Post Your Recent REJECTIONS! [Archive] - Page 4

gonzalu

2010-12-24, 09:09 AM

Brandon, I have been there many times with far less challenging decisions: SUNSET SHOTS. Do we balance for daylight and correct shade of golden on white bodies or do we balance for a white body? I have lost and won on both counts. I have been rejected for improper WB with both full gold white body under sunset lighting and also rejected for WB for white body under sunset lighting. I have been less sensitive lately given that I have about 1,000,000 shots still to submit LOL.

Your image does sort of have an overall RED GLOW that is why they likely rejected. Perhaps a slightly less glowing red overall will get accepted. I tried below two different versions of yours by simply playing with the levels.

Your Original
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1136093280_dZTTS-L.jpg

Compressed Red Chanel
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1136093255_h74U4-L.jpg

Further compressed REED channel and boosted midtones under BLUE and GREEN channels

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1136093278_zAYVo-L.jpg

The original file may have a lot more latitude. Also feel free to try the PHOTO filters under PSCS and try hints of blue and see what happens.

gonzalu

2010-12-24, 09:11 AM

Also, for controlled shots like these, you may want to add one of these

http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/public/PcPW8ThKp4Bx3tAwu51DObJ8TqD12u60syd1YaZPwzfvgsl3O5 XrydVjk5WU-sKWO4rzvTky_FG-gtmUQxZB7DnQPsDw6rvvyxyBIicaE24lYP0V6BHV--3aPNtG

and see if it looks any different calibrated to it and not.

NIKV69

2010-12-24, 01:02 PM

Good work Manny! Brandon insulting the screeners won't go far in your future with uploading there. As far as they go Gary and Mick are far from idiots and in fact know what they are looking at. I liked the Red in the shot myself but it was flat. Rather than spew the insults you may have a shot at getting the pic in by listening to Manny and stopping the negative energy.

gonzalu

2010-12-24, 01:27 PM

Brandon, you can also MASK the red light from the edits I made to make [it] stay red rather than the bluish it turned when I messed with the channels :-)

seahawks7757

2010-12-25, 06:36 AM

gonzalu

2010-12-25, 10:34 AM

Brandon, no sweat man... it was just another option :-) Anyway I know how you feel ... there are lots of times I wonder about sharpening and even color itself. It is SOOO subjective. I spent about a half hour the other day at HoBe while waiting for 31L departures bored to death, I decided to play around with WB... OMG, I could NOT GET certain colors right no matter what I tried LOL. I used one of the US Parks Dept. signs that are painted a special shade of Teal with two different light/dark tones. I would not get what my eyes saw... no matter what I did.

I too have had soft and oversharpened shots where I wouldn;t know how far to go one way or another. The lack of explanation comes from TIME... they have thousands of entries and not enough time.

Do you have responsibility for managing people at your job? I do and I have to sometimes look through Resumes... I can tell you that A LOT go in the garbage sight unseen for such subtleties as wrong font... I never even look to see if the candidate is strong... it is unfair and it is the way it is... there is simply no time!

Well, I really hope you do not stay off A.net and continue to contribute your fine images... I have been blown away by some of your stuff. And try and enjoy the ones that HAVE and DO get accepted :-)

Merry Christmas

NIKV69

2010-12-25, 11:30 AM

Nikv I will glady have that conversation in pm if you like as I do not want to go see another thread down the tubes for arguing but I respectfully disagree with your post. The site has flaws and that is a reason I prefer sites like Airplane-pictures.net that appreciate stuff like creativity and what not. If I was to get banned from A.Net I would lose no sleep over it as it would just confirm what I already feel and believe about the site. Although thank you for the compliment on the shot

Arguing is fine and in fact productive but you went past that into disrespecting and insulting the screeners which now will be counter productive. Instead of feeling like your being attacked (your not) you should listen to some advice that is being given to you as way to help. Everyone here has been through the "anet is flawed" "Anet does not want creative shots" stuff. If you continue to let this be the mindset your just going to drive yourself nuts. The way you speak it's hard to get an idea of what you are looking for but to still upload to anet a different approach will yield better results. I have seen it work trust me, just as I have seen people poison themselves by alienating themselves with the screeners and not looking at their pictures objectively as you are doing now.

