Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[moose135]

They seem sharp to me. Anyone think they aren't sharp enough?
The screener :wink:

They look OK to me, but then I can never tell - it always seems to be a crapshoot whether I'll get something rejected for soft or oversharpened, when they both look the same to me. :?

[NIKV69]

Gordon the FedEx needs some USM, the nose is a little soft. The CO looks ok maybe just needs a little more as well. Is your monitor calibrated?

[Iberia A340-600]

Thanks Nick and Moose. I added some USM to all three shots and added them back to the queue.

They also rejected my Qatar and Malaysia for overexposed and my Qatar got the common rejection as well.

Malaysia: http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... wrland.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070823_malaysia772ewrland.jpg)

For some reason I can't find the Qatar shot...

About my calibrated screen, Nick. When Matt Thaler was here he kept telling me that I should get it calibrated and we never got around to it.

[NIKV69]

bout my calibrated screen, Nick. When Matt Thaler was here he kept telling me that I should get it calibrated and we never got around to it.



Ok, well keep in mind you are not looking at the same pic the screener is. I would do that ASAP

[njgtr82]

Ok so I'm gonna give it another try, is this a better edit:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/mrdewr.jpg
Also thoughts on this one too please:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... N-RKH2.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/sasLN-RKH2.jpg)
Thanks
Bill

[Iberia A340-600]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1559194

I appealed since auto-fill marked cargo and got this in response:


Nope, auto-fill does not select any categories at all.

Since when?

[nwafan20]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1559194

I appealed since auto-fill marked cargo and got this in response:


Nope, auto-fill does not select any categories at all.

Since when?

Since always, I got rejected for my Cargo 360 for the same reason.

[stuart schechter]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1560016

Argh!! So I have no idea what to do.

[nwafan20]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1560016

Argh!! So I have no idea what to do.

Try starting from scratch and doing it over agian.

[Mateo]

It looks like you pumped up the saturation on the red. The little triangle on the front looks un-natural, and then when you realize it's the same colour as the tail, the whole picture looks screwed-with (more than they want you to screw with it ;) )

[njgtr82]

Rejected again for jaggies
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... mrdewr.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070831_mrdewr.jpg)
And soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... N-RKH2.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070830_sasLN-RKH2.jpg)

[nwafan20]

Rejected again for jaggies
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... mrdewr.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070831_mrdewr.jpg)


I think they are being a bit picky with that rejection, it is no worse with jaggies than other shots they have accepted in the past week!

[NIKV69]

Rejected again for jaggies

I still see some in the shot. Did you redo the shot? Back off the sharpening a little I think your there. You got the original, post it. If the capture is good you may not need much USM at all.

[njgtr82]

Rejected again for jaggies

I still see some in the shot. Did you redo the shot? Back off the sharpening a little I think your there. You got the original, post it. If the capture is good you may not need much USM at all.

I don't know of anywhere to host the full size but heres the unedited at 1024
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1011/128 ... 23c7_b.jpg (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1011/1289703788_3c88a723c7_b.jpg)

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1559194

I appealed since auto-fill marked cargo and got this in response:


Nope, auto-fill does not select any categories at all.

Since when?


Since forever.

[lijk604]

A whole world of rejects here... :(

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1571486

[AirtrafficController]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573270

[njgtr82]

so this one is considered a special scheme huh? also I'm not sold on the contrast issue:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573455

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573395

From looking at the pics in the DB it seemed this plane operates both VIP and regular flights so I left it alone and comments on the framing please
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573389

Bill

[moose135]

Bill - your Kuwaiti 747 definitely looks too high in the frame. The Argentine 340 looks a little high as well, although not as much.

[NIKV69]

I'm not sold on the contrast issue:

The rejection is correct, compare my shot of Lennon to yours. It's easy to see the contrast is way off. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1242311/L/


your Kuwaiti 747 definitely looks too high in the frame

Moose is right, too much dead space below the AC.

All are prob fixable.

[Mateo]

Try clicking up "Government operated" for 9K-ADE.

[SP-LPB]

so this one is considered a special scheme huh? also I'm not sold on the contrast issue:

Bill, you might want to play around with metering modes on your camera. Center weight might do the trick.


so this one is considered a special scheme huh? also I'm not sold on the contrast issue:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573455

I don't know how it is with JP and it's selection menu for specials, but anet has only two options clearly explained. This aircraft is a special scheme, but it would be ticked off as normal on anet.

[FlyNavy]

Rejected for similar photo uploaded. Blast!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573509

[Iberia A340-600]

I'm going through a dry spell it seems... :(

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574079
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574074
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574068
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573143
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1570337
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1570333
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1570331
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1565914
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1565912
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564220
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564213
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564205
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564200
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564194
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564192
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563935
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563933
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563929
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563927
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1561971
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1561966
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1561953

http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... ker742.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070905_supertanker742.jpg)
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 77wjfk.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070905_ana77wjfk.jpg)
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 333duz.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070905_ei333duz.jpg)
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 752jfk.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070901_aa752jfk.jpg)
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 763jfk.jpg (http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070901_aa763jfk.jpg)

[pgengler]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20070905_n265dh.jpg

* "image quality"
* "too much grain or digital noise"
* oversharpened
* soft

I really love how it gets both the oversharpened reason as well as the "soft" one, for which the rejection e-mail suggests extra sharpening is required.

[T-Bird76]

I'm going through a dry spell it seems... :(


Gordan its not a dry spell...Most of those photos have visable dust spots and were overexpoused. I think you need to take a step back and really look at you're camera settings and you're post processing. You've displayed fantastic shots in the rather recent past but these well....you know. Its great to get shots up on both JP.net and A.net but you just can't throw everything up and say "well I'll take a chance." From all my shots this past weekend I only uploaded three from JFK, not saying the others weren't uploadable but its about quality and not quantity.

[Iberia A340-600]

[quote="Iberia A340-600":9eedd]I'm going through a dry spell it seems... :(


Gordan its not a dry spell...Most of those photos have visable dust spots and were overexpoused. I think you need to take a step back and really look at you're camera settings and you're post processing. You've displayed fantastic shots in the rather recent past but these well....you know. Its great to get shots up on both JP.net and A.net but you just can't throw everything up and say "well I'll take a chance." From all my shots this past weekend I only uploaded three from JFK, not saying the others weren't uploadable but its about quality and not quantity.[/quote:9eedd]

A very good point Tommy. I've been having some exposure issues with my new camera and well yes I agree my shots have not been that great lately.

[NIKV69]

Gordan its not a dry spell...Most of those photos have visable dust spots and were overexpoused

Gordon my eyes still hurt from looking at the supertanker! http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/905683/maddance3.gif

Let us check your settings. I mean I just got back from shooting in the highest, harshest light and my pics are fine. When you shoot do you check the histogram and see how your shots are coming out? Adjusting accordingly? I didn't even have to touch the exposure comp today just get the camera set where it needs to be. Trial and error while you shoot. Practice and experiment and you will start nailing the exposure.

[SP-LPB]

That Evergreen shot also has editing issues, there is a red spot to the upper left. Tough on the eyes is the other thing.

There are very easy methods to avoid this, looking at a histogram and bumping up/down your exposure settings- as Nick wrote is one way. Also have strategies when you see an all white plane in good light conditions, figure out what you should do exposure wise. Consult your histogram thereafter. Also shooting in RAW guarantees, that if the photo is overexposed or underexposed, it could be fixed. This theory of "getting it right the first time" is complete baloney, you can't always be perfect. I rather shoot in RAW and readjust my photo, than to upload a photo that is blown out or underexposed and have it rejected. Why sweat over something when you can avoid it?

