Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[Greg_NY]

Maybe someone can help me with this since I am totally confused and at a dead end here.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2220528

This photo got rejected for "Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)"

I rechecked the centering in the photo by measuring all four directions and it appears correct to me.

So I submitted an appeal with a very polite and factual request. It got rejected instantly.

I then decided to reply to the rejection email with the following:


"I appreciate you considering my appeal, but I am now more confused than ever. Please bear with me while I try and understand this...

Isn't it a requirement that the aircraft be centered within the photo? To me that would mean that there be equal amounts of space on all sides of the aircraft. This is the case with my photo.

I could very easily move the aircraft up and place the main fuselage along the center line of the photo, but that would place the tail close to the top border and leave a lot more empty space below the aircraft. I think that would certainly reject???

Help"


This email got bounced from their server, so I decided to post my question here for some help.

[NIKV69]

This photo got rejected for "Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)"

I rechecked the centering in the photo by measuring all four directions and it appears correct to me.



The subject is way to low in the frame.


I could very easily move the aircraft up and place the main fuselage along the center line of the photo, but that would place the tail close to the top border and leave a lot more empty space below the aircraft. I think that would certainly reject???


Nope, do it and you shoud be fine.

[T-Bird76]

Maybe someone can help me with this since I am totally confused and at a dead end here.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2220528

This photo got rejected for "Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)"

I rechecked the centering in the photo by measuring all four directions and it appears correct to me.

So I submitted an appeal with a very polite and factual request. It got rejected instantly.

I then decided to reply to the rejection email with the following:


"I appreciate you considering my appeal, but I am now more confused than ever. Please bear with me while I try and understand this...

Isn't it a requirement that the aircraft be centered within the photo? To me that would mean that there be equal amounts of space on all sides of the aircraft. This is the case with my photo.

I could very easily move the aircraft up and place the main fuselage along the center line of the photo, but that would place the tail close to the top border and leave a lot more empty space below the aircraft. I think that would certainly reject???

Help"


This email got bounced from their server, so I decided to post my question here for some help.

Mate you also have a nasty dust spot above the plane as well.

[Greg_NY]

Thanks NIKV69 and T-Bird76

[stuart schechter]

I have two that are against an overcast sky and got rejected for dark/underexposed. How do I fix this without blowing out the plane?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2235429
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2235427

[T-Bird76]

I have two that are against an overcast sky and got rejected for dark/underexposed. How do I fix this without blowing out the plane?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2235429
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2235427

Stuart try only selecting the plane using the magic wand and increasing the levels. Both also need a bit more sharpening as well.

[flyawayphotos]

mine were rejected a few weeks ago at airliners.net.. of course it was a lot larger and without the watermarks.. just took it from my site

http://www.flyawayphotos.com/IMG_007531.jpg
http://www.flyawayphotos.com/IMG_15722.jpg

[moose135]

Rejected for Center and Soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... _001_A.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081224_JM_2008_12_06_62-0361_001_A.jpg)

Center and Contrast:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... _001_A.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081224_JM_2008_12_06_N4207W_001_A.jpg)

[MarkLawrence]

I got a rejection from anet today for specks. When I looked at the picture, all I could see that were specks were black specks that are birds in the distance. I've equalized the picture and can't see anything else. Can anyone else see anything that I might have missed?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 292008.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20081231_AN-B752-OH-LBV-KFLL-12292008.jpg)

[stuart schechter]

I got a rejection from anet today for specks. When I looked at the picture, all I could see that were specks were black specks that are birds in the distance. I've equalized the picture and can't see anything else. Can anyone else see anything that I might have missed?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 292008.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20081231_AN-B752-OH-LBV-KFLL-12292008.jpg)


Photo isn't loading.

[MarkLawrence]

Photo isn't loading.

Probably because I appealed it....here it is:

[EDIT] - It got rejected again - I've corrected the link to my own website - can someone see specks on this?

http://www.tavustheman.com/images/AN-B752-OH-LBV-KFLL-12292008.jpg

[N75715]

i don't see specks, but i see small birds around the aircraft image. maybe someone mistook those as specks or dust???

[MarkLawrence]

That's what I'm thinking as well - but - according to the screeners and head screeners at anet, those are the reason for rejection - my thinking is they want them edited out.

[njgtr82]

That's what I'm thinking as well - but - according to the screeners and head screeners at anet, those are the reason for rejection - my thinking is they want them edited out.

Hi Mark, how are you? Here's what I saw that may be what they are talking about, I don't think they want the birds out bc that would be manipulation. Also did you catch the JAL 747 at FLL this morning?

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i281/njgtr82/AN-B752-OH-LBV-KFLL-12292008.jpg

Bill

[MarkLawrence]

Well darn...thanks Bill - I really didn't see those at all. I missed the JAL - can't get to FLL today - maybe it will stay unitl Monday when I'm down there next!!! :)

[heeshung]

http://jetphotos.net/img/1/8/2/5/63763_1232403528.jpg

Bad info? I don't get it...

Should it be Inflight?

[jerslice]

I don't understand this one at all:
The rejection reasons are contradictory:
A) oversharpened
B) undersharpened (soft)
C) bad info: CN
D) invalid hot
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2328637
Additionally, the bad info that was rejected on this shot was accepted on my second upload of the same a/c almost 45 minutes later along with another shot an hour after my acceptance - again with the same exact info.
Finally, why would this shot be considered an invalid hot when the second shot of the same a/c was accepted 45 minutes later as a hot photo?

These make no sense to me.
Help anybody?

Link to the accepted shot of the same a/c

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 469&nseq=0 (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6473469&nseq=0)

[T-Bird76]

I don't understand this one at all:
The rejection reasons are contradictory:
A) oversharpened
B) undersharpened (soft)
C) bad info: CN
D) invalid hot
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2328637
Additionally, the bad info that was rejected on this shot was accepted on my second upload of the same a/c almost 45 minutes later along with another shot an hour after my acceptance - again with the same exact info.
Finally, why would this shot be considered an invalid hot when the second shot of the same a/c was accepted 45 minutes later as a hot photo?

These make no sense to me.
Help anybody?

Link to the accepted shot of the same a/c

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 469&nseq=0 (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6473469&nseq=0)

The screeners aren't perfect and the shot was accepted on appeal. I can see where the screener saw parts that were soft and parts that were oversharpened but I felt when I accepted it on appeal it was within our standards.

[jerslice]

Thanks

[threeholerglory]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328755
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328756
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328757
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328759

help anyone? thought these may have made the cut...

[njgtr82]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328755
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328756
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328757
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328759

help anyone? thought these may have made the cut...

Hi Mike, as for the cropping/size ratio ones, try 1024 x 683. That would fix that issue. For the construction numbers go to http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... nquiry.asp (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.asp) . Type in the reg and the serial # is on their. Can't help with the backlighting though. I don't think its that bad, sun is on the nose.

[MarkLawrence]

Took me a while to find the heat distortion on this - but I'm a little unsure on the under exposed/dark - my screen is showing it well and it's just been calibrated....

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2348451

[MarkLawrence]

Here is another for heat distortion - am I looking at these wrong - yes - there is heat distortion on the ground, but I'm a little unsure on the aircraft - any ideas?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2349098

[SmAlbany]

Here is another for heat distortion - am I looking at these wrong - yes - there is heat distortion on the ground, but I'm a little unsure on the aircraft - any ideas?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2349098

Perhaps the top edge of the fuse looks a bit wobbly? I would not call that extreme distortion by any means though.

