

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1538844

Do you think there's anyway I could fix this one in Photoshop?

That's a hard one, try about 25% more USM on it. Although the nose really is blurry.

[mirrodie]

To me, when you are discussing something and you don't have an answer, that's just wrong and doesn't help create clear lines of communication or understanding.

I like how you sidesteped that one. You see Nick, its not about the rejections persay but when I strive for clarity, often times its not found. And others hav ethe same problem. in fact, :

Just recently,. someone asked in an av photo thread in Anet about clarification and what did you post?

So am I that is why I am going to sit back and watch from far away

So what does that imply Nick? This is what it implies: You can't ask questions without getting flamed or some sort of negative reverb.


As for benchmarks Mario it's their site. They can do whatever they want. If they want stringent standards it's fine. There are other sites to upload. Rather than embark on logic and accusing them of all sorts of stuff

Nick, first, I know it is their site. But when they cannot communicate effectively, I question that. Second, I am not accusing them of anything malicious nor false. I've simply come to accept that.
Lastly, you really need to stop focusing on photos of my ass. I'm not a homophobe but you are beginning to scare me. All you do is bring up photos of my ass. Is there something wrong with you?


As for your double why not try to email Gary Watt who is a head screener. His door is always open as far as I am concerned and I am sure he can give you an answer.

As I said, I will continue this in email. I respect Gary, nuff said. But I will prove you wrong.

:mrgreen:

[NIKV69]

I like how you sidesteped that one. You see Nick, its not about the rejections persay but when I strive for clarity, often times its not found. And others hav ethe same problem. in fact, :



Actually Mario I did not sidestep anything. It's just that you don't want to hear the answer. Read my posts. Josh seemed to understand what I said so I would assume you can too.


you really need to stop focusing on photos of my ass. I'm not a homophobe but you are beginning to scare me. All you do is bring up photos of my ass. Is there something wrong with you?



Actually Mario if I ever turned homo I would not go for your scrawny ass. I was just using that as a way to explain why the screeners were not answering you. You have to remember they are human too and maybe did not appreciate your post about your ass rejection. Things like that stay with people. Remember you get more flies with honey than you do vinegar.


As I said, I will continue this in email. I respect Gary, nuff said. But I will prove you wrong.





I hope you do, good luck.

[wunaladreamin]

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThis****Again!.jpg

[G-BOAD]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1555997

[Iberia A340-600]

Soft?

http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... d11ewr.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070823_fedexmd11ewr.jpg)
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... c10ewr.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070823_fedexdc10ewr.jpg)
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... d14320.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070823_co738wingletsewrland14320.jpg)

They seem sharp to me. Anyone think they aren't sharp enough?

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1556178

[stuart schechter]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1556178


Funny, I have been in that helicopter going on a glacier tour.

CN is 9070

[heeshung]

Nice! Great experience. That was my first time in a helicopter. We were lucky and got sunshine that day. It was a strange to walk on ice and snow in the middle of the summer. I have photos of the glacier landing, but not sure if they're JP.net worthy.

Fresh glacier water is cold and tasty. :)

How'd you get to that trip? Mine was through my cruise's shore excursions.

By the way, thanks for the serial.