Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[Qantas_787]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1709313

I appealed and screener said aircraft is slightly too low in frame. Im sorry I told him but I have 60 odd photos most with the same amount of cropping and centring of aircraft, why have they all been accepted. I know people make mistakes and maybe Ive made one as well but when someone of power is questioned on the two sites it seems they never relent from their so called "superior" status. This is exactly why im at JP rather than ANET. Anyways ill try again with more shots.

Matt

[NIKV69]

I appealed and screener said aircraft is slightly too low in frame

I would have to agree. You have a bit of dead space above the aircraft.

Im sorry I told him but I have 60 odd photos most with the same amount of cropping and centring of aircraft, why have they all been accepted

Why would you want to go down that path when a redo would probably get the pic accepted?

I know people make mistakes and maybe Ive made one as well but when someone of power is questioned on the two sites it seems they never relent from their so called "superior" status. This is exactly why im at JP rather than ANET.

Well if you mean the screeners are powerful you have to remember they are volunteering their time to judge thousands of photos. Are they out to get you? No, as your own story shows JP uses the same appeal function as anet. You were given an expanation. It's a system that works. I don't see the difference between the two sites. Remember screeners are human and are bound to make a decision that is not consistent from time to time. Doesn't mean they are trying to act superior in any way. A differerent approach may yield better results.

[Qantas_787]

Well if you mean the screeners are powerful you have to remember they are volunteering their time to judge thousands of photos. Are they out to get you? No, as your own story shows JP uses the same appeal function as anet. You were given an expanation. It's a system that works. I don't see the difference between the two sites. Remember screeners are human and are bound to make a decision that is not consistent from time to time. Doesn't mean they are trying to act superior in any way. A differerent approach may yield better results.

Well said. Maybe I went a bit overboard, but I just think that when its an individual uploader challenging the system in some circumstances where there told its my way or the highway basically. Theres some threads about this on airliners.net which I dont particularly want to divulge within here but it seems to be on the rise. All I was alluding to was that I find JP a much more friendlier environment that ANET due to what can be defined by Tom Alfano's editorial on this very site about his 1000 photo. As he said its not all about the photos and the hits which I feel is what characterizes anet uploaders (me included) but im off topic, just trying to justify what I wrote in my initial post. Im not trying to initiate JP vs ANET war, please dont mistake it for that.

All in all probs was right decision by screeners but im just alluding to what I perceive to be a lack of power to challenge the system on a particular photo or avenue and obviously everyone has freedom of opinion to think otherwise to what im suggesting!

All the best,
Matt

[NIKV69]

but I just think that when its an individual uploader challenging the system in some circumstances where there told its my way or the highway basically

Well I don't think they are trying to say that, remember they are hosting your pics for free and giving you a copyright so having standards for their queue is par for the course.

Theres some threads about this on airliners.net which I dont particularly want to divulge within here but it seems to be on the rise. All I was alluding to was that I find JP a much more friendlier environment that ANET due to what can be defined by Tom Alfano's editorial on this very site about his 1000 photo. As he said its not all about the photos and the hits which I feel is what characterizes anet uploaders (me included) but im off topic, just trying to justify what I wrote in my initial post. Im not trying to initiate JP vs ANET war, please dont mistake it for that

Well if you let yourself get involved in this nonsense your going to drive yourself crazy. If you find JP freindler then upload there, too each their own. I have had nothing but good experiences with everyone I have met on anet and they have been more than helpful with advice and suggestions. Screeners on both sites are the same as you. Some guy who treks out to the airport with camera in hand. They are not some hierarchy. It boils down to a good capture and edit. Don't complicate it.

[T-Bird76]

Matt just to give you and inside most of the shots that are appealled on JP.net are accepted. The appeal system favors the photog a great deal, trust me on this. As screeners we had a discussion about it in our crew forum some screeners didn't find it fair that admins were over turning their rejections but in the end its the admins decission on an appeal. Trust me though the appeal system is very fair. Don't get to caught up in a rejection. The shot in question is a good shot you just need to bring it up a hair or two.

Well if you mean the screeners are powerful you have to remember they are volunteering their time to judge thousands of photos. Are they out to get you? No, as your own story shows JP uses the same appeal function as anet. You were given an expanation. It's a system that works. I don't see the difference between the two sites. Remember screeners are human and are bound to make a decision that is not consistent from time to time. Doesn't mean they are trying to act superior in any way. A differerent approach may yield better results.

Well said. Maybe I went a bit overboard, but I just think that when its an individual uploader challenging the system in some circumstances where there told its my way or the highway basically. Theres some threads about this on airliners.net which I dont particularly want to divulge within here but it seems to be on the rise. All I was alluding to was that I find JP a much more friendlier environment that ANET due to what can be defined by Tom Alfano's editorial on this very site about his 1000 photo. As he said its not all about the photos and the hits which I feel is what characterizes anet uploaders (me included) but im off topic, just trying to justify what I wrote in my initial post. Im not trying to initiate JP vs ANET war, please dont mistake it for that.