[Cary]

Wow, I'm at 100% rejections with Anet this week. Here are just a few:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090218_a1234827163.3305caryliao_mg_7725.jpg
Color, dark, common

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090218_o1234825175.3572caryliao_mg_7985.jpg
Motive, grainy, oversharpened

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090218_h1234825450.1031caryliao_mg_7744.jpg
Quality, grainy, oversharpened

[moose135]

Wow, I'm at 100% rejections with Anet this week.
Welcome to the club...we've had jackets made. :wink:

[Cary]

Wow, I'm at 100% rejections with Anet this week.
Welcome to the club...we've had jackets made. :wink:

Hahaha...I'd like to order 7 jackets please :D I completely don't understand the "motive" one on the JetBlue picture...I guess I needed a girl in a bikini in there instead or something :roll:

[njgtr82]

Wow, I'm at 100% rejections with Anet this week.
Welcome to the club...we've had jackets made. :wink:

Hahaha...I'd like to order 7 jackets please :D I completely don't understand the "motive" one on the JetBlue picture...I guess I needed a girl in a bikini in there instead or something :roll:

Cary, its likely due to the tug blocking the nose gear. I've had a few shots rejected for similar situations

[Cary]

Cary, its likely due to the tug blocking the nose gear. I've had a few shots rejected for similar situations

Thanks Bill. That's kind of silly considering some of the shots I've seen on there that should have definitely been rejected for motive, but at least now I know.

[Derf]

I just had 10 rejections.... it looks like I need L glass to upload. sorry but I no longer will waste my time with jetphotos. I will now upload to my site only as I am not into working to throw hours of my work in the garbage.

[Cary]

Oy vey...2 more rejections...now from JP.

http://jetphotos.net/img/1/9/9/0/30328_1234751099.jpg
- Over Processed / Bad postprocessing (I only resized and sharpened)
- Oversharpen

http://jetphotos.net/img/2/2/5/5/11576_1234751552.jpg
- Blurry
- Oversharpen

[Cary]

I just had 10 rejections.... it looks like I need L glass to upload. sorry but I no longer will waste my time with jetphotos. I will now upload to my site only as I am not into working to throw hours of my work in the garbage.

I'm getting to that point with the big blue site. It's a shame, since I've gotten quite a few leads from there over the years. Shockingly, my acceptance rate for published photos (all subject matter) is much higher than my acceptance rate on the 2 aviation websites. And unfortunately, L glass doesn't help me.

[jerslice]

I'm getting to that point with the big blue site. It's a shame, since I've gotten quite a few leads from there over the years. Shockingly, my acceptance rate for published photos (all subject matter) is much higher than my acceptance rate on the 2 aviation websites. And unfortunately, L glass doesn't help me.

The Qatar does look like it has a bit of blue-ish tint to me...but I don't understand the DL. I guess I can see where it's a tad bit blurry - but it seems to me to be within their guidelines easily.

I checked out your website too, Cary - nice stuff. I wish I could get published.

[Cary]

I'm getting to that point with the big blue site. It's a shame, since I've gotten quite a few leads from there over the years. Shockingly, my acceptance rate for published photos (all subject matter) is much higher than my acceptance rate on the 2 aviation websites. And unfortunately, L glass doesn't help me.

The Qatar does look like it has a bit of blue-ish tint to me...but I don't understand the DL. I guess I can see where it's a tad bit blurry - but it seems to me to be within their guidelines easily.

I checked out your website too, Cary - nice stuff. I wish I could get published.

Yes, I agree the Qatar looks a little cold, but I used Daylight WB and exposed based on the gray. I guess I can try to change the temperature a little, but I think "color cast" might have been more appropriate than "Over Processed / Bad postprocessing" since I didn't alter the color/WB/exposure at all.

Funny thing about the DL...it looked a little blurry when I checked on my Dell 19" 8-bit Ultrasharp LCD, but looks a lot sharper on both of my Dell 20" 8-bit Ultrasharp LCDs. The resolution on the LCDs are different (1600 vs. 1280), but I was surprised by how bad it looked on the 19 inch. Maybe that was part of the problem.

Thanks!

[MarkLawrence]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2367726

Heat distortion seems to really becoming a very hot (no pun intended) topic - I'm looking at the aircraft and maybe it's my eyes but I don't see a lot - I'm also a little confused with the "Obstructing Objects / foreground clutter"? Is that the little pylon??

[njgtr82]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2367726

Heat distortion seems to really becoming a very hot (no pun intended) topic - I'm looking at the aircraft and maybe it's my eyes but I don't see a lot - I'm also a little confused with the "Obstructing Objects / foreground clutter"? Is that the little pylon??

I would definitely appeal that one Mark, maybe a little heat haze on the bottom of the fuselage right in front of the wing but its very, very minimal. I definitely don't see the blurry part and the Obstructing object/foreground clutter is bs.

[moose135]

I agree with Bill on that one. The only thing I see are some minor jaggies along the black stripe outline around the wing root. I sure don't see any foreground clutter or anything obstructing the aircraft.

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks Bill - I've appealed it - let's see what happens.

[jerslice]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2367726

Heat distortion seems to really becoming a very hot (no pun intended) topic - I'm looking at the aircraft and maybe it's my eyes but I don't see a lot - I'm also a little confused with the "Obstructing Objects / foreground clutter"? Is that the little pylon?

Hope you win it, I had to really look to find evidence of heat haze there, it isn't blurry, and there isn't any clutter that I would consider so anyways. Did you write back and ask why it was rejected more specifically? Maybe half the time they'll give you a pretty detailed answer.

[MarkLawrence]

I did get a reply - they think there is part of the fence in the shot - I did shoot it through a fence - but I don't see a fence strand - that's ok - I'll go back and select another one - rare being a the Hyundai corporate jet....

[jerslice]

I didn't see any fence in there - but I didn't run an equalizer on it either. I do see what appears to be a dust spot though.

[njgtr82]

I didn't see any fence in there - but I didn't run an equalizer on it either. I do see what appears to be a dust spot though.
I see it now, its not very obvious with a quick look. Look at the discoloration on the left side of the pic, its a dark tint on the grass and nose.

[jerslice]

Huh...I definitely didn't see that either at first - and actually just spent the better part of 5 minutes scoping it out. I do see it, and I think with an equalizer run it would be more obvious. Am I crazy or is there a dust spot in the top left corner?

[moose135]

Huh...I definitely didn't see that either at first - and actually just spent the better part of 5 minutes scoping it out. I do see it, and I think with an equalizer run it would be more obvious.
Since we've been discussing it so much, I did save and equalize it, and you can see the difference.



Am I crazy or is there a dust spot in the top left corner?
Yes on both parts :D

[jerslice]

Alright, I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy - top left, about 2 inches over and 1 down:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/jerslice356/48868_1235697172.jpg

[MarkLawrence]

Well damn - I missed that too...ok...so it was a failure...LOL...already looking at which one to edit next....

[jerslice]

Amazing what you don't notice sometimes. I can't believe some of the stuff I miss sometimes.

[jerslice]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377246
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377243
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377241
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377240
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2365280

[moose135]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377246
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377243
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377241
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2377240
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2365280
On the first and third shots, the sky is very noisy. Did you deselect the sky when sharpening? Almost looks like they were dark and you bumped the exposure too much.

On the second one, the AA MD-83, the landing gear is behind the side of the overpass - that's always going to be a killer. It's an interesting shot, but unfortunately you can't cut off parts like that - maybe if you caught him a second earlier, before the gear go out of sight.

On the last shot (you have the Pegasus shot listed twice) the white fuselage is blown out with no detail. White aircraft can be difficult to expose properly, especially with a dark background - you may want to dial in a little (1/3 stop) of underexposure, that may give you enough leeway to play with when processing without overexposing the fuselage.

[jerslice]

Thanks for the tips on the rejects Moose - the reject reasons came as no surprise to me.

I've run Neat Image on both of the Rainier photos but to no avail - I can't seem to clean them up to save my life.

The Pegasus was one of two I threw into the queue and one made it. I agree though, it's completely blown out. I'll try adjusting the exposure in RAW.

[jerslice]

On the first and third shots, the sky is very noisy. Did you deselect the sky when sharpening? Almost looks like they were dark and you bumped the exposure too much.
You nailed it right on the head. And yes, I did deselect the sky when I sharpened it up. Like I said though, it doesn't seem to matter what I do. I ran neat image; I've selected out the sky, layered it and Gaussian blurred/despeckled/normal blur/noise reduction you name it; I've blur out some of the grain on the a/c itself and been as careful as possible with the sharpening. Those shots, which I like a lot, have been driving me up a wall to edit.