[Matt Molnar]

Swiss A330: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574861
- Dark / Underexposed = It was properly exposed but I made it a little too dark in Photoshop
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline = Auto-fill labeled it "Swissair" which I didn't fix :roll:

Evergreen Supertanker: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574757
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered) = I guess it's a bit low in the frame, needs to be re-cropped

[heeshung]

Quite a few this time...

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578077
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578081
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578047
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578062
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578097

[FlyNavy]

This was rejected for undersharpened/soft. I'm assuming in the nose area. Anyway, I layered it out and applied another pass of USM to the nose and merged the image back down. I think it improved it a little, but it's borderline oversharpened now. It's just one of those shots...ugh!

Reject: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1578802
Resubmission: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=1579893

This was undersharpened/soft as well: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1578785. I applied another pass of USM for it.

[heeshung]

Is it worthwhile appealing http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578081 ? I didn't capture the heli close up intentionally to leave more of the background and pads in.

[NIKV69]

This theory of "getting it right the first time" is complete baloney, you can't always be perfect. I rather shoot in RAW and readjust my photo, than to upload a photo that is blown out or underexposed and have it rejected. Why sweat over something when you can avoid it?


I disagree Jakub. Sure RAW is great to the point if you don't nail the exposure you can fix it, but I still think you should try and get the best possible capture. I mean Film SLRs had nearly none of the technology we have now in these DSLRs and you had to get the exposure and everything right the first time. If we just shoot away and edit the crap out of them then RAW turns into the "crutch" Mario spoke about. I use RAW because if I shoot something with the exposure slightly off I can fix it but mostly for WB and the certain color casts we encounter from time to time. You can also fix contrast issues etc. If I shoot something and the exposure is way off the file never makes it to ACR. Let's learn to use our cameras more and PS less. Someone once told me if you take more than 5 mins to edit a picture it ain't worth it. Unless of course your sensor is dirty. :mrgreen:

[T-Bird76]

Is it worthwhile appealing http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578081 ? I didn't capture the heli close up intentionally to leave more of the background and pads in.

I don't think I'd bother appealing. On opening the shot you're eye is all over the place and not really focused on anything. If you can I'd crop the shot much closer to the heli, you'd have a nice caputure with a great background then. The heli pads and all the landscape just don't lend anything to the shot, simply speakng there is to much going on with no subject.

[FlyNavy]

Rejected for similar photo uploaded and underexposed. Blast!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1580760

[Iberia A340-600]

Thanks guys for all the tips. I brought my meter down yesterday to around -3 and it seemed like there wasn't too much overexposed action going on in my LCD screen after that happened.

Please take a look and tell me what you think:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8182 (http://nycaviation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8182)

[NIKV69]

Please take a look and tell me what you think:



Looks much better Gordon, tho the Star Alliance and some others didn't have the sun directly hitting the subject. What did you have your settings at? What were they at JFK that day?

[Iberia A340-600]

Thanks Nick, when the Air Canada A340-300 took off the light was still slowly switching to the right side for that spot so I guess the light really didn't get great till around 3:00pm.

My settings from yesterday were:

Aperture: 6.3
ISO: 100
Exposure Comp: -0.3

And from the other day they were basically the same except the Exposure Comp was set to 0.

[NIKV69]

Aperture: 6.3
ISO: 100
Exposure Comp: -0.3

And from the other day they were basically the same except the Exposure Comp was set to 0.



Hmm, ok. I have been trying to stay away from using any exp comp and getting good results. LAS had some harsh sun and I didn't need it. If you got the sun hitting the aircraft use F8 with a shutter of 800 and bump that ISO up a tad. With good conditions you should not get any grain. Also try to photograph the fusleage at angles where the sun is not as harsh hitting it. I know white fuselages are a pain but experiment a bit and check that histogram.

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1583212

[nwafan20]

Ugh, I hate technical rejections:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1585368 -Bad C/N, Ugh, I used the auto-fill, I would have no other way of finding out the C/N, why would JP.net reject it for information they don't have themselves???

bad post and overexposed:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1585366

Overexposed
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1585364

[FlyNavy]

BTW, the C/N for EI-DRC is 35116/2081. I'd play with the levels a bit on your two last overexposed shots.

[SmAlbany]

I thought that this one was pretty picky, even by a.net standards:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 1307_2.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070914_N70QB_ALB_091307_2.jpg)

Rejected for centering and distance. I'll have to decide if I feel like re-editing. Supposed to be rainy today, maybe I'll have some time on my hands.

[NIKV69]

I thought that this one was pretty picky, even by a.net standards:

I agree with the distance. As for center it looks ok. There is some dead space bottom left. Maybe after you crop it tighter it will look better.

[T-Bird76]

I thought that this one was pretty picky, even by a.net standards:

I agree with the distance. As for center it looks ok. There is some dead space bottom left. Maybe after you crop it tighter it will look better.

I'd say the total opposite. Distance is fine but the centering off, to much space infront of the nose.

[pgengler]

Got a bunch rejected for "Over processed / Bad postprocessing". Can anyone enlighten me on what this means?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602970
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602974 (this one also got oversharpened, which I didn't see when I was processing)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602975
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602978

[NIKV69]

I am on my bosses laptop so I can't equalize the pics but that rejection can usually mean going overboard with the spot healing brush. As for the ANA it has a ton of jaggies. Look at the fuselage right before the tail.

[pgengler]

I am on my bosses laptop so I can't equalize the pics but that rejection can usually mean going overboard with the spot healing brush. As for the ANA it has a ton of jaggies. Look at the fuselage right before the tail.

Yeah, as soon as I saw the ANA one on my work laptop, instead of my home PC, I noticed that it was way oversharpened. I'll have to double-check in Photoshop, but I didn't really do much with the healing brush in these, just removing dust spots, same as I've always done.

[NIKV69]

I just equalized the ANA, looks ok except for a bit of a halo on top of the fuselage. The Supertanker looks worked to death though you can tell it has had a lot of work in PS. Email the screener and see what he says.

[moose135]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1609290
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Aircraft

Important safety tip - always confirm the "autofill" info (well, at least look at it...)
SX-DFB, which this is a picture of, is an Olympic A340
SX-SBF, which I entered in the form, was an Olympic 707
At least they both have 4 engines...http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/183529493-L.gif

[MarkLawrence]

Can someone help me on this one please - it got a Over Processed / Bad postprocessing and all I really did to this was some saturation, contrast and sharpening - it was shot in raw and I did very little on the raw input into PS - ideas anyone?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1610926

[NIKV69]

Well you obviously didn't overdo the clone stamp or healing brush because you got dust spots. One huge one right above the cockpit and a small one above the tail and I think I see a couple of small others.

Kind of perplexed myself on the overprocessed or bad processed rejection. Not on my regular monitor but you didn't overdo the dust spot work and I am not seeing any halos. Color and contrast seem ok. Not on my regular monitor but sharpening looks ok as well.

[MarkLawrence]

well...duh...I didn't even see the dust spots...re-work tomorrow then...

[stuart schechter]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1609290
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Aircraft

Important safety tip - always confirm the "autofill" info (well, at least look at it...)
SX-DFB, which this is a picture of, is an Olympic A340
SX-SBF, which I entered in the form, was an Olympic 707
At least they both have 4 engines...http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/183529493-L.gif

I shot that plane in Paris. What a coincidence.

[eric8669]

Rejected for being blurry.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 92307a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071001_5n-fgt_NigerianAirForce_737_jfk_092307a.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 92307a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071001_hb-igh_JetAviation_DC8_jfk_092307a.jpg)

Rejected for being Soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 92307a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071001_ep-iad_iranAir_747SP_jfk_092307a.jpg)

[Cary]

Reject reason: contrast
http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/big/r ... _00141.jpg (http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/APPEAL_20071003_CaryLiao_NG_00141.jpg)

Reject reason: contrast common
http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/rejec ... _00026.jpg (http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071003_CaryLiao_NG_00026.jpg)

Reject reason: soft
http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/rejec ... _00228.jpg (http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071003_CaryLiao_NG_00228.jpg)

[hiss srq]

I expected that this one would not make it. I am going to retry it with a diffrent version though. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1619387

[lijk604]

Ryan, the hue look sjust a tad funny on that one, BUT, the comments are classic. Keep 'em coming!