All in all probs was right decision by screeners but im just alluding to what I perceive to be a lack of power to challenge the system on a particular photo or avenue and obviously everyone has freedom of opinion to think otherwise to what im suggesting!

All the best,
Matt

[Qantas_787]

Thanks alot Tommy,
I understand the appeal system is effective in the majority of cases and of course you guys do the best you can to keep it fair and balanced (fox :lol: ). But yeah I understand it know, wasnt seeing it before so I appreciate the explanation.
Keep up the good work.
Kind Regards,
Matt

[flyboy 28]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722784

Bad motive and wrong categories. Not sure what I missed in the categories.

[adam613]

These all got rejected for being blurry:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722266
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722270
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722272

What gives! The Jazz one could probably stand a bit more sharpening, and the USAir Express was a bit underexposed, but are these really blurry? Is this worth an appeal?

[lijk604]

These all got rejected for being blurry:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722266
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722270
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722272

What gives! The Jazz one could probably stand a bit more sharpening, and the USAir Express was a bit underexposed, but are these really blurry? Is this worth an appeal?

They all seem a bit soft around the nose, but I think they all suffer from excess grain.
Personal collection for all three.

[T-Bird76]

I'd agree with the noise but the blurry part I don't agree with. Soft perhaps but not blurry. We have couple new screeners who I think are confusing the two. Adam what ISO were you using? Overall I don't think they are bad shots at all and if you still have the orginals I think you might be able to correct the softness.

[adam613]

They all seem a bit soft around the nose, but I think they all suffer from excess grain.
Personal collection for all three.

(Every pic I take is primarily for the personal collection. But it doesn't hurt to get a few on JP or A.net, and the feedback I get from rejections will help me become a better photographer. Or so I hope. :) )

Excess grain...that brings up an interesting question. When I used Equalize to find (and remove) my dust spots, I noticed that it made the sky EXTREMELY noisy...is that a good way to tell that I need to do some noise reduction on the original? Or is that always going to happen?

I'd agree with the noise but the blurry part I don't agree with. Soft perhaps but not blurry. We have couple new screeners who I think are confusing the two. Adam what ISO were you using? Overall I don't think they are bad shots at all and if you still have the orginals I think you might be able to correct the softness.

"Soft/Undersharpened" rejections wouldn't have surprised me at all...Maybe I'll try these with some more aggressive sharpening. I'm still working on sharpening techniques.

I believe these were all shot at ISO 200. Should I drop down to 100? I started out there, but I was having trouble keeping the shutter speed where I wanted it because the sun kept going behind a cloud.

[T-Bird76]

They all seem a bit soft around the nose, but I think they all suffer from excess grain.
Personal collection for all three.

(Every pic I take is primarily for the personal collection. But it doesn't hurt to get a few on JP or A.net, and the feedback I get from rejections will help me become a better photographer. Or so I hope. :) )

Excess grain...that brings up an interesting question. When I used Equalize to find (and remove) my dust spots, I noticed that it made the sky EXTREMELY noisy...is that a good way to tell that I need to do some noise reduction on the original? Or is that always going to happen?

I'd agree with the noise but the blurry part I don't agree with. Soft perhaps but not blurry. We have couple new screeners who I think are confusing the two. Adam what ISO were you using? Overall I don't think they are bad shots at all and if you still have the orginals I think you might be able to correct the softness.

"Soft/Undersharpened" rejections wouldn't have surprised me at all...Maybe I'll try these with some more aggressive sharpening. I'm still working on sharpening techniques.

I believe these were all shot at ISO 200. Should I drop down to 100? I started out there, but I was having trouble keeping the shutter speed where I wanted it because the sun kept going behind a cloud.

Yes keep it at ISO 100 and when the sun goes behind a cloud put your camera down, no sense in shooting it. Sun behind coulds do nothing for the shot and often times will make the pictures very soft. I know its a pain but something we have to put up with.

[Eddie.]

They went all out on my shot.

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1727107


I personally didn't think it was that bad.

[adam613]

They went all out on my shot.

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1727107


I personally didn't think it was that bad.

I'm not sure the cropping is that bad, but the color does have serious issues. It looks like you were toplit; the clouds are completely washed out, and the plane suffers as a result. I had the same problem when I tried to spot at FLL. What I've learned is that a partly cloudy background can make for an interesting shot (I actually prefer a few clouds), but you really really need the sun behind you or it becomes impossible to get a good exposure.

[Eddie.]

Adam- I didn't really have much to work with...The sun was already down.