[jerslice]

Accepted on a.net, rejected on jp.net. Jp.net is right though...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2382932

[jerslice]

eeehhh...I tried.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2385511

[MarkLawrence]

Can someone help me with this please....
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388998

Dark/Underexposed? last time I submitted this shot it was overexposed
Categories missing? I selected Military - is cargo missing on this - I'm not too sure?
Bad Info: Registration - came directly from the USMC search engine that Moose provided - that one beats me a little - last time I submitted it, I didn't get the registration bad info.

Ideas?

[SmAlbany]

Can someone help me with this please....
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388998

Dark/Underexposed? last time I submitted this shot it was overexposed
Categories missing? I selected Military - is cargo missing on this - I'm not too sure?
Bad Info: Registration - came directly from the USMC search engine that Moose provided - that one beats me a little - last time I submitted it, I didn't get the registration bad info.

Ideas?

Regarding overexposed/underexposed: I think you are a victim of relatively high sun angle combined with a high wing aircraft. The parts that have the sun glare are over exposed and the parts under the wing are under exposed. Not much that you can do about that :-(

[moose135]

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

[MarkLawrence]

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

[moose135]

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

[Delta777LR]

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

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

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

Any major Ideas?

[AirtrafficController]

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

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

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

Any major Ideas?

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

[Delta777LR]

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

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

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

Any major Ideas?

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

Thanks Luke, You've been a big help

[heeshung]

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

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

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

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

[moose135]

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

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

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

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

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

[heeshung]

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

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

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

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


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

[jerslice]

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

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

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

Any major Ideas?

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

[Bellucciman]

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

[T-Bird76]

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

Bring the levels up and increase the contrast.

[jerslice]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/jerslice356/81292_1237937783.jpg

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

[Bellucciman]

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

[MarkLawrence]

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

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

[wunaladreamin]

Mark, if I'm seeing correctly, there is a slight halo by the tail which would explain the overprocessing/bad post rejection. The shot is also grainy and the nose is blurry. Sorry Mark, but it looks like one for the personal collection.

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks Kenny - I edited that on my work machine - and saw it on there today as well - I''ve got several more of that series - so I'll look at the others....

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2426038

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2426005

[moose135]

I definitely see the backlit rejections, Mark, it looks like you had high light, but on the other side of the aircraft. You see how bright the nose/fuselage top is compared to the sides of the aircraft.

The serial number is a bit trickier - according to the FAA database (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=128LR&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0), the serial number is 001, but according to the JP.net Aircraft Census Database (http://jetphotos.net/census/aircraft2.php?msnid=LEAR-28-001&cn=28-001&aircraft=Gates+28) it is listed as 28-001. I guess they want that, rather than what the FAA shows...

[heeshung]

Yep, I see that too. That area is generally bad for taking pictures in the afternoon.

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2432832

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2432873

Hmm...based on Jetphotos' own database, there are two Falcon 900's that look just like that. How can I tell them apart?

[moose135]

Mark, on the Lear, it looks a little low in the frame, which is probably what got you the "center" rejection, and the C/N is likely that "28-001" thing again. Not sure about the Falcon - I guess you could pick either one, unless you come up with a way of knowing which was at TEB this month. Looking at the accepted photos of those two, F-RAFP was photographed in Canada in March, so I guess you could make the argument... I wonder how the flight/ground crews tell them apart on the ramp?

[heeshung]

Oops; I forgot I had another photo of 128LR in queue. Just wondering, if I can pick either of the two registrations, what's the 'Unknown' option there for?

By the way, thank you, I really appreciate all the help.

[moose135]

I just suggested picking one in case that was the reason for the rejection, however, I see it said "Registration, Genre" on the rejection. Did you select Military or Civilian? I think it should be Military in this case, but that doesn't always pre-load, especially when you don't have a registration on the auto-fill.

[heeshung]

Hmm, now that I think back, I don't recall selecting that genre, so that's probably why.

[threeholerglory]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3402/3422840652_57c5096e23_o.jpg


reason for rejection is "too much grain"....while i can definitely see it in the LCD screens, it was unavoidable and i feel minimized. any thoughts?

[jerslice]

You could blur the grain out of grainy areas if you're careful. If not, run it through neatimage (or send me the file and I'll run it through for ya).
I don't think the grain is that noticeable by any means. I'd consider appealing.

[T-Bird76]

You could blur the grain out of grainy areas if you're careful. If not, run it through neatimage (or send me the file and I'll run it through for ya).
I don't think the grain is that noticeable by any means. I'd consider appealing.

I advise strongly against using Neat Image...it ruins a lot of pics and it's results generally can be scene and turn into a rejection for over processing.

I'm surprised that shot was rejected to begin with. I would have accepted it, you might want to appeal it.

[jerslice]

it ruins a lot of pics and it's results generally can be scene and turn into a rejection for over processing

If you're not careful with how much you run on it, and then edit it very carefully back through after processing, I'd agree.
But if used well in combination with other tricks it can work. That being said, I prefer to blur it out of the image myself. Though we've both noted that in his photo it isn't really needed anyways!

[jerslice]

This same shot was rejected from a.net for blurry: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 133&nseq=1 (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6545133&nseq=1)

And this was rejected as a double, same shot as the first: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3474887994_72705b67af.jpg?v=0 sorry for not giving the actual links - I'm too tired.
Either way, this was after they both were rejected for being incorrectly labeled as a priority for being a greenie - despite two other shots of the same a/c from the same morning uploaded and accepted as priority. The screeners agreed to resolve the issue. Both ended up rejected

[eric8669]

Help with a rejection.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2456013

Over processed/ Bad post processing.

Any Help. Thanks.

[wunaladreamin]

Eric, there are halo's all around the plane, not to mention a dust spot near the tail.
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/754/347981240398395.jpg (http://img2.imageshack.us/my.php?image=347981240398395.jpg)

[MarkLawrence]

I'm interested in opinions here - too much or too little?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2468609

[cancidas]

I'm interested in opinions here - too much or too little?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2468609
i could see how someone could say little contrast, especially when looking at the tail and empenage. the tail code and star-and-bars is hard to make out. then again... that's the point of painting the airplanes like that...

aside from that it looks fine to me, just wish you slowed the shutter to blur the props. i don't really like shots when the rotors or props are frozen in time.

[jerslice]

somewhat disappointed by this one: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2473980

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2493023

Don't know if I should appeal. The horizon is actually level; my vantage makes the tower look crooked.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2492989

[moose135]

Mark, I think on that tower shot, you really need to have it straight, especially since that is your only reference point in the shot, you don't really see any of the horizon. The same with the ORBIS shot - I think you should give it some CCW rotation, to have the verticals on the equipment rack at the rear closer to true vertical. To me, both look awkward rotated the way they are.

[heeshung]

Should I bother re-uploading the tower shot? Is the "Bad Composition" referring to the fact that the tower's not in the middle?

[moose135]

I didn't even notice the composition rejection - yeah, I guess it's because the tower is off-centered, although I think it makes a better picture that way. I don't know if it would get accepted either, but do you have a shot from the same spot with the full tower and the horizon below the sunset? That might make a cool shot.

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525530

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525506

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525527

"Screener's Comments: Sky is overexposed. There is detail there that can be recovered."


I think #1 and #3 can use some more tweaking. I don't know if any degree of sharpening can help #2.

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525530

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525506

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525527

"Screener's Comments: Sky is overexposed. There is detail there that can be recovered."


I think #1 and #3 can use some more tweaking. I don't know if any degree of sharpening can help #2.

One you can save, just bring down the levels a bit, easy fix. Two is def blurry, can't save it. Three I don't think is all that bad..might want to appeal it.

[heeshung]

Thanks.

I'm going to get to #1 when I get a chance, and #3 made the appeal.

[jerslice]

Rejected for: contrast/personal
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090616_c1244507427.1805dpp_0213.jpg

Rejected for: grain...???
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090617_n1244508115.7366dpp_0209.jpg

Rejected for: grain & contrast....???
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090616_w1244507901.808dpp_0177.jpg

At first glance I just don't understand these rejections - especially the grain ones. Anyone have any thoughts?

[afr022]

jerslice the cactus aircraft is a nice pic and what do they mean by grain?

