Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[moose135]

Mark, did you type the registration in manually on that C-130? The only thing I see is that Navy/Marine Bureau numbers are a straight 6 digit number, without a dash like USAF serials. It should be simply "163591" as the registration. Picky I know, but it makes a difference in the database - when you search JP.net for the reg without a dash, you find two other, old shots of this aircraft.

[MarkLawrence]

Darn - you are right John - I did - I need to work on it and re-submit....does it need to show Cargo in the categories??

[moose135]

Yes, you should check "Cargo" on the category - sometimes that is pre-selected, but not always.

[Delta777LR]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6509811

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388496

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388498

Any major Ideas?

[AirtrafficController]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6509811

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388496

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388498

Any major Ideas?

For both of the pictures, you obviously need to put more Unharp mask and maybe raise the levels too if you can to brighten up the aircraft.. For the DL MD80, you need to resize the photo to a 3:2 or 4:3 size ratio (800x600, 1200X800, etc.) When you equalize the image, I see a big dust spot above the tail of the MD80 and one to the right of the tail cone. For the DL 737, there are dust spots above and below of the fuselage, two above the tail, and one all the way to the right. Use the clone stamp tool or healing brush to get rid of the dust spots.

[Delta777LR]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6509811

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388496

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388498

Any major Ideas?

For both of the pictures, you obviously need to put more Unharp mask and maybe raise the levels too if you can to brighten up the aircraft.. For the DL MD80, you need to resize the photo to a 3:2 or 4:3 size ratio (800x600, 1200X800, etc.) When you equalize the image, I see a big dust spot above the tail of the MD80 and one to the right of the tail cone. For the DL 737, there are dust spots above and below of the fuselage, two above the tail, and one all the way to the right. Use the clone stamp tool or healing brush to get rid of the dust spots.

Thanks Luke, You've been a big help

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2396505

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2396517

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2396579

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2396490

[moose135]

Looking at your for rejections, Mark, here's what I see:

1 - Pilatus: It's an awkward crop. You probably want to include the entire nose gear, the entire gear/door on the left side of the frame, and if not the entire vertical stab, at least the full prop arc. I like what you were trying to do with the marshaller in the foreground, but I just get a feeling that the shot is very tight, and could have been better served if you cropped it wider (or zoomed out).

2 - Falcon 200: Does look a little soft to me, not much, but could benefit from a pass of USM.

3 - C-172: Looks like it was a cloudy day, right? I agree with the Dark rejection on this one. I don't know if you can brighten it enough without introducing too much noise.

4 - C-172 Takeoff: Again, I see what you were trying to do here, but as noted in the rejection, the horizon is not level - looks like it is leaning to the left. While I like your attempt at capturing some "local flavor" with the two guys in the foreground, I think that's a tough shot to get accepted. Nice work, and with a little more post processing, it will be a nice shot, but probably not for either of the big photo sites.

[heeshung]

1- Yeah, I was kinda, sorta expecting that.

2- I'll add a bit more sharpening, and see how it turns out.

3- Yeah, it was a cloudy day. I see exactly what you mean.

4- Yep, looks like one for the personal collection.


Thanks for the great tips, moose. I'll give 2 and 3 another go at post-processing and see how they come out.

[jerslice]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6509811

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388496

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388498

Any major Ideas?

Little late in chiming in, but here's my two cents:
Besides what airtrafficcontroller pointed out, I would also note that there is a visible line of noise that makes a small halo of grain and slight discoloration around both aircraft. If you don't do so already, I would recommend selecting out the sky and layering it separately by using the magic wand tool. After turning the sky into a layer, go to the background layer and work on the plane itself. I would run a USM on it, and then spot sharpen/soften. Then flatten the image when you're done with it. Doing this has been hugely helpful in taking care of those dang sharpen halos.

[Bellucciman]

Can anyone offer some advice regarding the contrast? Also, I can't seem to see any dust spots, maybe my eyes aren't focusing correctly!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2406808

[T-Bird76]

Can anyone offer some advice regarding the contrast? Also, I can't seem to see any dust spots, maybe my eyes aren't focusing correctly!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2406808

Bring the levels up and increase the contrast.

[jerslice]

Being kinda picky, IMO. There are also lots of tiny spots that I don't think necessarily qualify as dust spots that, in my most anal mood, I'd get rid of. But I had to look hard to find anything - which makes me wonder sometimes if I only see spots because I imagine I should... I'd also run some USM on it too.

[Bellucciman]

Guys, thank you for the help! I'm going to make the changes and take another shot at upload. Stay tuned.....

[MarkLawrence]

Can someone please help - what is classed as over processed/bad post-processing?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2419911