Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[moose135]

- Dark / Underexposed


- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)


- Subject too far / too much dead space


Comments? I thought the VC-25 was pushing it, but if I cropped it closer while getting the tower, it would end up with the aircraft off center...

[Roush6NY]

Moose

Unfortunately I have to agree as far as the underexposed for the Delta

As for the Evergreen (love the shot) they have been pretty tough on the whole "centered" part, I was facing that issue a little while back with even just regular shots, I do see the point of your shot and think it's awesome but again on the "creative" shots, it's tough

The AF1 shot, I had the same rejection on a shot I took from Hobe with the tower and a LH a380 departing

Just my 2 cents .. Good luck with them sir !

[seahawks7757]

Overexposed? Anyone care to share with me where it is?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawk...n/photostream/

[alevik]

Overexposed? Anyone care to share with me where it is?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawk...n/photostream/

Hi Brandon;

I didn't screen this one, but it looks pretty high contrast to me. I like my shots like that but the whites along the fuse on this one are a bit hot. Looking at the levels, the mid range peaks spike right off the graph so you so have some blown highlights.

Pete

[NIKV69]

I am very surprised how strict JP has become over the last couple of years. Shots that got it easily don't stand a chance anymore. John's DL 744 is a tad underexposed. The first AF1 shot I think would have been an instant add. It's obviously not cropped tight to get the entire tower and airfield and with the exception of the crane taking the eye away from the scene seemed fine to me. Even though the tighter crop puts the fuselage low in the frame it's not the only subject and should get in.

Brandon's overexposure rejection again is close but it is slightly overexposed. The white DL fuselage leaves very little room for error and I hate shooting it when the sun is high. It's brutal to get right.

[Delta777LR]

a little help here!!! maybe someone can explain what im doing wrong.....

Needs CW rotation, soft level personal


Harsh Contrast/ contrast personal


Harsh Contrast


Harsh Contrast/Dark!


Harsh Contrast/Soft!


High contrast/ Dark/Contrast personal


Grainy!


Harsh Contrast/ Grainy!


Grainy/ Dark


Quality/ Grainy/Dark/


info plz

[moose135]

Sergio, on that first Eagle shot, it looks like it can use a little CW rotation - use the vertical edges of the building behind the aircraft as a guide. The next couple of "Harsh Contrast" ones, were they taken mid-day? Looks like you have bright light on the upper portion of the fuselage, and the bottoms are very dark - I know that's tough with a blue-bellied BA scheme. Can't really tell on the grain issues.

[gonzalu]

Sergio, I am afraid all were called correctly :-( The GRAINY is somewhat easy to fix as long as you have RAW originals. If not, the JPGs may be able to clean up a bit but no promises :-)

As for high contrast, simple, dial back your contrast a bit... This should not be too hard as long as you have enough data in the shadows in the original images. If you EXPOSED properly for the top of the fuselage or the well lit portions of the aircraft and did NOT overexpose a bit, the shadow areas will most likely have little data left in them. Unless you have a modern sensor and/or RAW originals, correcting for this will be difficult or not possible for A.net quality. I am saying this from personal experience, not judging you :-)

I would love to work with you offline on these as I feel some are terrific and likely have huge potential hidden in there. Ifyou don;t mind, I would like to take one or two of your originals and edit them in my usual workflow and send back to you for your opinion. If you like it, I can share the PSD with all the edit steps intact. I typically use layers for everything so nothing should be hidden.

[gonzalu]

Moose, I think the 'motive' of your second tighter crop on the VC-25 + Tower is an acceptable off-center condition. At least it is so with A.net rules... Almost all Maho Beach shots are off center to show motive for people on the beach.

[seahawks7757]

Won the appeal on the Delta Shot!

[moose135]

Dark/Underexposed:

[Zee71]

Rejected because it's backlit (duh....I guess the guy is a rocket scientist)

[Cary]

Rejected because it's backlit (duh....I guess the guy is a rocket scientist)

JP.net recently rejected a photo of mine (here's the A.net version):



where the plane was hitting/brushing by a tree on final approach.

- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter

I know it looks similar to pictures where a tree is in the foreground, and the plane is way above and behind it (in which case a rejection would have been justified), so I reiterated that the plane was at the same height and in the path of the tree, and that it was actually touching the tree. In that appeal, they rejected it again, and stated "perhaps standing somewhere else or shooting just a second later could help". No s***, Sherlock! Of course I have other pics of this sequence, but this is the only one that shows the plane touching the tree (you know, which is so common on JP.net)! And yes, I should have stood somewhere else, knowing that this plane would hit the tree, and a few leaves would block the gear. Meanwhile, I saw a 2000-era film/slide scan that had just been accepted, that had color, contrast, and centering problems (horizontal stabilizer cut off at the tip and way low in frame) -- and was the dirtiest scan I've ever seen accepted (lint, white spots, film emulsion anomalies, etc.). And there were already 30 pics of that plane in the database. I almost lost it, but decided to just ignore it and not submit to JP.net anymore (or at least for the time being). Not worth my time and aggravation.

So to you, Mark, I say: perhaps you could have stood somewhere else, like 4 miles on the other side, or perhaps you could have used fill-flash.

[NIKV69]

JP.net recently rejected a photo of mine:



where the plane was hitting/brushing by a tree on final approach.

- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter

I know it looks similar to pictures where a tree is in the foreground, and the plane is way above and behind it (in which case a rejection would have been justified), so I reiterated that the plane was at the same height and in the path of the tree, and that it was actually touching the tree. In that appeal, they rejected it again, and stated "perhaps standing somewhere else or shooting just a second later could help". No s***, Sherlock! Of course I have other pics of this sequence, but this is the only one that shows the plane touching the tree (you know, which is so common on JP.net)! And yes, I should have stood somewhere else, knowing that this plane would hit the tree, and a few leaves would block the gear. Meanwhile, I saw a 2000-era film/slide scan that had just been accepted, that had color, contrast, and centering problems (horizontal stabilizer cut off at the tip and way low in frame) -- and was the dirtiest scan I've ever seen accepted (lint, white spots, film emulsion anomalies, etc.). And there were already 30 pics of that plane in the database. I almost lost it, but decided to just ignore it and not submit to JP.net anymore (or at least for the time being). Not worth my time and aggravation.

So to you, Mark, I say: perhaps you could have stood somewhere else, like 4 miles on the other side, or perhaps you could have used fill-flash.

Funny Cary, that shot should have got in anyway. IMO the gear hitting the leaves doesn't matter much to me as the position of the tree, angle and prop blur. Which I think make the shot. Whether you uploaded any shot of that sequence it was worthy and I am glad anet took it. Moose's shot at FRG is also puzzling. It may be slighty underexposed but not dark.

Who would have thought we would see the day where people would be ranting about something JP rejected that anet took?

[Cary]

Who would have thought we would see the day where people would be ranting about something JP rejected that anet took?

Funny thing is, I recently uploaded about 15 pics to JP.net, from a batch that had all been accepted by A.net in the months prior, and I got 3 rejections! Which reminds me that once upon a time (years ago), I got a rejection from JP.net and appealed it, saying "A.net accepted it". Guess what? They accepted it on appeal