[MarkLawrence]

I'm working with a new laptop/monitor combination, and I guess I am missing something on the setup - I see heat distortion on the runway behind, but can someone point out the heat distortion on the plane please?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2552032

[T-Bird76]

I'm working with a new laptop/monitor combination, and I guess I am missing something on the setup - I see heat distortion on the runway behind, but can someone point out the heat distortion on the plane please?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2552032

It all over the lower half of the plane Mark. Bit hard to see in the shadow but there's evidence of it.

[jerslice]

- Undersharpened (Soft)
- Too much or too little contrast
- Categories wrong or missing
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2558147

- Dark / Underexposed
- Undersharpened (Soft)
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2558156

Blurry
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2558154

Thoughts anyone?

[moose135]

Jeremy, on the B-24, make sure you select Genre = Civilian and Category = Warbird/Vintage. Don't know what you had selected, but former military aircraft, operating with civilian registrations, need to have Civilian selected. It does look a little soft to me, but the bigger issue is the lighting - was it backlit (or just overcast) when you shot it? The blown-out background really kills it for me.

Again, the Hornet looks like it may have been a bit backlit, resulting in a dark aircraft. The sharpening looks OK for me, could use a touch more, but the two big sites seem to like a little more than that. The Gulfstream looks like a tough shot, nice work with panning, but I can see definite blurriness on the winglet.

[jerslice]

Moose, the B24 was overcast. The dark aircraft skin doesn't mesh very well with a brighter overcast sky.

The Hornet was toplit - departure at high noon in overcast. :-/

I'll see if I can touch them up any, thanks.

[moose135]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2575759

JPEG Compression Artifacts???

[lijk604]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2575759

JPEG Compression Artifacts???

On my monitor Moose, there seems to be a lot of noise in the left hand building. Maybe that's what they were referring to?

[Delta777LR]

Got rejected for missing categories, anyone can help me explain what they mean by that??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2592233

[AirtrafficController]

Got rejected for missing categories, anyone can help me explain what they mean by that??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2592233

Sergio, I think you may have forgotten to check the Cargo Plane and Night Shot categories.

[Delta777LR]

Got rejected for missing categories, anyone can help me explain what they mean by that??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2592233

Sergio, I think you may have forgotten to check the Cargo Plane and Night Shot categories.


Thanks Luke!

[jerslice]

Rejected for A) personal and B) soft from a.net - thoughts?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... p_0876.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090726_v1247949020.1483dpp_0876.jpg)

[njgtr82]

Rejected for A) personal and B) soft from a.net - thoughts?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... p_0876.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090726_v1247949020.1483dpp_0876.jpg)

I like this shot alot but nose looks a little soft to me

[moose135]

I hate these rejections:

Reason(s) For Rejection:
- Oversharpen
- Undersharpened (Soft)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2600264

[SmAlbany]

Rejected for A) personal and B) soft from a.net - thoughts?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... p_0876.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20090726_v1247949020.1483dpp_0876.jpg)

What did the personal note say?

Usually when I get one of those, the screener gives more detail on the reason for the rejection.

[moose135]

No personal note that I saw, just the rejection.

[jerslice]

No personal note that I saw, just the rejection.
It was in the email I got, it just took me awhile to find it :-)

He just recommended giving it another USM pass and send it back.

[heeshung]

Hmm, overexposed...

Fixable?

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2620933

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2620938

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2622978

Wanted to get the moon in, but I guess it didn't work out.

[MarkLawrence]

Wanted to get the moon in, but I guess it didn't work out.

Personally - I would forget the moon - that's a great shot centered in the frame!

[MarkLawrence]

Guess I did a little tpp much on this - I really need to get this monitor calibrated - anyone got any step by step instructions??


http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2637847

[kc2aqg]

Got this great shot with Mark down in MIA, but I got a "Horizon Unlevel" rejection. This is a common reason, I seem to not really have the eyes for the horizon in photoshop. I tried leveling against the runway line, but that didn't seem to work. What would you guys suggest using as a reference point in this picture, the fence? That would give the picture such an awkward angle though. I am torn...

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2663357

[T-Bird76]

Got this great shot with Mark down in MIA, but I got a "Horizon Unlevel" rejection. This is a common reason, I seem to not really have the eyes for the horizon in photoshop. I tried leveling against the runway line, but that didn't seem to work. What would you guys suggest using as a reference point in this picture, the fence? That would give the picture such an awkward angle though. I am torn...

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2663357

You don't level to the foreground you level to the horizon the farest point in the picture. In this case the building's roof line would be what you level to. You should also use the grid lines when leveling vs. trying to do it by sight. This shot needs .3 to .4 of CW rotation.

[jerslice]

In this case the building's roof line would be what you level to.

Sometimes when buildings are the only thing in the shot to level off of, they lie. For example, if when you crop a shot you're left with buildings that all angle away from you (ie, the roof lines are not in fact parallel to you and therefore not level to the horizon), it can be best to go with the lines created where the wall(s) meet, or with telephone polls. But many times this will not appear to be level, even though it actually is.

[moose135]

Rejected for "Blurry", with a note from the screener-in-training "nose a bit blurry". I don't see it...

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... _002_a.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20090926_k1253408900.3395jm _2009_09_19_a6-dfr_002_a.jpg)

And yes, it's the same photo I just posted as my most recent JP.net acceptance.

[heeshung]

Got a bunch rejected for dirty scan/CMOS dust spots. Didn't catch them before.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2691164

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2691162

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2691135

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/UnitedVirtualResources/43837_1253673215.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/UnitedVirtualResources/51879_1253480525.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/UnitedVirtualResources/97663_1253479679.jpg

Are there any more that I don't immediately see besides the one I pointed out? What's the best way to remove them?

[grazysub]

this one is rejected at A.net because bad motive, creative shot

your opinion please
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6675382

greetings,
Jeroen

[T-Bird76]

this one is rejected at A.net because bad motive, creative shot

your opinion please
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6675382

greetings,
Jeroen

Considering A.net takes pictures of shadows of planes on corn fields I'm not sure why this wasn't taken??? Quality is great.

[Delta777LR]

I dont get what happened here

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714111

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714069

[AirtrafficController]

I dont get what happened here

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714111

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714069

Hmm I don't what's with the digital manipulation for the first one. For the AA, I don't think its blurry but the aircraft is not centered in the frame.

[Matt Molnar]

I dont get what happened here

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714111

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714069

On the Scanderbeg you can see the spots where it looks like you used healing brush, the sky is a bit grainy but those spots are completely smooth. Barely visible to the naked eye, but stands out a lot if you view equalized.

AA is definitely not blurry, but it is a bit low in the frame, try re-cropping it.

[T-Bird76]

I dont get what happened here

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714111

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2714069

You have visable clone marks in the sky Serigo on the first one. The second AA shot the forward part of the plane isn't in focus.

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2727834

[wunaladreamin]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2727834
Mark, me thinks you should have uploaded using all of the info you would use for a regular aircraft shot, and then checked "wing shot" off.

[moose135]

Maybe they want you to upload it as a "wing view" with the data of the aircraft you were flying in?

[heeshung]

Mark, me thinks you should have uploaded using all of the info you would use for a regular aircraft shot, and then checked "wing shot" off.


Maybe they want you to upload it as a "wing view" with the data of the aircraft you were flying in?

Yeah, apparently so. I looked through the database and some airport overview photos had part of the engine and/or wing. I figured that since the main focus of the photo was the airport I'd put it as the subject.

I reuploaded with the details of the plane.

[YankeeFanInBoston]

Here's one for grainy. I obviously know it's a little grainy, but it comes with this shot...it's a moving aircraft at night, after all!

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_XZ-ysxSDq7c/SvpRGDru5vI/AAAAAAAATfI/wICigYaAsu8/s800/StellaSpirit091909IMG_0161v2.jpg

[Delta777LR]

I personaly dont entirely see how this is undersharpened(soft)
If anyone sees it is whats the best way to fix this minor problem?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2751283

[AirtrafficController]

I personaly dont entirely see how this is undersharpened(soft)
If anyone sees it is whats the best way to fix this minor problem?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2751283

It's a bit soft Sergio. Add more USM to the plane and a little more contrast to the image.