[hiss srq]

This rejection got me annoyed.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1620154 :evil:

[hiss srq]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1621570

And so my run with JP ends for now untill I que a bunch on Anet up.

[nwafan20]

level
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1632308

[hiss srq]

I am not even going to bother telling you what it is with this one because I am not suprised or dissapointed. I tossed it in for the fun of it. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1633817

This one pissed me off though I see it. I just can't seem to fix it. Anyone want to take a jab at making it upload worthy?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1633805

[nwafan20]

Ryan, email me the full size pic if you want

[hiss srq]

I lost your email. PM it to me and I will shoot it off in a little bit Matt.

[PhilDernerJr]

My first Anet upload in a long time, unfortunately rejected for grain:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 062607.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20071028_Carpatair-Saab2000_YR-SBK_BUD_062607.jpg)

[adam613]

These both got rejected for undersharpening:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651608
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651605

Should I re-edit and try again? I can probably do a little more sharpening without introducing too much noise, and these aren't THAT soft...right?

What's funny is that I thought both of these were better than the one that got accepted :)

[SmAlbany]

These both got rejected for undersharpening:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651608
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651605

Should I re-edit and try again? I can probably do a little more sharpening without introducing too much noise, and these aren't THAT soft...right?

What's funny is that I thought both of these were better than the one that got accepted :)

The Virgin America looks salvageable to me. Try sharpening in layers so that you can erase the jaggies if they start to appear around the titles and reg. The second one will be harder. It looks like it's a bit overexposed in the white part of the fuselage and I don't know that you will be able to recover the titles.

Good luck!
Dan

[adam613]

The Virgin America looks salvageable to me. Try sharpening in layers so that you can erase the jaggies if they start to appear around the titles and reg. The second one will be harder. It looks like it's a bit overexposed in the white part of the fuselage and I don't know that you will be able to recover the titles.

I actually didn't figure out how to use layers for sharpening until after I submitted these, so I'll give that a try on the VA one.

I was kinda disappointed about how the Jet Airways one came out of the camera, but it was a significant event so I had to give it a shot :) I figured it would get rejected for overexposure.

Thanks for the feedback!

Also, how does one go about joining the nycaviation group on jetphotos?

[T-Bird76]

These both got rejected for undersharpening:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651608
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651605

Should I re-edit and try again? I can probably do a little more sharpening without introducing too much noise, and these aren't THAT soft...right?

What's funny is that I thought both of these were better than the one that got accepted :)


Both are noticeably soft, if you are using PS I'd select only the plane and sharpen the plane only.

[adam613]

Both are noticeably soft, if you are using PS I'd select only the plane and sharpen the plane only.

I gave that a shot on Virgin Amerca, by using the magic wand to select the plane, cutting it to a separate layer, and then Smart Sharpening that layer much more aggressively than I had previously. It made the plane sharp, but i kept getting a border around the plane when I merged the layers...is that not the right technique?

(I'm not tremendously interested in saving either pic, since I see at least one Virgin America every time I go out and Jet Airways was overexposed beyond help, but I'd like to get better at Photoshop...)

[Cary]

I sent a.net 10 photos, and all 10 got rejected. That's a personal best for me! I've noticed a common theme they like rejecting me for now..."Contrast", when a sky looks too dark blue. Also, when they think the first of my photos is deficient, it seems they like to carry it over to all of my photos. Here are some:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... _00342.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071029_CaryLiao_NG_00342.jpg)
contrast soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... _00385.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071029_CaryLiao_NG_00385.jpg)
soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 141new.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071029_CaryLiao_NG_00141new.jpg)
personal grainy soft (I don't even know what "personal" means. It might be that there was a personal comment attached, but I never received the rejection e-mail from a.net, so I can't see it. Or, the screener personally hates me :D . Ironically, this exact photo - just a bigger size - was good enough to be published in Airways magazine, but wasn't good enough to post on the web. Go figure. *SIGH*)

I might try to refine my sharpening process a little, but no more a.net uploads from me for a while. Okay, my whining is over :borat:

[nwafan20]

Dang, I really need to work on my exposure apparently:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1656274 -overexposed
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1656258 -overexposed
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1656238 -overexposed (I see this one clearly)

Only one not overexposed:
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1656272 -forgot to check "Cargo"

[flyboy 28]

Didn't really expect this one to get in, but oh well.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1655921

The only thing I don't understand is the cropping reason. Can anyone clarify that one?

[nwafan20]

Didn't really expect this one to get in, but oh well.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1655921

The only thing I don't understand is the cropping reason. Can anyone clarify that one?

Look at the bottom of the photo, you can see some white from where you cropped it.

[Matt Molnar]

Blurry and soft?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1662716

[stuart schechter]

Blurry and soft?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1662716


The nose is blurry along with the nose being soft i think.

[eric8669]

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 01307a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071113_n615am_aa_757_lax_101307a.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 01307a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071113_f-osea_AirTahiti_a340_lax_101307a.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 02107a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071113_vt-ail_AirIndia_777_jfk_102107a.jpg)
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 107_1a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071113_n171dz_Delta_767_jfk_102107_1a.jpg)


All rejected for being blurry or soft.

Could there be a problem with my lens or do I just need a new sharpening technique.

[NIKV69]

I gave that a shot on Virgin Amerca, by using the magic wand to select the plane, cutting it to a separate layer, and then Smart Sharpening that layer much more aggressively than I had previously. It made the plane sharp, but i kept getting a border around the plane when I merged the layers...is that not the right technique?


Why would you use layers? Use the magic wand to select the plane. Then deselect so your not sharpening sky. Expand by one pixel and use USM. Works perfectly. I really don't see the need to use layers.


All rejected for being blurry or soft.

Could there be a problem with my lens or do I just need a new sharpening technique

Hmmm they are all soft. What is your sharpening technique? I have been doing some sharpening in ACR and then using USM in PS and it's working well. Don't get as many jaggies. If it isn't that you may want to send your lens in to Canon.

[G-BOAD]

Air Canada A330-not centered
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... faj333.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20071115_cjfaj333.jpg)

We tried Grodon, We tried... :wink:

[SmAlbany]

Had this one rejected for processing:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 1107_1.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20071115_N214WN_ALB_111107_ 1.jpg)

It also had a message from the screener that said: A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"N214WN_ALB_111107_1.jpg halos"

Any ideas on the halos? I've heard the term used before but I guess that I'm not familiar enough with what one looks like to be able to avoid it.

Thanks!
Dan

[lijk604]

Dan,

I'm looking on a monitor at work and it's tough to see, but it appears there is just the slightest halo around the right wingtip. Looks like a very pale white shadow if you will. Usually happens from over post-processing (too much sharpening, or if you are using Lightroom too much Clarity)

John

[nwafan20]

Grr me and my not paying attention:

Cat wrong/missing (wing view)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1680159

[flyboy 28]

Categories wrong. Special scheme. D'oh!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1685268

[adam613]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1693412

I kinda figured this one would get rejected for either noise or soft, but it was close enough to try anyway. Is it worth re-submitting with more aggressive noise reduction? I don't have my heart set on getting this particular photo into the database, because USAir A319s are a dime a dozen at LGA, but I'd like to get SOMETHING accepted :)

The question is, how much does aperture size affect noise on small-sensor cameras (like mine)? When I started out, I was getting motion blur because my shutter speed was too slow, so I upped the shutter speed and decreased the aperture, and my later photos got noisy...