The pics you have posted are indeed top notch but some of the quality is not anet standards. This is not a conspiracy. It's just fact. As stated your cockpit shot had a quality issue. Flat and color. Yet can be fixed. Manny has you on your way and your efforts would pay of big time. Now one could just upload it to airplanepicures and keep cursing anet but long term that will not yield the results your looking for. Your choice.

gonzalu

2010-12-26, 05:18 PM

I am not sure but I can't see any JPG artifacts. If they are there, they must be minor :-( Oh well.. I appealed. Let's see what happens.

http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/JetPhotosnet-Rejections/617721292169727RejectedAppeale/1137795039_RE9UH-O.jpg

JDANDO

2011-01-02, 09:48 AM

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

http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/1S7T2893n729as/1144388265_mYbya-L.jpg

Manny, here is a link to a larger file. I shot RAW and this is converted file, no edits.

I am thinking it suffered a bit from shrinking it down to 1024 wide. Any workflow tips/techniques appreciated.

Big picture (http://jeremyd.smugmug.com/Other/potn/6945879_993JN#1144388450_vcysP-O-LB)

gonzalu

2011-01-04, 04:47 PM

Jeremy,

Thank you for the original. Yes, I see a lot of Chromatic Aberrations... especially on the edges of the image :-( What lens? In any case, This will be a difficult image to get accepted. You absolutely need as sharp and motion-blur-free originals as possible. While you can get away with minor motion blur or even OOF shots, CA is a bitch to hide ... even when resizing. CA also has a huge impact on overall sharpness perception. And remember, sharpness is a perceptive beast as well as physical :-)

The image is also slightly overexposed (at least to my taste) but luckily there is enough data left in the whites with detail...

So I played a bit... workflow:

--Open image, crop and rotate. I used the columns on the building to get as close to horizontal as possible
--Check for dust. Clean up anything that may be considered dust
--Mask the plane. This is my personal taste. I work a bit harder on getting a good clean mask of the plane and then save it as a channel. Never know when you will need it again LOL.
--Levels. I will usually manually set my channel levels. I remove all non existing data from each channel from both the highlights and the shadows side of the histogram. This will also have a side effect of balancing the colors. If they were way off or way close, you can tweak it further with the center eye dropper on the RGB channel. On this image I also moved the midtones slider way down to decrease the brightness in the highlights without loosing detail. Look especially at the node of the plane and also the engine nacelles. You will see extra details there
--Resize to 1024, BiCubic
--Layer Copy
--Sharpen, USM, 200,0.2,0. Three times for this image which is overkill for the entire image...
--Mask the areas that need less sharpening from those areas that need it more. In your case, I masked the buildings and runways about 50% and then 75% of the titles... I left the nose and tail at 100% USM.

Let me know what you think... again, this is VERY SUBJECTIVE! There is no one way or perfect way.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1146915702_P7LsB-O.jpg

Your original resized to 1024 for comparison

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1146929130_9fvep-O.jpg

gonzalu

2011-01-04, 04:49 PM

I also wanted to point out there was NO color balancing other than via levels and also no saturation edits or even brightness and contrast. All I did was via the LEVELS controls. If I had the RAW file I may do some more with highlight protection and shadow boost but again, that's to my taste. I don't like SUPER CONTRASTY images. I like some detail in the shadows to show through :-)

gonzalu

2011-01-04, 04:54 PM

One more bit of personal opinion. I really think a 1024px image is A LOT MORE challenging than output at 1600px edit. You have more room at 1600 to show off details without resorting to trickery and without oversharpening. The border between SOFT|SHARP|OVER on 1024 is a lot narrower than at 1600px... I like 1200-1400 as a happy medium. I hate when I am restricted to 1024. ;-)

JDANDO

2011-01-04, 08:06 PM

Jeremy,

Thank you for the original. Yes, I see a lot of Chromatic Aberrations... especially on the edges of the image :-( What lens? In any case, This will be a difficult image to get accepted. You absolutely need as sharp and motion-blur-free originals as possible. While you can get away with minor motion blur or even OOF shots, CA is a bitch to hide ... even when resizing. CA also has a huge impact on overall sharpness perception. And remember, sharpness is a perceptive beast as well as physical :-)

The image is also slightly overexposed (at least to my taste) but luckily there is enough data left in the whites with detail...