[moose135]

"Part of Aircraft Cut Off"

http://jetphotos.net/img/1/6/0/2/65250_1257475206.jpg

Well, obviously...but I cropped it this way deliberately.

[lijk604]

Moose on a rejection like this, I believe that the part they are referring to is the forward-most rotor blade. I think if that one blade was "all in" they would accept.

[SmAlbany]

Perhaps these aren't perfect, but I thought that they had a chance. I can't figure out why the registration number in the southwest shot got a bit smudged while the rest looks okay.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2759715

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2759704

[T-Bird76]

"Part of Aircraft Cut Off"

Well, obviously...but I cropped it this way deliberately.

Moose its an odd crop, it just looks unfinshed.

[MarkLawrence]

Well...I thought I'd try LOL

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2763012

[Delta777LR]

Maybe someone can help me out here

1 Digital Manipulation, what do they mean by this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762282

2 Undersharpened
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762269

3 again undersharpened, also contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2745342

What am I doing wrong with the sharpening, how much USM should be best or contrast??

4 im not familiar about this, but this one was over processed, what do they mean?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2752960

[lijk604]

Maybe someone can help me out here

1 Digital Manipulation, what do they mean by this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762282

2 Undersharpened
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762269

3 again undersharpened, also contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2745342

What am I doing wrong with the sharpening, how much USM should be best or contrast??

4 im not familiar about this, but this one was over processed, what do they mean?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2752960

#1 - halos visible around the wings will get you the D/M rejection. Maybe too aggressive on sharpening or highlight/shadow tool?
#2 - with the exception of the nosewheel the whole forward half of the aircraft looks flat.
#3 - again the underside of the aircraft looks flat. If you tried to lighten the underside up you may have overdone it a bit, and it almost looks hazy to me. Combine that with the sharp edge at the top of the aircraft to the sky and I think that's where the contrast issue comes in. It's not consistant.
#4 - The sky looks all mottled and grainy. The white seems to be a bit overexposed as well, surprised they didn't mention that.

As for USM settings, there is no absolute number, it will differ depending on light conditions, type of lens, etc. Just watch out for jaggies, but make sure things appear clear. Haziness will lead to flat (undersharpened) images.

[moose135]

Moose on a rejection like this, I believe that the part they are referring to is the forward-most rotor blade. I think if that one blade was "all in" they would accept.
And yet I had this accepted last year - I guess it depends on the screener...
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/9/5/7/80188_1221365759_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6358846)

[NIKV69]

I guess it depends on the screener...

Not really, I can see a difference in the two crops the one already in the DB is much better. In fact I bet if you cropped in a little tighter you would get this in. Just getting rid of some of the dead space makes it look a bit more clean and pleasing to the eye.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/905683/65250_1257475206.jpg

[Delta777LR]

These dont really look oversharpened to me

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2790579
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2790581
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2790995
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2790999

[wunaladreamin]

The VS, you can see the oversharpening in the titles, especially in the "No way BA/AA" decal.
The EK, again in the titles, reg, and tail decal.
The OZ, again in the titles, forward decal, and the back of the tail.
The AA, in the titles, tail decal, and cheat lines.

Sharpen in layers like I showed you. Then before you merge the layers run your eraser tool at varying opacities over the oversharp areas to make everything ok. Then merge.

[NIKV69]

Sergio they are a little. I mean the first two seem ok but the second two are a little too sharp. I would just stick with USM and ease off a little.

[Delta777LR]

Can anyone see where or how this is soft?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2808559

[wunaladreamin]

Just about everywhere Serge.

[Delta777LR]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2814814
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2814808
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2814859
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2814865

[wunaladreamin]

1. Is soft, especially on the tail. Some selective sharpening will fix it.
2. Is soft everywhere, and I'm guessing you didn't check "biz jet"
3. Look at your histogram, and the cheat lines are pretty jagged.
4. Just muck that one and reprocess the original file. Pay close attention to your histogram bro.

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2820750

[T-Bird76]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2820750

Looks like a lack of light and the lower F stop was a factor here. Next time I'd leave the F stop at F8 or F9 and bump up the ISO which it appears you did. You probably could save it by doing another pass of USM in Photoshop as well.

[AirtrafficController]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2836596
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2836899

[MarkLawrence]

Was hoping this might have been bright enough to make it..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2847199

[T-Bird76]

Was hoping this might have been bright enough to make it..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2847199

Mark that one is an easy fix. You certainly have enough room to bring up the levels. Email the original to me if you want.

[MarkLawrence]

Mark that one is an easy fix. You certainly have enough room to bring up the levels. Email the original to me if you want.

Thanks Tom - my external is at work - I'll do that over the next day or so! Appreciated!

[jerslice]

Don't really get this one - the info is correct...and there's nothing incorrect about the comment:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2873966

Update: Apparently adding .com to NYCAviation was the problem :? . Back to the bottom of the pile it goes... :|

[heeshung]

- Too much or too little contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2878220
Screener's Comments: Needs some serious histogram adjustment.

- Dark / Underexposed
- Too much or too little contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2878245

[AirtrafficController]

I'm trying to adjust the levels just on the aircraft but the magic wand keeps on selecting the fence once I click select inverse. Any ideas?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2887360

[lijk604]

Use the magic wand to click the sky, then inverse. Don't worry about the fence it's not the subject of the photo.

[Matt Molnar]

Reason(s) For Rejection:
- Dark / Underexposed
- Bad motive

http://jetphotos.net/img/1/1/7/0/75568_1266817071.jpg

a. The foreground is dark but the subject is well lit, as planned.
b. That's about as good a motive you're going to get for that terminal. Do they just not like terminal shots?

[aeropup]

I'm trying to adjust the levels just on the aircraft but the magic wand keeps on selecting the fence once I click select inverse. Any ideas?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2887360

I'm in love with that image.
Are they just really, really, really fussy?

[wunaladreamin]

I'm trying to adjust the levels just on the aircraft but the magic wand keeps on selecting the fence once I click select inverse. Any ideas?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2887360
Yeah, after you magic wand, switch to the rectangular marquis tool, hold "shift" to add the fence to the initial selection. That way, when you inverse, you've got only the bird selected.


Are they just really, really, really fussy?
Jetphotos isn't very fussy, but things have to be edited right. For this one, it's all in the histogram. An easy fix for Luke.

[seahawks7757]

I got a couple-
N706AS-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2904953
N506AS-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2904882
N747EX-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2903613
N787BA-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2903572

I am like 0 for 20 on jetphoto's

Thats why I like this site-
www.airlinefan.com (http://www.airlinefan.com)
They are more fair and practical. I get about 40% of my entry in there.

[seahawks7757]

Just curious is this photo blurry to anyone else?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2907119

[heeshung]

Right by the APU exhaust is where it's most noticeable.

[MarkLawrence]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2916625

Are they talking about just under the cockpit window???

[NIKV69]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2916625

Are they talking about just under the cockpit window???

I see it along the whole fuselage. more easily noticed front of fuselage

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks Nick - darn monitor calibration..didn't see it at first...

[seahawks7757]

And not even a rare WWII bird can get me in :(
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2920394
Also they say the reg is wrong but it doesn't come up with the L in it. W/out it it does though.

[moose135]

Brandon, that looks too low in the frame, and it definitely needs some CCW rotation.

N7079G is a valid registration in the FAA database. NL7079G is a carryover of an interim registration scheme where the L indicated military aircraft modified for limited civil use. Officially that was phased out in the early 1950s, but you still see many war birds carrying it. That may be part of the reason you got that rejection - it says "Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline,Registration" so they may want the NL7079G as that is what is shown on the tail. I don't see any other photos in the DB, so I can't compare, but some of my war bird shots include the prefix after the N, since that is what is painted on the aircraft, even though that is not their official "FAA" registration. Your "Airline" designation is also wrong. It is a privately owned aircraft, it is not currently owned/operated by the US Navy. War birds should not be listed under the service they once flew with, but rather their current owner.

[seahawks7757]

Thanks for the help Moose!