[MarkLawrence]

Is it possible to edit so that noise and grain are reduced - I got a few of these from the FLL day..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704241
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704238
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704215

[adam613]

Is it possible to edit so that noise and grain are reduced - I got a few of these from the FLL day..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704241
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704238
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1704215

Photoshop has a decent noise reduction filter (Filters->Noise->Reduce Noise... if I remember correctly), but it will significantly soften your image. I've had the best luck using Reduce Noise, then selecting the plane, copying it into a new layer, and doing an aggressive Smart Sharpen on the new layer. But "best luck" means I've gotten three accepted in 15 or so tries... :)

Your EXIF data says you were shooting at ISO 800...

[Eddie.]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703607
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703547
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703539
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1703527


To hell with these people. Time spent editing shots to get accepted to anet or jpnet is time wasted. From now on, I spot an edit for me...not for some website.

[moose135]

To hell with these people. Time spent editing shots to get accepted to anet or jpnet is time wasted. From now on, I spot an edit for me...not for some website.

If you're shooting just to get photos on a.net or jp.net, you're wasting your time anyway. Shoot for yourself, and if you get photos accepted, all the better. That's what I do.

That said, checking the photos accepted to those sites can help you become a better photographer, and get more photos accepted. I may be unusual (well, I know I am, but that's another discussion) but I got my first upload to jp.net accepted. Since then, there have been lots of uploads, and lots of rejections along the way. For the longest time, I didn't upload to a.net because of some of the rejections I got, but I'm giving it a try again, with good results so far.

Looking at your photos, the JetBlue shot is overexposed - that's a common problem with those jets, I do it myself, and looking at the line between the white fuselage and blue belly, you can easily see the heat haze issue. Your Avianca 762 looks OK to me, but then I find I usually need a touch more USM for uploads then I think absolutely necessary. On the Allegiant shot, the heat distortion is clearly seen on the starboard wing (right side of photo). The Spirit shot looks pretty good to me, but again, I see a little heat distortion.

As I said, if you don't want to upload to jp.net or a.net, don't. Shoot for yourself. For me, this hobby isn't about uploads or hits, but about the people I've gotten to know and the things I've experienced along the way. But please, use the feedback from your rejections (or from posting here on NYCA) to help you become a better photographer. We all have something to learn!

[Eddie.]

If you're shooting just to get photos on a.net or jp.net, you're wasting your time anyway. Shoot for yourself, and if you get photos accepted, all the better. That's what I do.

That said, checking the photos accepted to those sites can help you become a better photographer, and get more photos accepted. I may be unusual (well, I know I am, but that's another discussion) but I got my first upload to jp.net accepted. Since then, there have been lots of uploads, and lots of rejections along the way. For the longest time, I didn't upload to a.net because of some of the rejections I got, but I'm giving it a try again, with good results so far.

Looking at your photos, the JetBlue shot is overexposed - that's a common problem with those jets, I do it myself, and looking at the line between the white fuselage and blue belly, you can easily see the heat haze issue. Your Avianca 762 looks OK to me, but then I find I usually need a touch more USM for uploads then I think absolutely necessary. On the Allegiant shot, the heat distortion is clearly seen on the starboard wing (right side of photo). The Spirit shot looks pretty good to me, but again, I see a little heat distortion.

As I said, if you don't want to upload to jp.net or a.net, don't. Shoot for yourself. For me, this hobby isn't about uploads or hits, but about the people I've gotten to know and the things I've experienced along the way. But please, use the feedback from your rejections (or from posting here on NYCA) to help you become a better photographer. We all have something to learn!

Thanks for the critique Moose. I see the B6 errors, aswell as the Avianca and Allegiant. But as for the Spirit shot, I spend quite some time on it and even now from my perspective its a near perfect shot. I've seen alot worse (heat distortion) thats been accepted.

[heeshung]

Window glare/dirt? Thought so.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1705803

[stuart schechter]

For all you know Mark, I could be standing on the ground looking up at your plane in this picture with a shovel in my hand saying, "damn, I wish I were on that plane."

[heeshung]

That was actually the flight to Seattle that I ranted about being about 4 hours late, sitting on JFK's tarmac with no APU, in the middle of August.

[stuart schechter]

Well, those were the fires in Montana and I was out there all summer.

[heeshung]

Ohh... I get it now. It makes your last post in this thread make a lot more sense.

Gee, now I wonder how it feels to be down there looking up at the plane.

[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.

[T-Bird76]

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.

The cropping ratio wasn't valid, that's why it was rejected for cropping.

[lijk604]

Soft:
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1750403

Dark/Underexposed:
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1750400

[lijk604]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1768267

Now that's just criminal! Do I have a good shot at an appeal? Tommy???

[njgtr82]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1767688

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1767683

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1768267

Now that's just criminal! Do I have a good shot at an appeal? Tommy???

Def not John, its way to dark. The gray on those birds really is much lighter. I think you can save the shot fairly easily by adjusting the levels.

[eric8669]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1773822

Rejected for similar photo in database.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 728&nseq=0 (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5662728&nseq=0)
Photo taken two years ago.

[wunaladreamin]

Rejected for similar photo in database.

So one can only have one shot of the same plane in the same airport arriving on/departing from the same runway?

[lijk604]

Rejected for similar photo in database.

So one can only have one shot of the same plane in the same airport arriving on/departing from the same runway?

They are both departures from 31L over HoBe, but definitly different situations. The new photo has a better bank, albeit a much cloudier background. I thought the double was same aircraft, same runway, same arrival/departure, same day. Guess I would be wrong as well.

[T-Bird76]

Rejected for similar photo in database.

So one can only have one shot of the same plane in the same airport arriving on/departing from the same runway?

There are 41 shots of that regi in the database on JP.net, almost half of those shots are from Hobe and 14 are bank shots, hence the rejection for similar shot. The system doesn't flag your own photo per say as similar but looks at the regi and location. This one prob came up red since there are so many of this regi at JFK already.

We have three levels to detect similar shots which look like this when we screen.

Similars Reg Reg+Loc Reg+Loc+Date
Photos 0 0 0
Queue 0 0 0
Reject 0 0 0

The top field tells us what we have in the database, the second field tells us what's in the que, and the last field tells us if this was rejected before. The top field has two different colors that highlight, either yellow for caution or red for a high chance of a similar. We can then click on each of those fields and it will bring up the similar shots. The screener then can decide how similar the shot is.

Morale of the story stop uploading pictures of the regi from Hobe, LOLOL j/k j/k. Again simply because we have so many of this plane on file from HoBe doesn't mean any future shots would be rejected. However it does mean that a screener may consider the quality of the shot a bit more when adding it.

[eric8669]

Rejected for similar photo in database.

So one can only have one shot of the same plane in the same airport arriving on/departing from the same runway?

There are 41 shots of that regi in the database on JP.net, almost half of those shots are from Hobe and 14 are bank shots, hence the rejection for similar shot. Eric the system doesn't flag your photo persay but looks at the regi and location. This one prob came up red since there are so many of this regi at JFK already.

Tommy,

Thanks for clearing that up. I have no problem with the rejection in that case.

[hiss srq]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1805535
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1805539
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1805544

[adam613]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1805535
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1805539
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1805544

It looks like you were having some autofocus issues in these shots...were you shooting through a window?

[hiss srq]

Yeah, the tower glass which is just under one half inch thick except in the G4 shot, I was on the roof of the tower.

[adam613]

Almost all of my photos from last weekend got rejected...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1812376
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808697
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808696
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808694
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808691

I know I could probably sharpen these a lot more, and I realized after I submitted that I should probably bump up the contrast significantly, but what's with the "Bad Quality" rejections? What does that even mean?

