Jaggies....clarifying rejections

[mirrodie]

So I just got thes 3 images accepted on anet and I just dont get it. I mean, perhaps its because I am looking at these right now on a monitor at the office, but the AA shot looks jagged all along the red white and blue stripes whilst the virgin looks jaggied near the tail in the word "Virgin".

In my mind, these seem oversharp but I will check when I get home on that monitor. What do you guys think?


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1250040/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1251971/L/ Yes nick, I like to shoot on cloudy days!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1252071/L/

[PhilDernerJr]

That is a SLICK way to get hits....get acceptances and say they suck and you still need help with them! haha

If you're referring to what I think you are, you are seeing pixels, not jaggies. On small details like aircraft titles with curves, and titles that you're looking at from an angle, that's normal.

[T-Bird76]

Mario all those shots are fine...there no jaggies at all. I think you're confused as to what jaggies are. As Phil stated I think you're looking at the pixels in the picture to closely.

[PhilDernerJr]

Mario failed to mention he has a 594" monitor.

[mirrodie]

Haha, well Im on the home Flat screen now and I don;t see what I sawon the office monitor.

Next time you come over, you have to show me the difference.

I just guess that I have a tendency to oversharpen.

[Matt Molnar]

I do see the jaggies on the AA stripes, but otherwise it's an awesome image. The others are jaggie-free. Great job on the VA, too.

[mirrodie]

I do see the jaggies on the AA stripes, but otherwise it's an awesome image. The others are jaggie-free. Great job on the VA, too.

Thanks Matt. Then I am not going crazy. I can't seem ti figure out what is "Too jaggy or not" Very frustrating.

[mirrodie]

Another question that the headscreeners have been unable to clarify.

Among my latest 2 rejects, they were rejected from WRONG CATEGORY. That was it.

I took the same exact image file and re-uploaded it, with a note that its the same image but reuploaded with the right category, and now they reject it for jaggies (surprise) and noise WHEN THEY DID NOT PREVIOUSLY with the same image.

Is that another hint at inconsistency or is it grounds for an appeal that the supposed jaggies and noise were not noted initially? I mean, if its there, it should have been noted initially so that it could be corrected. Instead, they didnt and its a seemingly odd waste of time all around, isnt it?


Looking forward to your experiences.
M

[lijk604]

Mario, this is one of the things that I can't stand with A.net -&- JP.
If by some chance you clicked the wrong category, or forgot to click a category, they reject it immediately and do not do any further screening.
Now...this does lead to quicker runs through the que, but, as you noted, and I symapthize with, you waste another 4 days (JP) to 20 days (Anet) with the picture in the que again, after just fixing the categories, THEN they decide to screen it, and reject for any flaws at that point.
Unless there is a cell-phone type quality rejection and the pic has no shot of getting in, I would be perfectly fine if the que was a few days longer, but they put ALL the rejection reasons on at once. This way you know what needs to be fixed before you waste another 4-20 days only to get another reject.

[jakbar]

Now...this does lead to quicker runs through the que, but, as you noted, and I symapthize with, you waste another 4 days (JP) to 20 days (Anet) with the picture in the que again, . . .

FYI: The queue at a.net is currently around 4,000, with screening time taking less than a week. It hasn't been 20 days in quite some time.

[mirrodie]

Now...this does lead to quicker runs through the que, but, as you noted, and I symapthize with, you waste another 4 days (JP) to 20 days (Anet) with the picture in the que again, . . .

FYI: The queue at a.net is currently around 4,000, with screening time taking less than a week. It hasn't been 20 days in quite some time.

My how time flies.


Perhaps John was being sarcastic?

[NIKV69]

I took the same exact image file and re-uploaded it, with a note that its the same image but reuploaded with the right category, and now they reject it for jaggies (surprise) and noise WHEN THEY DID NOT PREVIOUSLY with the same image.

Mario if an upload is wrong category it will get rejected immediately and won't be screened anymore to get the other rejection reasons. So when you upload it with the right info and it has faults like sharpening etc it will get rejected for that reason. It's a pain but uploading with the proper info is not hard.

I don't see any jaggies at all. The AA shot if anything is very slight. Get some glasses Mario! You can get a good price on them.

[jakbar]

Now...this does lead to quicker runs through the que, but, as you noted, and I symapthize with, you waste another 4 days (JP) to 20 days (Anet) with the picture in the que again, . . .

FYI: The queue at a.net is currently around 4,000, with screening time taking less than a week. It hasn't been 20 days in quite some time.

My how time flies.


Perhaps John was being sarcastic?

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but it wasn't relevant to me. I simply thought it deserved mention in case there are others here who are interested. And, by the way, the a.net queue is currently smaller than the JP queue. I guess Tommy isn't working hard enough... :)

[PhilDernerJr]

Info is tough for military aircraft, and I often slip up when not clicking "cargo".

How do I avoid this problem? By getting a job that doesn't even let me go spotting to begin with. haha

[mirrodie]

It's a pain but uploading with the proper info is not hard.

Oh, but it is Nick. It is. :roll:

Seriously Nick, I swear it was an error on their part to begin with. The image was rejected for wrong category, shot in the sunset and I noted it correctly. When I appealed asking what was missing, I got the canned answer.

So how the heck am I supposed to 'correct' the original 'error' if a) it was correct in the first place and b) I get the canned answer and not the personal feedback I need to correct it?

Can you see the point?