[Greg_NY]

Would appreciate some help on this.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2942938

This is the second time this photo has been rejected and I am not sure which way to rotate it. I originally did it 5 degrees CCW.

Thanks!

[MarkLawrence]

Might be wrong Isaac - but - did you try the line on the top of the hangar door to the right of the Hawk??

[SmAlbany]

Would appreciate some help on this.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2942938

This is the second time this photo has been rejected and I am not sure which way to rotate it. I originally did it 5 degrees CCW.

Thanks!

Probably the verticals on the light poles that got you the rejection. They all appear to be leaning to the right.

Do you use photoshop? It's an easy fix.

[Greg_NY]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will try again.

In the first submission, I did line up the light poles to be vertical, but that got rejected.

Thanks

[moose135]

That's a tough photo, Isaac - the light poles look like they lean to the right, but the hangar doors on the right side look like they lean to the left.

[MarkLawrence]

Why not post it in the pre-screening and I'm sure someone will be able to tell if it's right!

[Greg_NY]

That's a tough photo, Isaac - the light poles look like they lean to the right, but the hangar doors on the right side look like they lean to the left.

Maybe I'll take the average of the two... :lol:

[SmAlbany]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will try again.

In the first submission, I did line up the light poles to be vertical, but that got rejected.

Thanks

'shop out the light poles (oops, I didn't say that) :wink:

[megatop412]

Thing is, these got rejected for quality and compression, but that's only because they made me resize them, so when you blow them back up, of course they look jaggy:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... fdash8.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=u1271205603.5838copyofdash8 .jpg)

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... faa767.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=l1271205298.1813copyofaa767 .jpg)

I don't understand anet. They even said one of them was too grainy, but both were shot at ISO 100. Am I doing something wrong when resizing them? They don't want anything bigger than 1200 pixels, but that's significantly smaller than some of the 'medium' size photos in the database.

Any help or tips are appreciated, kind people. Thank you

[seahawks7757]

Well the second one seems too dark, But the size limit with A.Net is 1600 but the picture needs to be suberb quality to be accepted at that size.

Best tip is do all of your coloring at the full size. Crop it, resize and then sharpen. Always do the sharpening very last. Hope that helps

[MarkLawrence]

I'm missing something or my laptop screen isn't showing me - where?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2972974

[threeholerglory]

Mark-

At first glance it seems like the nose is a bit soft...particularly in the nose gear. The paint may throw off the blur alarm with the way it shines that it could be interpreted as soft. Just my thoughts

[MarkLawrence]

Here is another of those horizon things - I took the horizontal line on the building that is at the base of the control tower - it's attached to the control tower - but - I guess not - where would other take the line for the horizon??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2991914

[moose135]

Last time I saw a tower like that, Mark, I was in Pisa :wink: I would run a vertical down the side of the tower and see how that looks.

[Chris102]

Can someone help me rotating this one? I can't find what would be the horizon.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... esized.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=g1278034682.126790404v2_res ized.jpg)

Also, this was rejected for being dirty behind the rotors, but I think it's the clouds that give that affect. I equalized the image, and there are no dust spots behind the rotors.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... esized.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=k1278036225.3201159359_3_re sized.jpg)

[SmAlbany]

Tough one, but I would imagine that if you level the line between the concrete and asphalt, it will look right.

[MarkLawrence]

Bummer....thought I could sneak this in without the obstruction rejection...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3058606

[heeshung]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3079386

Really would've liked to have it in; any chance for appeal?

[SmAlbany]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3079386

Really would've liked to have it in; any chance for appeal?

I wouldn't go the appeal route. How about using a smaller picture size? Looks like you tried for the whole enchillada regarding size.

[Cary]

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20100804_f1280302789.4953caryliao_0901040926_mg_69 08.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20100804_f1280304275.0065caryliao_0901041110_mg_69 42.jpg

[NIKV69]

What they get rejected for Cary? I didn't take a great look but the Tam looks a little high in the frame and the Etihad looks soft.

[Cary]

What they get rejected for Cary? I didn't take a great look but the Tam looks a little high in the frame and the Etihad looks soft.

TAM was Color (with the note: needs some yellow in, see the reds. More contrast might help.)

Etihad was Common and Contrast.

I always laugh when I get Color/Contrast rejections, as I almost always just do a standard RAW conversion with no PP besides sharpening and cropping. Meanwhile, I see lots of accepted shots of the same plane at the same location and time that have a wide range of color balance. Oh well, what can you do? :P I decided to increase the contrast a bit on the TAM, and just trashed the Etihad.

[NIKV69]

I hear ya, the TAM does look a tad cold. What do you set you WB for shooting? I use sunny but I bump its warmer and have got good results,

[Cary]

I hear ya, the TAM does look a tad cold. What do you set you WB for shooting? I use sunny but I bump its warmer and have got good results,

I'm almost always on daylight (clear sky). Sometimes daylight tends to give a greenish tint on my 1Dm3, but it's usually spot on with my 7D/40D (which I used for the TAM).

[seahawks7757]

And good ol' A.Net gave typical rejection's-




We have had to reject the following photos:

- t1281420448.8665c-46.jpg (Everts Air Cargo Curtiss C-46A Commando (CW-20B))
http://www.airliners...48.8665c-46.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=t1281420448.8665c-46.jpg)

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"poor crop"

Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#quality)

Motive http://www.airliners...sons.php#motive (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#motive)

Contrast http://www.airliners...ns.php#contrast (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#contrast)

The screener(s) included a personal message to you about these photo(s).
Please scroll down to read this message.

- f1281420271.8688n777ya.jpg (Bush Air Cargo Douglas R4D-6 Skytrain)
http://www.airliners....8688n777ya.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=f1281420271.8688n777ya.jpg)

Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#quality)

Contrast http://www.airliners...ns.php#contrast (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#contrast)

- x1281420129.779305-40908.jpg (USA - Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor)
http://www.airliners...79305-40908.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=x1281420129.779305-40908.jpg)

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"double in queue"

Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#quality)

Blurry http://www.airliners...sons.php#blurry (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#blurry)

Dark http://www.airliners...easons.php#dark (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#dark)

Double http://www.airliners...sons.php#double (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#double)

The screener(s) included a personal message to you about these photo(s).
Please scroll down to read this message.

- i1281420039.829205-4090.jpg (USA - Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor)
http://www.airliners...829205-4090.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=i1281420039.829205-4090.jpg)

Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#quality)

Blurry http://www.airliners...sons.php#blurry (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#blurry)

Dark http://www.airliners...easons.php#dark (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#dark)

Double http://www.airliners...sons.php#double (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#double)

- b1281419922.492906-4112.jpg (USA - Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor)
http://www.airliners...492906-4112.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=b1281419922.492906-4112.jpg)

Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#quality)

Soft http://www.airliners...easons.php#soft (http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#soft)





I disagree with the douple. It's a freking Demo, it's not like the tail changes every pass or anything http://www.projectopensky.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Also the Evert's one. Poor Crop? The point of the damn shot was to focus on the wing and front half of the aircraft. I think I am about ready to give up on A.Net and just stick with JP. I mean for the conditions I thought those were some damn good shots.

Anyone think any are worth an appeal?

[heeshung]

Claimed to be "too high".

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3129828

Is it really too high? Seems right smack dab in the middle to me.

[lijk604]

Claimed to be "too high".

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3129828

Is it really too high? Seems right smack dab in the middle to me.

Yes Mark it does appear too high in the frame. Best bet it to get the window-line as close to centered as possible. Nice shot though.

[heeshung]

Thanks, and will do.

Here are two more rejected for Bad Info: Location. I'm a little puzzled how they could determine whether it was at JFK or not; I doubt it's a mistake in mouse-clicking as both of these were rejected for the same reason.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3129169

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3129172

Appealed.

[adscram14]

I have no idea; agree with the appeals.

[MarkLawrence]

This is becoming a bit of a mission for me - this has been rejected 4 times - each time I have followed the same work flow with saturation, etc - and the last time it was rejected for unlevel horizon - so I find the horizon, and then it gets rejected for this....anything think they can help with this one...please?????