[wunaladreamin]

Adam, the smaller birds coming off of 22R (as well as 31L) won't fill anywhere close to a full frame even with a 400mm. The more you crop to fill the frame, the more resolution you lose. Combine that with a load of usm and subsequent added grain...
I've lost a few good shots due to the same thing.

[adam613]

Adam, the smaller birds coming off of 22R (as well as 31L) won't fill anywhere close to a full frame even with a 400mm. The more you crop to fill the frame, the more resolution you lose. Combine that with a load of usm and subsequent added grain...
I've lost a few good shots due to the same thing.

Yeah, I'm liking my arrival shots much better than my takeoff shots...but I posted them here because I figured my editing could use some work as well.

[adam613]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1816686

I'm done with the 100-400. Every shot is getting rejected; about 80% of my 70-300 IS shots got accepted with relatively little post-processing.

[wunaladreamin]

Adam, I think that shot is easily fixable. Just bump the levels and lay on some usm. Patience grasshopper, it's a new lens and there's going to be some trial and error. I'm going through it too! Don't worry, we still love ya buddy! :borat:

[adam613]

Adam, I think that shot is easily fixable. Just bump the levels and lay on some usm. Patience grasshopper, it's a new lens and there's going to be some trial and error. I'm going through it too! Don't worry, we still love ya buddy! :borat:

Oh, I'd already resubmitted it by the time I posted that :) The levels and contrast were easy, and probably user error to start with...the sharpening, not so much, but I increased the Amount even more...

I'm just not used to doing so much work on my shots...these are a lot softer than my 70-300 IS shots...I had already done what I thought was extreme sharpening the first time I submitted it.

[lijk604]

If they were taken from the extreme end of the zoom(350-400), the 100-400 is notorious for being soft.
But remember, that lens is a rental, not your own. Who knows how it was handled before you got it.

[wunaladreamin]

Oversharpened AND undersharpened/soft? WTF??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1833073

[T-Bird76]

Oversharpened AND undersharpened/soft? WTF??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1833073

Yes Kenny the front of the plane is over sharpened while the back half is very soft. Its a rather common rejection with shots like this. The lack of light on the tail end of the plane is the cause of the softness.

[wunaladreamin]

Oh ok. http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k210/morgulvale40/zzzzsaddies2dd1.gif

Thanks for the clarification.

[adam613]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1837475
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1837470
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834306
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834258

How on earth do you guys get anything accepted with that 100-400 lens? Every shot from both copies I've tried is getting rejected due to softness and too much contrast...

(I sharpened the absolute crap out of these. 200% with 2.0 radius was my default; the second one was even more aggressively sharpened.)

[lijk604]

Adam, are you using curves? It looks like you are over-lightening the dark end, this often leads to the soft, hazy results you are showing here.

[adam613]

Adam, are you using curves? It looks like you are over-lightening the dark end, this often leads to the soft, hazy results you are showing here.

I'm doing all of my color correction in Camera Raw...setting the white balance, lowering the contrast (it defaults to +50 for some reason) and adjusting the exposure a bit if necessary...

[wunaladreamin]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834258
Bad info in remarks for "Scarebus." LOL. Adam, the colors look a bit flat too. Do you bump the saturation at all?

[adam613]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834258
Bad info in remarks for "Scarebus." LOL. Adam, the colors look a bit flat too. Do you bump the saturation at all?

Yeah, the "Scarebus" one is easy to fix. I'm much more worried about the contrast and sharpness issues...this doesn't happen with my 70-300!

I bumped the saturation a little...like +8...

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1837475
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1837470
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834306
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834258

How on earth do you guys get anything accepted with that 100-400 lens? Every shot from both copies I've tried is getting rejected due to softness and too much contrast...

(I sharpened the absolute crap out of these. 200% with 2.0 radius was my default; the second one was even more aggressively sharpened.)

None of these rejections have anything to do with the lens at all.

The first shot needs more contrast added, but an easy fix.

The second shot is simply to far away. She went straight out, unless you’re using a 600mm prime it’s going to look like crap. I didn't even bother with my Cathay shot from that day.

The CRJ shot...it’s a CRJ Adam, you can't shoot those at HoBe, they are simply too small and too high. The conditions have to be perfect to grab a decent shot of a CRJ at Hobe. Plus it’s a CRJ...when they fly over is a good time to go to the bathroom, ;)

The AA bird is an easy fix, a touch more sharpening and more contrast. Also the comment....I'd change it.

Again you can't blame the lens, that's an excuse. You can't expect to throw on a high quality lens and automatically get great results. Each lens works differently with each camera and you have to learn the len's "sweet spot." You learned your 70-300mm sweet spot and how it works and therefore you are getting the desired results. I'd bet if I threw on your 70-300 on my camera I'd curse the dam thing. Again nothing to do with the lens but I'd have to learn how it responds and what settings it performs best in.

My 100-400 works great in Shutter mode around 500 to 640th of a second with an F stop of F9/F10. Yet on my Rebel that wasn't the case. The 100-400 is a popular lens for a reason, if the quality of the lens was sub par Canon wouldn't be making it nor would we be buying it.

Photography takes time to learn and everytime you put a new lens on your body your learnng all over again.

[stuart schechter]

Argh!
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1859498
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/4/8/2/66 ... 284_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/4/8/2/66560_1207026284_tb.jpg)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/7/1/4/66 ... 417_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/7/1/4/66394_1207021417_tb.jpg)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/2/0/3/64 ... 302_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/2/0/3/64426_1207020302_tb.jpg)

[T-Bird76]

Almost all of my photos from last weekend got rejected...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1812376
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808697
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808696
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808694
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808691

I know I could probably sharpen these a lot more, and I realized after I submitted that I should probably bump up the contrast significantly, but what's with the "Bad Quality" rejections? What does that even mean?

Bad quality means there are multiple things wrong with the photo its not really worth trying to save.

[ngreed]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1903612

Reason(s) For Rejection:
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Too much or too little contrast

[wunaladreamin]

Nick, the fuselage is a tad low in the frame and the undercarriage is a bit dark. If you have the original, it is an easy fix.

[ngreed]

Nick, the fuselage is a tad low in the frame and the undercarriage is a bit dark. If you have the original, it is an easy fix.

I do have the original, and am planning on re-editing and then uploading it again...

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1903612

Reason(s) For Rejection:
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Too much or too little contrast

Hmm surprised that got rejected...I would have accepted it. It could use a bit less contrast but overall didn't warrant a rejection...imo

[njgtr82]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... ewrsas.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20080508_oy-kbnewrsas.jpg)

[MarkLawrence]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1910943

Too much? or too little?

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1910943

Too much? or too little?

To little Mark. Add some and give it another go.

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks Tommy! I will!

[Iberia A340-600]

After a long dry spell I've finally gotten a shot accepted on Airliners.Net again:

[airliners54293[/airliners

[stuart schechter]

Rejections, Gordon :wink:

[stuart schechter]

It has a lot of dust spots which didn't take when I saved it but it didn't even get bounced for that. I know for a fact that I selected that it was an airport shot but I'll clean it up and try again. And to add to that, it got screened by one person when it was early in the queue and wasn't dinged for it.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1919443

[MarkLawrence]

Hmmm...I didn't think this was too toplit..I guess I'll have to try one of the others...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1950581

Another backlit...but..it was a dark day too...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1950591

[MarkLawrence]

A question on as couple of rejections here if someone can help....the Bad Color (Over/Under Saturation, Hue) - is that on the aircraft? the sky? - I've just re-edited about 10 pictures from my 2 trips to NY last year - they are all much the same as these two - these got rejected and I suppose the rest of them will be as well as I used the same editing technique on all of them.....

