Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[MarkLawrence]

In all fairness Jeremy - I think they might be right on here - the usual blueish tint of the Air Canada scheme is showing more as a grey in this on my monitor - I think a re-edit with more work on the color levels might help - just my opinion....

[heeshung]

I also agree. It does seem to lack contrast, and does look greyish.

[Roush6NY]

Heads up on who ever took this same shot on the 10th at JFK and has it in Queue on JPnet

When I submitted this photo 2 weeks ago and did the auto fill, it came up as "Untitled" which there already was 3 photos as that in the database, and a whole bunch of course with the older "Maxjet" scheme, last week someone got approved with the plain white scheme as Maxjet as well, which is NOT.

I got rejected today, saying the airline info is wrong and its Swift Air, and they went back and switched all others to Swift as well. My appeal results were: screeners can\'t change any info, you will have to reupload. Sorry.

So if you guys have it in there still waiting to get screened, change it to Swift !

[NIKV69]

Makes little sense since it has no titles. Both should be accepted.

[JDANDO]

Any insight on what an acceptable crop would have been?

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3518219

Thanks,

[Roush6NY]

Jeremy

I would crop till right behind the wheels and you will be good

[JDANDO]

A rough day on the jp.net queue. This one bit it for horizon. I leveled it to the white line on the runway beneath the plane.




The trees in the background do not provide any assistance in finding the true horizon. Is it worth an appeal or just rotate it 0.3 degree and resubmit?

[MarkLawrence]

Jeremy - I'd use the lamppost behind the plane as a vertical and see that that brings - it certainly does need a little bit of CW...

[Cary]

The trees in the background do not provide any assistance in finding the true horizon. Is it worth an appeal or just rotate it 0.3 degree and resubmit?

Use the post/tower in the background to level it off. Light poles are normally all over the place, while towers and buildings should be level (for obvious reasons). It just needs very minor CW rotation. You might also want to add the note "leveled using tower in back", as they might just look at the crooked light post on the far right.

[mgwsy]

Here is one I had rejected recently. Reject reason: quality size grainy soft level

http://myaviation.net/?pid=02019729

[Greg_NY]

I got two rejections today that I have never gotten before - the reasons included a personal comment stating "terrible light" for both of them. I've gotten rejected for many things, but this one gave me a chuckle.
I'll just keep them for my personal collection.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2381_jp.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2453_jp.jpg

[gonzalu]

I got two rejections today that I have never gotten before - the reasons included a personal comment stating "terrible light" for both of them. I've gotten rejected for many things, but this one gave me a chuckle.
I'll just keep them for my personal collection.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2381_jp.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2453_jp.jpg

Greg, I am there all the time ... meaning the rejections, not SXM (I wish) and it comes down to the screener and the tolerance for certain motives etc. In these two cases, I think if you carefully re-editthem, you will get the results you wanted ... but the second one (the 757) is certainly a bit over on the other side (the sun) and the fact that the plane was already over the fence does not help your case any. The 737 at least is over the beach/water which reflects a lot of light to the underbelly. This one has much more re-edit potential.

I have a string of rejections lately that made me take a break... Notice how I am not posting nearly as many from a.net. That is because my ratio has dropped a bit. But all it takes is one of yours with over 1K hits to make you feel better :-)

[alevik]

Here is one I had rejected recently. Reject reason: quality size grainy soft level

http://myaviation.net/?pid=02019729

Hey Mark. That one is pretty soft, either out of focus or heat haze or a bit of both. The size rejection relates to the fact it is not a standard ratio (3:2 or 4:3) - the crop is quite a bit wider than it is tall. The quality rejection os often added when we think that there is a low probability of the shot being salvageable.

Pete

[alevik]

I got two rejections today that I have never gotten before - the reasons included a personal comment stating "terrible light" for both of them. I've gotten rejected for many things, but this one gave me a chuckle.
I'll just keep them for my personal collection.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2381_jp.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2453_jp.jpg

Hi Greg. As Manny has noted already, the light is really harsh from the top and a bit from the back, making the top of the fuselage blown out with the sides dark. It is poor lighting for photography at midday generally - for people, planes or most subjects. In this case as well, SXM shots are common and the aircraft themselves are not rare. I generally leave the cameras in the bag at midday - and I shoot mostly in the first three and last three hours of the day unless the aircraft is a special visitor or rare.

Pete

[Dahemody]