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3135171

[seahawks7757]

The vert stabalizer looks oversharpened as well. Honestly those lime green planes are rough to work with. Especially in high light. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6852368&nseq=8 I was amazed they ever took that one.

[heeshung]

It looks a bit oversaturated. The color also has a greenish tinge; it looks like you shot it through a window. Hopefully you don't mind; here's my edit:

http://horriblephotography.com/albums/Misc/kulula.jpg

[MarkLawrence]

Wow Mark - that is a good edit - yes - it was shot through a window unfortunately - Cape Town no longer has it's open deck - if you can give me an idea what you did to get that - I'll try it on the original!! Thanks!!

[heeshung]

I actually just auto-adjusted color in Photoshop, and then toned down the saturation by about -20.

[jerslice]

This is the second rejection in two weeks that I just don't understand for the life of me:

Motive (clipped the wingtip by a few pixels frame left) / soft:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=t1285041565.1023dpp_3319.jp g or viewed here: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/4969923294_1c5dc811c2_o.jpg

And this one for soft:
http://generalaviationphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=292

[NIKV69]

I just don't understand for the life of me

Pretty straightfoward. The Fedex needs a little more USM and some selective sharpening. Did the screener leave a personal message about the crop? Seems that is an easy fix. Second as well little more USM

[jerslice]

I guess I just disagree with it being soft - to me they seem pretty sharp. I also tend to think that a.net would rather see jaggies than a possible soft line but that's just me.

[Perriwen]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3149871
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3149823

I'm tempted to appeal the second one.

[seahawks7757]

second one is nice.

[NIKV69]

I guess I just disagree with it being soft - to me they seem pretty sharp. I also tend to think that a.net would rather see jaggies than a possible soft line but that's just me.


They don't need much more. The Fedex's titles need sharpening and overall a little more also remember their monitors may not be the same calibaration and your not looking at the same picture. It's always better to go too much then too little I have found. Anet is picky on the sharpness it is what it is.


I'm tempted to appeal the second one.

What is the cropping reject for? What does photo edges mean? I don't see any borders and that shot can be reworked to get in.

[MarkLawrence]

I'm having a problem seeing where it's blurry....can someone help?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3160103

[gonzalu]

Hello,

It is my first post to Airliners.net and while I expected to be rejected (well, just because I feel they just reject all first posts no matter what) I was surprised at some of the observations, not to mention that I had to wait 8 days ;-):

Reject reason: Your photo is of insufficient quality to upload at such a large size - please aim for a finished size of 1024 next time; low in frame quality soft dark centered personal

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20101012_q1286238047.7643ec_dolphin_ac_uscg_rise_m ag8498.jpg

original upload size here
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20101012_q1286238047.7643ec_dolphin_ac_uscg_rise_m ag8498.jpg

-Personal: maybe
-Low in frame: yeah well, crop ratio would suffer if not cropped this way
-Dark: perhaps
-soft: Really? I mean, on my end it looks properly sharp, at least the bird itself.
-Not enough quality for size: Hmmm, oh well, I guess we'll disagree.

What do you all think? :-)

Thanks... try try again!

[moose135]

Manny, if I remember, "Personal" usually means the screener included a personal message in the rejection, check the e-mail you received. It is low in the frame - you cut off the marshaller's feet, but left a lot of empty space above the helicopter. Dark - maybe, would have to check the histogram. And there really isn't any reason to upload at larger than 1024px, and it helps with the quality unless your original is spot on.

[gonzalu]

Thanks Moose... I agree about the cropped feet and the empty space above sure... I guess the one I can't get over is the sharpness/quality one LOL. I can tell you it is sharp (you may be able to tell yourself, maybe I am smoking) in any case, I will surely not give up of course :-)

Thanks for your advise !

[gonzalu]

Centered rejection... why? Clearly the elevators are the reason I centered it that way lol. Also rejected for Grainy. is it really that grainy? Oh well, this is my 5th rejection. I'll NEVER get in hahahahaha. I have seen much worse entries than this one. Also this was a particularly rare entry as there are none like it in the database

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20101028_j1287668492.346dsc_2937-2.jpg

[gonzalu]

Another one bites the dust... I really thought this one would get me in to A.net :-(

http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/Airlinersnet-Rejections/20101106i12884159938317cathy/1080279090_ocj8c-O.jpg

However, another unlikely entry did make it... I'd love to read the minds of the screeners some titmes :-)

[seahawks7757]

What was the reason?

[gonzalu]

Sorry Brandon, didn;t see this until now :-( ... well, they said, NOT CENTERED, GRAINY... but I did not think that sshadow noise would be that big of a deal. I think that was with the D2Xs which is noisier in the shadows, even at ISO 100 ... I think they are taking your pics and zooming in to about 400% to look for details not vvisible at 100% zoom. So you live and learn :-) Now I denoise to the point of plastic.

As for the centering, well, I clearly wanted to show the wingtips. I am not sure about this ever because I feel that if I crop to center the frame, I will get rejected for clipping the wing. No worries, I have a new crop / cleaned version to submit in my next oportunity. Trying to get at least two in so I can have a larger queue. :biggrin:

[gonzalu]

Reasons: Too Much Oversharpened dark contrast personal

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1109316934_sNQsJ-O-0.jpg

The contrast did bother me but oversharpened? hmmm... the other entry did make it through though ;-)

1820573

[MarkLawrence]

I was a little uncertain of this - I didn't think it was dark - comments??

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20101206_l1290995376.0531b772-n772la-kmia-11272010.jpg

[gonzalu]

Mark, it's happened to me. I think the problem is that they look at not just the top of the plane in this pic which is properly exposed but the rest of it looks like, well dull? Is that a good way to put it?

Here, I did a few edits to my taste. Let me know if you like them... if so, I'd be glad to do them for you on your original RAW file and then submit back to you for cropping, metadata whatever and re-submit ... :-)

All I did was tweak the curves a bit to move the histogram more to the middle. Then I played with the overall saturation and specifically boosted the yellows (no, Grass is NOT green) to boost the color of the grass which looked a bit pale (heck, it may look like that in real life, but we want our images to pop!) In a real edit I would also mask the whites out to not contaminate them with the saturation tweaks.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1118659328_SqRrE-O-0.jpg

Your original is at the bottom

[MarkLawrence]

Wow Manny - quite a difference - I'll have a look at the editing and see if I can follow what you did! Thanks a lot!!!

[gonzalu]

I re-submitted the image of the Cathy Cargo above that was rejected and it got approved. I also cleaned it up a bit

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/5/5/1825559.jpg

[MarkLawrence]

Ok - I tried editing it a little more based on Manny's ideas - does this work Manny? Or is it now overexposed?

http://www.tavustheman.com/images/N772LA-03.jpg

[gonzalu]

Mark much better... definitely less dull :-) It does not look overexposed to me. I say give it another whirl ;-)

[gonzalu]

Reason was "Centered" ??? I mean, yeah, I know... that was the whole reason. I figured it was a strong candidate because it was well exposed, it popped and it was sharp! I really have a problem with the centered rejections :mad:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20101208_r1291211604.8436_dsc1274_edit.jpg

[gonzalu]

Reason for this rejection was

Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots

Can someone help me "spot" the dust? I can't see it at all :-(

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1120292961_VxUmS-O.jpg

[eric8669]

Reason for this rejection was

Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots

Can someone help me "spot" the dust? I can't see it at all :-(



http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1120292961_VxUmS-O.jpg


Open up the image in photoshop and duplicate layer then Equalize. if there are are dust spots you will see them.

[gonzalu]

Hey Eic, I know.. .you actually do not need to duplicate it to do so.. .:-) besides I do it a different way to get it which is histogram compression... in any case, that's what I meant, there is nothing I can see... oh well

[gonzalu]

Rejected for color, appealed, rejected for color again :-( They claim a yellow overcast? I know the back of a lot of these United planes are dirty and oily, but is there an overcast?

http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/Airlinersnet-Rejections/APPEAL20101218p1292175149641ma/1131160046_TMxG8-O.jpg

[Cary]

Rejected for color, appealed, rejected for color again :-( They claim a yellow overcast? I know the back of a lot of these United planes are dirty and oily, but is there an overcast?