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1951115
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1951121

[T-Bird76]

Hmmm...I didn't think this was too toplit..I guess I'll have to try one of the others...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1950581

Another backlit...but..it was a dark day too...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1950591

I'd appeal both of these Mark, I don't see anything wrong with them. A bit top lit but not bad at all.

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks Tommy - they are in the appeal queue - let's see what happens this time....

[adam613]

A question on as couple of rejections here if someone can help....the Bad Color (Over/Under Saturation, Hue) - is that on the aircraft? the sky? - I've just re-edited about 10 pictures from my 2 trips to NY last year - they are all much the same as these two - these got rejected and I suppose the rest of them will be as well as I used the same editing technique on all of them.....

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1951115
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1951121

The North American has way too much blue near the back of the fuselage, and the entire plane has a bluish tinge. That should be trivial to fix in Photoshop.

The Austrian SA...um, don't take this the wrong way, but I think the purple along the leading edge of the wing is a chromatic aberration...

[MarkLawrence]

I'd appeal both of these Mark, I don't see anything wrong with them. A bit top lit but not bad at all.

No luck unfortunately...I'll find another one to edit...

[njgtr82]

soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... RDewr2.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080607_9M-MRDewr2.jpg)
motiv:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... kyline.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20080607_nycskyline.jpg)

[Tom_Turner]

soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... RDewr2.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080607_9M-MRDewr2.jpg)


10 years from now, any database or collection will be very happy to have that shot... :D

Tom

[stuart schechter]

a.net just can't get it right.

[adam613]

Too much dead space:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1958870

I gather this rejection is due to the fact that there's too much space at either end of the aircraft. However, if I keep the aircraft centered, I have to remove a big chunk of the background, which looks dumb. Should I move the airplane up a bit in the frame to keep the context, or does anyone have any other suggestions for how to crop this?

(The unresized version of this one is 1935x1454 and very sharp, so I can still safely shrink it quite a bit.)

[T-Bird76]

Too much dead space:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1958870

I gather this rejection is due to the fact that there's too much space at either end of the aircraft. However, if I keep the aircraft centered, I have to remove a big chunk of the background, which looks dumb. Should I move the airplane up a bit in the frame to keep the context, or does anyone have any other suggestions for how to crop this?

(The unresized version of this one is 1935x1454 and very sharp, so I can still safely shrink it quite a bit.)

There's to much space on the left and right sides Adam. If it was a larger aircraft it might work but the size of the E just gets lost unless you crop it tighter.

[T-Bird76]

soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... RDewr2.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080607_9M-MRDewr2.jpg)
motiv:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... kyline.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20080607_nycskyline.jpg)

I think A.net was looking at the tail, it could use a bit of selective sharpening to make it pop. I'd give it another go Bill. The other shot....wow that's a real shame, its unquie, rare, and certainly interesting. Well look at it this way....no is going to see it anyway on A.net. I just had 8 shots accepted.....the views are pathetic.

[stuart schechter]

Any suggestions?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1964271

[adam613]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1964310

Blurry?? Is this one of those things where the screener says "blurry" when he/she really means "soft"? If so, what's soft? I can probably sharpen it a bit more...

[wunaladreamin]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1965425
Soft...ok, no problem
Too much or too little contrast...This is always kicking my ass. Is it too much or too little?

[moose135]

Too much or too little contrast...This is always kicking my ass. Is it too much or too little?
Yes... :wink:

[wunaladreamin]

Thanks alot buddy! LOL

[moose135]

Cheeseburger, Kenny, cheeseburger!

[wunaladreamin]

Seriously, anybody?

[lijk604]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1965425
Soft...ok, no problem
Too much or too little contrast...This is always kicking my ass. Is it too much or too little?

I'm on my monitor at work, but, it seems over-contrasty. The clouds were working against you so I'd say this is a personal collection photo, sorry Kenny.

[Matt Molnar]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1964845
Reason: Heat distortion

I don't see any distortion on the AA jet. Thoughts?

[moose135]

I don't see any distortion on the AA jet. Thoughts?
Top and bottom edges of the white stripe, and really on the edges of all three stripes around and aft of the cockpit windows.

[Matt Molnar]

That's not distortion, that's just the fuselage melting. :)

[T-Bird76]

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1965425
Soft...ok, no problem
Too much or too little contrast...This is always kicking my ass. Is it too much or too little?

Far to much contrast. There's allot of noise in the shot to Kenny. The light just wasn't with you bro.

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1964310

Blurry?? Is this one of those things where the screener says "blurry" when he/she really means "soft"? If so, what's soft? I can probably sharpen it a bit more...

No its def blurry, you can see it in the wings, when its soft we check off soft ;)

[MarkLawrence]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2004960

Over-exposure? Too much saturation?

[lijk604]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2004960

Over-exposure? Too much saturation?

The white is all blown-out, detail is lost in the upper fuselage.
As for the bad color...definitely. The bottom is more of an ocean blue, yours looks a bit "muddy".

[MarkLawrence]

Ok - Thanks John - I think I need to re-calibrate my screen....

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2014894

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2014885

Should I expand the top and bottom more? I'm just afraid that then the it'll look too far away. Or zoom in and then expand?

[moose135]

Mark, on the Blue Angels 4-ship, it definitely needs to be a closer crop, if you can manage that with the photo size you have. While the smoke trail looks nice, for the generally accepted "formulas" used by the usual aircraft photo sites, you need to cut some of that dead space.

On the second one, what aspect ratio are you cropping to? I usually use 4x3 or 3x2, which work well with JP.net's acceptable sizes. I'm assuming that is the issue - they said "Cropping / Photo edges / Size Ratio", and I don't see any bits in the corners/edges that got cut off when rotating to level then cropping. Check your crop ratio, and perhaps crop it a touch closer to the horizontal stabilizer on the right side - you should have about the same space to the edge of the photo as you do on the left side.

[heeshung]

Thanks for the advice; I'll definitely give that a try.

[stuart schechter]

I need some help with these.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2018004
This got knocked for 1024x795?
I can see the soft spot in the front of the plane.
When I try to sharpen it up, i get jaggies on the plane. What do I do?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2018009
Should I just sharpen it up a bit?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2018007
i have no clue.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2018006
Where is it unlevel??

[wunaladreamin]

Yeah, me too.

Oversharpen. I thought it was still a tad soft in the nose.

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2017924

[moose135]

This got knocked for 1024x795?
I can see the soft spot in the front of the plane.
When I try to sharpen it up, i get jaggies on the plane. What do I do?

When you crop your image, use either a 4x3 or 3x2 aspect ratio. When you resize to 1024, the other dimension will automatically fall to the correct size. As to sharpening, what I do if it's a tough shot, sharpen on a duplicate layer, and if you get some jaggies on that layer (along cheat lines or flap/wing spaces) use the eraser tool to erase those spots on the top layer, leaving the "softer" lower layer visible.



http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2018009
Should I just sharpen it up a bit?
You can, but I think you may have a few things going on here. It looks like there is some lens flare right near the center of the image (on the lower part of the right hand set of dials in the center of the panel). It doesn't look level - could use some CW rotation, and the way the ramp is blown out through the cockpit windows is distracting to me. Also, while it could use some USM, I wonder if it's just not entirely in focus, as if you were shooting at a wide-open aperture to accommodate a relatively dark panel. This (and the blown-out background) could be helped by exposing for the outside view, then using flash to illuminate the panel. I know, if this was a quick shot they let you grab as you were leaving the plane, you probably didn't have a lot of time to play with it, but it's something to think about for next time.



http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2018007
i have no clue.
As I noted for the last one - the background out the cockpit windows is blown out, and a shallow depth-of-field means only a small portion of the panel (near the center of the photo) is in focus.



http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2018006
Where is it unlevel??
Definitely needs some CCW rotation - looks like everything is sliding off the right side of the photo.

