Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2727834

[wunaladreamin]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2727834

Mark, me thinks you should have uploaded using all of the info you would use for a regular aircraft shot, and then checked "wing shot" off.

[moose135]

Maybe they want you to upload it as a "wing view" with the data of the aircraft you were flying in?

[heeshung]

Mark, me thinks you should have uploaded using all of the info you would use for a regular aircraft shot, and then checked "wing shot" off.

Maybe they want you to upload it as a "wing view" with the data of the aircraft you were flying in?

Yeah, apparently so. I looked through the database and some airport overview photos had part of the engine and/or wing. I figured that since the main focus of the photo was the airport I'd put it as the subject.

I reuploaded with the details of the plane.

[YankeeFanInBoston]

Here's one for grainy. I obviously know it's a little grainy, but it comes with this shot...it's a moving aircraft at night, after all!

[Delta777LR]

I personaly dont entirely see how this is undersharpened(soft)
If anyone sees it is whats the best way to fix this minor problem?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2751283

[AirtrafficController]

I personaly dont entirely see how this is undersharpened(soft)
If anyone sees it is whats the best way to fix this minor problem?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2751283

It's a bit soft Sergio. Add more USM to the plane and a little more contrast to the image.

[moose135]

"Part of Aircraft Cut Off"



Well, obviously...but I cropped it this way deliberately.

[lijk604]

Moose on a rejection like this, I believe that the part they are referring to is the forward-most rotor blade. I think if that one blade was "all in" they would accept.

[SmAlbany]

Perhaps these aren't perfect, but I thought that they had a chance. I can't figure out why the registration number in the southwest shot got a bit smudged while the rest looks okay.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2759715

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2759704

[T-Bird76]

"Part of Aircraft Cut Off"

Well, obviously...but I cropped it this way deliberately.

Moose its an odd crop, it just looks unfinshed.

[MarkLawrence]

Well...I thought I'd try LOL

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2763012

[Delta777LR]

Maybe someone can help me out here

1 Digital Manipulation, what do they mean by this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762282

2 Undersharpened
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762269

3 again undersharpened, also contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2745342

What am I doing wrong with the sharpening, how much USM should be best or contrast??

4 im not familiar about this, but this one was over processed, what do they mean?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2752960

[lijk604]

Maybe someone can help me out here

1 Digital Manipulation, what do they mean by this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762282

2 Undersharpened
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762269

3 again undersharpened, also contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2745342

What am I doing wrong with the sharpening, how much USM should be best or contrast??

4 im not familiar about this, but this one was over processed, what do they mean?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2752960

#1 - halos visible around the wings will get you the D/M rejection. Maybe too aggressive on sharpening or highlight/shadow tool?
#2 - with the exception of the nosewheel the whole forward half of the aircraft looks flat.
#3 - again the underside of the aircraft looks flat. If you tried to lighten the underside up you may have overdone it a bit, and it almost looks hazy to me. Combine that with the sharp edge at the top of the aircraft to the sky and I think that's where the contrast issue comes in. It's not consistant.
#4 - The sky looks all mottled and grainy. The white seems to be a bit overexposed as well, surprised they didn't mention that.

As for USM settings, there is no absolute number, it will differ depending on light conditions, type of lens, etc. Just watch out for jaggies, but make sure things appear clear. Haziness will lead to flat (undersharpened) images.

[moose135]

Moose on a rejection like this, I believe that the part they are referring to is the forward-most rotor blade. I think if that one blade was "all in" they would accept.

And yet I had this accepted last year - I guess it depends on the screener...