Just try pushing the color balance from yellow to blue a few steps, or make your WB a little colder if you're shooting RAW.

[JDANDO]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3251245I am surprised this got rejected for sharpness. Where is it not sharp?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/4/2/4/30248_1291469424.jpg

Any insight?

[gonzalu]

Just try pushing the color balance from yellow to blue a few steps, or make your WB a little colder if you're shooting RAW.

Well, the point was I didn't think it had an overcast of any kind.. I always shoot RAW and even when I get it wrong in camera, I usually WB off white surfaces or gray ones and well, in this case, you can test it.. .the whites on my end look white... looked at them in four separate calibrated monitors, including an old Trinitron CRT at work LOL. So ou think / actually see a yellow overcast?

Whats more, this is part of the SAME SET as the Virgin Atlantic that got accepted and SAME WB same exact because I copied it even LOL... oh well. I am not sweating it too much :-)

thanks for your input Cary.

[gonzalu]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3251245I am surprised this got rejected for sharpness. Where is it not sharp?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/4/2/4/30248_1291469424.jpg

Any insight?

Do you have a larger version of it online we can take a look at? hard to tell at this size.

[seahawks7757]

A little bitter about these 2, Dark for the only reason :rolleyes:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5249289453_75ccf88629_o.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5249902412_bc8cf892c9_o.jpg

[Cary]

Well, the point was I didn't think it had an overcast of any kind.. I always shoot RAW and even when I get it wrong in camera, I usually WB off white surfaces or gray ones and well, in this case, you can test it.. .the whites on my end look white... looked at them in four separate calibrated monitors, including an old Trinitron CRT at work LOL. So ou think / actually see a yellow overcast?

Whats more, this is part of the SAME SET as the Virgin Atlantic that got accepted and SAME WB same exact because I copied it even LOL... oh well. I am not sweating it too much :-)

thanks for your input Cary.

I see a tiny bit of yellow cast on my Spyder3Elite-calibrated monitor, but it could just be from the time of day. I've had my issues with A.net over color, but I stopped pursuing it, and instead just change the color to make them happy. The worst is when you see a bunch of other accepted photos that have color anomalies that are most likely due to severe post-processing, and photos from different photographers that are of the same scene, but have completely different color intents (and not just because of Nikon/Canon differences). I never change color/saturation for my airplane photos, other than occasionally doing an Auto Contrast or slight Curves adjust.

[gonzalu]

I see a tiny bit of yellow cast on my Spyder3Elite-calibrated monitor, but it could just be from the time of day. I've had my issues with A.net over color, but I stopped pursuing it, and instead just change the color to make them happy. The worst is when you see a bunch of other accepted photos that have color anomalies that are most likely due to severe post-processing, and photos from different photographers that are of the same scene, but have completely different color intents (and not just because of Nikon/Canon differences). I never change color/saturation for my airplane photos, other than occasionally doing an Auto Contrast or slight Curves adjust.

Same here same here. I think it may be (just maybe) that the one I copied from had the yellows boosted to increase the saturation of the fall grass (which is more yellow than green actualy) BUT, I am puzzled because that SET did not include anything more than 31R arrivals... not much grass there LOL... I use Color Munki lately on my Apple Cinema 30" which is my current new monitor. I actually find it a slightly warm hue to my eyes... I have an HP 30" panel next to it UNCALIBRATED which is slightly cooler and I usually show FULL SCREEN version on left screen and editing controls on Apple Cinema (Lightroom preset) and compare the two.

I will pay more attention but I would like to know what A.NET usues as a mechanical gauge as opposed to subjective analysis as two monitors, even CALIBRATED could look slightly different. I think also maybe my Apple monitor missing brightness contrast controls lacks the brightness I may need to better judge ..

Like you, I HATE messing with HUE and saturation controls and mostly relying on White Balance corrections in RAW module and a slight saturation boost using camera centric VIVID or LANDSCAPE presets...

Guess I have a lot to learn. I am so puzzled by this United 757 because two planes earlier the Virgin 747 was processed identically and I had been copying the settings as the exposures, daylight, time etc. were so close/similar ...

Thanks for your expertise and advice as always.

[gonzalu]

Brandon, the do look dark to me here :-( slightly... try Shadow/Highlight to see a difference... however that's dangerous as it can show up quickly on an Equalize (shows as a halo) and I think A.NET does a zoom to 400% to spot grain, JPEG compression etc and then a Equalize to spot dust, halos etc. as a default action during screening and will reject immediately without further scrutiny ... just too much volume for them to be more relaxed...

[gonzalu]

Rejected for "Blocked Main Gear" and once again, "Yellow Cast" lol. The yellow cast I am thinking I know what's causing it... but the blocked main gear was absolutely on purpose! lol. Are there no shots that play a bit like this in the database?

http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/Airlinersnet-Rejections/20101220z12924617765949mag1083/1132952062_5iuVK-O.jpg

[moose135]

...but the blocked main gear was absolutely on purpose! lol. Are there no shots that play a bit like this in the database?
Sorry, if you want a "creative" shot, you need to do something really "out there", like a photograph of a shadow on a field, or cows maybe...

[gonzalu]

Here they are again as I attempted to visually remove YELLOW casting... but I fear while the United Whites are whiter, there now seems to be a blue cast. And the Southwest looks too red.
REJECT
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/Airlinersnet-Rejections/APPEAL20101218p1292175149641ma/1131160046_TMxG8-O.jpg
CORRECTED
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1133015638_hytcF-L.jpg


REJECT
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/Airlinersnet-Rejections/20101220z12924617765949mag1083/1132952062_5iuVK-O.jpg
CORRECTED
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1133015822_kNf5a-L.jpg

[heeshung]

Here are some quick edits I came up with. For the United shot, I simply used the eyedropper to set the white balance against the white part of the a/c. For the Southwest shot, it looks blatantly oversaturated, to the point that grain came out, especially noticeable in the darker areas of the fuselage. I toned the saturation down for that one, and gave it a pass of Noise Ninja.

http://horriblephotography.com/albums/Misc/mannyreject1-2.jpg

http://horriblephotography.com/albums/Misc/mannyreject2-2.jpg

[gonzalu]

Thanks for all your hep guys and for our valuable advice!!

[NIKV69]

Brandon, the do look dark to me here

They are borderline if they were of a little more of rare airframe they may have a shot on appeal but Manny's advice may get them in.


Same here same here. I think it may be (just maybe) that the one I copied from had the yellows boosted to increase the saturation of the fall grass (which is more yellow than green actualy) BUT, I am puzzled because that SET did not include anything more than 31R arrivals... not much grass there LOL... I use Color Munki lately on my Apple Cinema 30" which is my current new monitor. I actually find it a slightly warm hue to my eyes... I have an HP 30" panel next to it UNCALIBRATED which is slightly cooler and I usually show FULL SCREEN version on left screen and editing controls on Apple Cinema (Lightroom preset) and compare the two

Manny what you set your WB too? I set mine to sunny and warm it just a little maybe -2 at most and I never get any color issues with anet.

[gonzalu]

Guys, I must say I feel totally stupid. I now know why my recent postings were rejected. OMG what a horror... yes, I see it now... wanna know what the problem was? This is embarrassing. I have my ICC profiles set to expire every month.. and I had deleted the old one meaning to install a fresh calibration and must not have done it because today being exactly one month later, I recalibrated and the calibration is usually SLIGHTLY off as expected. This time it was WAAAAY off and it told me I was in trouble! I can;t believe I edited so many photos with the wrong profile (NO PROFILE) installed :-(

Anyhow, thanks again for the help. No wonder my edits on my MacBook Pro came out correctly as opposed to the originals on my main PC. UGH I feel like an ass.

Nick, I usually preset my WB using a white or gray patch somewhere near the shooting location. In the absence of that I usually pick SUNNY for daylight full sun, cloudy for overcast and shade for open shade. What I really want to do is use my Color Checker Passport LOL but I can't find a way to hold it up against a 747 flying past Panera :-) I tried using it from holding it in front of me and apparently the WB at the landing altitude is a lot different than at ground level.