[moose135]

Yeah, me too.

Oversharpen. I thought it was still a tad soft in the nose.

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2017924
I always have a fight with over/under sharpened on my uploads. On this one, I'm seeing some funky stuff along the leading edge of the starboard wing, looks like a bit of a halo effect from processing, although it could be water vapor (just guessing based on the wingtip vortices.) The nose doesn't look too bad to me, but you could always give it a touch of selective sharpening in that area. And don't forget - don't sharpen the sky!

[wunaladreamin]

The halo effect is from the water vapor (was there when I uploaded the unedited file to my comp). I'm taking my chances on an appeal.

[moose135]

The halo effect is from the water vapor (was there when I uploaded the unedited file to my comp). I'm taking my chances on an appeal.
As I said, I wasn't sure, given the vapor trail off the wingtip. Good luck on the appeal, it does look good to me.

[wunaladreamin]

Thanks Moose, I'm cautiously optimistic!

[wunaladreamin]

FAIL!!! Screener says the tail is blurry. Oh well.

[AirtrafficController]

Oversharpened?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2021834
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2021844
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2021847

[wunaladreamin]

Luke, #1 and #2 are riddled with jaggies down their cheat stripes, a tell tale sign of over sharpning. You can see a bit of it in #3 as well in the brown/yellow area right of the wing, but it's not as bad as the first two.

[njgtr82]

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... metjfk.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080804_ec-kcfaircometjfk.jpg)

Bad color?

[stuart schechter]

Looks a little yellow and the contrast is a bit much.

[MarkLawrence]

Ok - the dark I can take care of - midday sun and I can work with that - but - the horizon unlevel - what is the reference point because I'm sure when I edited this originally, I used the edge of the taxiway behind as the line.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2059422

[moose135]

That's a tough one, Mark. It definitely looks like it needs some CW rotation to me - I think that road at the top really causes you problems. You might try using the left side of the wall on that overhanging canopy, it's fairly close to the center of the image, although it doesn't give you much to work with, at least in this resized image. I pulled it into PS, and just playing around, about 0.5 CW made it look much more appealing to me.

[adam613]

Ok - the dark I can take care of - midday sun and I can work with that - but - the horizon unlevel - what is the reference point because I'm sure when I edited this originally, I used the edge of the taxiway behind as the line.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2059422

I'd use 595 as the reference line...it's significantly higher in the frame at the right side than the left side...it's tough to use any airport markings in this shot because so many of them are covered up (or clearly should not go straight across, like the near edge of the runway...)

Regardless of what the screener said, I like this shot :)

[MarkLawrence]

Trouble is - 595 is not straight at that point - it's roller coaster.

[wunaladreamin]

It is a great shot Mark. When leveling, I find using a vertical point to reference against more fail safe. Try the corner of the hangar, or the fence posts. You'll see the difference.

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks for the tips everyone...it's been re-edited (with one other rejection that I got) and is back in the queue....

[stuart schechter]

So this is on JP but apparantly I digitally manipulated it, its not centered, and its soft.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 1493jp.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20080814_IMG_1493jp.jpg)

What is up with these digital manipulation things?!?

[lijk604]

Okay...
Digital manip? Probably should have been bad crop. I can see white on the upper edge of your photo. As if you rotated the picture, and caught "dead space" in the crop.

Center: Yes its low in the frame.

Soft:The grey bottom is a bit on the soft side & the reggie is not "crisp"

Now, on my monitor, it also looks oversharpened where the grey baggage area meets up with the bottom of the aircraft (jaggies) and there is shadow jaggies just behind the exhaust. They also could have dinged you for overexposed as there is no detail in the tail it's so white you almost lose the horizontal stab.

[stuart schechter]

Okay...
Digital manip? Probably should have been bad crop. I can see white on the upper edge of your photo. As if you rotated the picture, and caught "dead space" in the crop.

Center: Yes its low in the frame.

Soft:The grey bottom is a bit on the soft side & the reggie is not "crisp"

Now, on my monitor, it also looks oversharpened where the grey baggage area meets up with the bottom of the aircraft (jaggies) and there is shadow jaggies just behind the exhaust. They also could have dinged you for overexposed as there is no detail in the tail it's so white you almost lose the horizontal stab.

I guess I just caught a JP screener sleeping...

[stuart schechter]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2069928

Explain? I get the contrast, but there are no categories to select for this, and i equalized it and i dont see any manipulation...

[moose135]

Did you select "Cargo Plane" under the "Aircraft-Specific Categories" section?

[stuart schechter]

Did you select "Cargo Plane" under the "Aircraft-Specific Categories" section?

Ooo

[stuart schechter]

They said that my dust spot cloning has been "overzealous"... WHAT?!

[wunaladreamin]

This was rejected (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2076004) but this was not (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6335949). I don't get it.

[lijk604]

Kenny your rejection 'aint showing.

[wunaladreamin]

I won the appeal. That's why. :borat:

[njgtr82]

Rejected for level, which way does it need ccw?
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... axx264.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20080827_raxx264.jpg)

[stuart schechter]

go ccw about .05 The difference on my screen is 3 pixels.

[heeshung]

It's blurry?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2100379

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2098804

...just some random pictures picked up along my trip...

[wunaladreamin]

Yeah, it's a bit fuzzy, especially in the nose area. You can also see it in the "747". They also do have you on the undersharp.

[Wingzero]

Woah you guys are experts! I just submitted this one to Airliners. I have no idea how to post process my pics, so this is straight out of the camera.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb69/sanchezl99/JetBlueN637JB.jpg

It was taken last summer by LGA rwy 4.

I imagine they will reject it as usual (how dare they? Its NYC's Hometown Airline!! lol). What do you all think? Any advise as to how I can make this one better?

[NIKV69]

Any advise as to how I can make this one better?




Unfortunately the capture has some real lighting problems. Looks like Sun was directly above the aircraft so you get the harsh blown out result. One great fundamental is to have the sun low and behind you so the fuselage is hit equally. Helps with detail, contrast and the like

[MarkLawrence]

Time to try Kenny's noise reduction tip again....

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2117062

[Wingzero]

Thanks for the tip Nik!

[jerslice]

Recent jp.net rejects (a few of these are a bit trivial IMHO):
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125369
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125384
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125392
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125377

[stuart schechter]

Recent jp.net rejects (a few of these are a bit trivial IMHO):
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125369
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125384
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125392
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125377

Big dust spot on the Virgin picture.

[AirtrafficController]

For the first reject of Iceland air, I think you forgot to check the night shot catergory.

[stuart schechter]

That is not a night shot...I have shot at that time and it's been considered daytime.

[moose135]

The Icelandair shot looks overprocessed to me, and looks like there halos above the port engine intake and starboard wing. Again with the Virgin shot, looks like you have halos around the starboard engines and maybe along the bottom of the fuselage. On the BA shot, the sky looks a little grainy to me - you don't sharpen the sky when you post-process, do you? The T-birds shot is a great composition, but yes, the light's in the wrong place.

[Cary]

Not too much I can do about this one...the lighting just isn't that great this time of year:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... _5284b.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20080929_CaryLiao_MG_5284b. jpg)

[AirtrafficController]

Any ideas of fixing this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2139136

[moose135]

This has been rejected twice for dust spots...I don't see them, can anyone help?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2139437

[wunaladreamin]

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k210/morgulvale40/moose.jpg

[moose135]

Thanks Kenny! I was getting crossed-eyed looking at that thing and couldn't find any.

[wunaladreamin]

Anytime!! :borat:

[Cary]

Wow, I think this is the most rejection reasons I've had on a single photo. I especially don't agree with the color cast point. I have a feeling the screener thinks the gray on the bottom of the fuselage is too blue, but from other pictures of the airline, it IS a cool gray color.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... G_5325.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20081002_CaryLiao_MG_5325.j pg)

The image quality of these photo(s) does not meet the very high standards
of Airliners.Net. This does not mean that it is a bad photo, but it does
mean that we think it has certain (possibly minor) flaws.

There is a problem with the colours in these photo(s). This may be due to
one of two reasons: either there is a strong colour cast that makes the
photo(s) look too red/blue/yellow etc., or you seem to be using a low
colour depth in your photos.

There is a problem with the contrasts in these photo(s). The whites in the
image are not pure white, or the blacks are not pure black.

The overall impression of these photo(s) is too dark. This may be due to
incorrect exposure settings for your camera or scanner, or it may be
because the photo was taken in difficult light conditions.

[wunaladreamin]

Soft?
Color?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections...aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081003_jp_01_092108_aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.j pg)

Anyone seeing something I'm not?

[Delta777LR]

Soft?
Color?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections...aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081003_jp_01_092108_aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.j pg)

Anyone seeing something I'm not?


Kenny I dont see anything too wrong with it, the color looks well. nice and sharpened. I dont see nothing wrong with the picture....

[Corey]

Soft?
Color?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections...aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081003_jp_01_092108_aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.j pg)

Anyone seeing something I'm not?

Looks like a blue cast on my monitor. Does this look better?
http://www.pbase.com/image/105270567.jpg


Corey

[T-Bird76]

Soft?
Color?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections...aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081003_jp_01_092108_aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.j pg)

Anyone seeing something I'm not?

Looks like a blue cast on my monitor. Does this look better?
http://www.pbase.com/image/105270567.jpg


Corey

Looks overprocessed to me.

[MarkLawrence]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2185375

Am I looking wrong - the aircraft is blurry?

[G-BOAD]

Normally I understand the rejection reasons, but I am puzzled by these. Can anyone help?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2188075
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2188066
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2188109 (It's a night shot, it's dark at night, thats why the photo is "dark")

Thanks

[moose135]

Not sure on the "Overprocessed" rejections, Mat - that's always a tough one for me to judge.

On the night shot, I think your problem is that the subject of the shot, the Virgin 744, is just too dark and hard to see. I have a bunch of "night" shots on JP.net (http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?aircraft=-2&airline=-2&country=-2&photog=15086&category=3&year=-2&keywordrange=all&keywordlimiter=2&keywords=&sort=1&genre=1&size=-2&mainsearch=search&displaymode=1&display=15). If you look at them, you will see that the main subject is typically fairly well lit despite being a night shot. In your shot, the sunset looks to be the main subject. Also, I'm not a fan of the way the 744 is cut off - I'm sure there wasn't much you could do about framing the shot, but it looks a little awkward to me.

[Jetinder]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2188109 (It's a night shot, it's dark at night, thats why the photo is "dark")

It looks like a "just after" sunset shot, that is perfect, it very pretty as orangey light of the sky high lights part of the 747.

[N75715]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180675

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180667

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180666

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180664

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180661

All this - after they tell me my photos can't be over 1024 wide. so I crop them to conform to their size demands, and then they reject me because of size ratio and cropping?!?!?! it's getting old already.. at least on Flickr, and here, what we post, stays up and everyone wins. anyone else have a "size" problem??? any opinions? i would love to hear some feedback! thanks! Roman

[wunaladreamin]

Roman, take a deep breath. You need to crop in a 3:2 or 4:3 ratio (6" X 4" or 8" X 6") to avoid such rejections. Also cropping closer to the aircraft will help a lot. Don't be discouraged, try visiting the jp digital processing forums. You can get a much better idea of what the screeners are looking for in those forums.

Where were you shooting those belly shots? Burger King?

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180675

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180667

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180666

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180664

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2180661

All this - after they tell me my photos can't be over 1024 wide. so I crop them to conform to their size demands, and then they reject me because of size ratio and cropping?!?!?! it's getting old already.. at least on Flickr, and here, what we post, stays up and everyone wins. anyone else have a "size" problem??? any opinions? i would love to hear some feedback! thanks! Roman

The guidelines for size format are the following. There are some other issues with those photos as well, to much contrast and a couple of them could use a touch more sharpening.

1.2 Image Formats

Photos should be uploaded between 4:3 or 3:2 format. Those formats are typically used by almost all digital cameras, so that any changes to the format can only be achieved by deliberately cropping the photo differently. A photo outside these size ratios will be rejected using the rejection reason "Cropping / Photo edges".

To make it easier for you here are the typical sizes for both ratios.

4:3 3:2
800 x 600
1024 x 76
1280 x 960
1600 x 1200
800 x 533
1024 x 681
1200 x 800
1600 x 1067

Example: a photo of 1024 px should be between 681 and 768 pixels high.

[MarkLawrence]

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... -Large.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081104_B772LR-A6-EWF-KJFK-10182008-Large.jpg)

This was rejected for quality and motiv - I'd love to know what Motiv of a.net this broke because I read through their motiv section on their rejections and couldn't find what was at fault - I also question the quality rejection, but, that's my opinion...

[stuart schechter]

They don't like pictures of planes :mrgreen:

[wunaladreamin]

Mark, I don't get the motiv either but, she is a bit grainy in the sky and the wing is showing jaggies (on my monitor at least). Whaddaya tryin' to rub the EK 772 in my face man?!?!?! Great sets from JFK btw!

[NIKV69]

I'd love to know what Motiv of a.net this broke because I read through their motiv section on their rejections and couldn't find what was at fault

The right main gear is blocked by the runway sign. That is the motiv rejection.

[MarkLawrence]

I didn't even notice that - well - thanks Nick for pointing it out.

[T-Bird76]

I'd love to know what Motiv of a.net this broke because I read through their motiv section on their rejections and couldn't find what was at fault

The right main gear is blocked by the runway sign. That is the motiv rejection.

How is that a motive rejection and not a "Obstruction/Clutter" rejection?

[NIKV69]

A quick search would have answered your question but here is the info from the page on anet. I believe the answer to your question is a few lines down.

MOTIVE
Your photo(s) showed a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net. This problem may be due to a very wide range of reasons.

Some of the most common examples are:


Photos showing just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation for doing so, like a special sticker, damage etc.). Additionally, cutting off the nose or a part of the tail can also result in a motive rejection.
Photos with distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft). Any equipment or objects blocking parts of the aircraft will result in a motive rejection.
Photos that do not show an aircraft or anything sufficiently related to aviation at all. Common examples are photos of ramp equipment, like stairs, or cars. Or airport structures like radar towers, jet bridges, office buildings.
Photos showing the date in the lower left or right corner of the image. If your photos show the date on them please disable this feature on your camera.
Close up cockpit shots with the only reason for the shot being showing pilots waving.
Cockpit photos in which the pilots block out most of the panel
Photos taken through aircraft windows that show little wing/engine and have no airport visible on the ground.
Photos that include window reflections. These can result from taking photos through terminal windows or observations decks that are enclosed by glass. Shots taken through aircraft windows can also result in reflections, or can show scratches or dirt from those windows. This will also result in a motive rejection.
Photos taken inside aircraft that only show tables, dinner trays, or personal tv's. Cabin overviews that are taken from a very low standpoint and have seatbacks block out most of the image.
Please note that motive rejections can also result from other, more subjective reasons. These are usually of an aesthetical nature.

[N75715]

Thanks wunaladreamin and T-Bird76 for your inputs... maybe they just don't like pictures of planes, like stuart schechter said. that is possible, too... LOL. I'll keep plugging along and should get it right one of these days. The belly shots (aircraft moving from R to L) were indeed taken at B.K. no hassles there at all, and i got to hang out under the shade of the tree in the parking lot, to boot.

cheers,

Roman