So I played a bit... workflow:

--Open image, crop and rotate. I used the columns on the building to get as close to horizontal as possible
--Check for dust. Clean up anything that may be considered dust
--Mask the plane. This is my personal taste. I work a bit harder on getting a good clean mask of the plane and then save it as a channel. Never know when you will need it again LOL.
--Levels. I will usually manually set my channel levels. I remove all non existing data from each channel from both the highlights and the shadows side of the histogram. This will also have a side effect of balancing the colors. If they were way off or way close, you can tweak it further with the center eye dropper on the RGB channel. On this image I also moved the midtones slider way down to decrease the brightness in the highlights without loosing detail. Look especially at the node of the plane and also the engine nacelles. You will see extra details there
--Resize to 1024, BiCubic
--Layer Copy
--Sharpen, USM, 200,0.2,0. Three times for this image which is overkill for the entire image...
--Mask the areas that need less sharpening from those areas that need it more. In your case, I masked the buildings and runways about 50% and then 75% of the titles... I left the nose and tail at 100% USM.

Let me know what you think... again, this is VERY SUBJECTIVE! There is no one way or perfect way.

Your original resized to 1024 for comparison

Hi Manny;

Thanks for the edit and comments! This was shot with the Canon 100-400mm around mid-day in Arizona. I agree with the overexposure comment, I think I was in a + 1/3-2/3 mode that day. Can you explain the chromatic aberration comment? I am not sure I see it.

My typical sharpening routine is select the plane with the "magic wand", hit it with 2-4 times of USM 100, .2 radius, 5 and then deselect and hit the entire image 2-3x.

One more bit of personal opinion. I really think a 1024px image is A LOT MORE challenging than output at 1600px edit. You have more room at 1600 to show off details without resorting to trickery and without oversharpening. The border between SOFT|SHARP|OVER on 1024 is a lot narrower than at 1600px... I like 1200-1400 as a happy medium. I hate when I am restricted to 1024. ;-)

I agree 100%, I think I have more troubles with 1024 than 1200-1400. I had a bad spell in November and got a ton of rejects when my monitor was going out. :frown:

gonzalu

2011-01-04, 10:42 PM

Jeremy,

From what I see in your image (the large version you linked) the cockpit area looks to have serious CA. Here is a set of 100% crops:

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1147202092_hNwVS-O.jpg

Cockpit is easily seen... the right of the cockpit, take a look at the tug. The driver's leg shows it, the wheel also shows blue/red shift which is typically CA. On the oher hand, the cockpit windows are likely showing lens flaring... or registration errors... meaning some of the color channels were not properly rendered by the CCD/CMOS as the lens did not bring it to the proper focus (it is hard for me to explain this stuff... others are better at it :-) like Wikipedia or Cambridge in Colour)

Look at the left side, the areas I highlighted show CA (red/purple/blue shifting)

You may have to ZOOM IN to about 500% to make it more obvious.

As far as sharpening, you may be killing yourself with the 100,0.2,0 setting as NO TWO IMAGES require the same sharpening setting. I usually will end up with 5 layers and each with different sharpen setting if needed and then mask the rest. Some areas with super fine detail benefit from super small USM settings while others can benefit more from higher settings.

50,0.5,0 will work VERY WELL on larger areas of contrast with a single pass. Depending on how much small/medium/large detail there is, you should use lower/higher as needed.

The best way in my opinion, but it is more time consuming and even more obnscure to some :-) is using a find edges process and sharpening that. This has a way to AUTOMAGICALLY finding areas that need more and areas that need less sharpening in a dynamic way dictated by the image itself.

gonzalu

2011-01-04, 10:50 PM

I have been really troubled by this lately on JetPhotos.net. I have a lot of rejections of "JPG Aritfacts" and I can;t imagine how they arrive at these conclusions. My workflow for the following images is absolutely the same and the end result which is the final output to JPG is using PSCS5 JPG 12 and I can;t see how JPG artifacts would be there. I can;t see them :-( Are they solely basing the decision on image size? I say this because the ONLY TIME I appealed it, the head screener got really angry and said with a file size such as the one submitted, there HAS to be JPG artifacts. :-( Any help would be appreciated. I am not sure how else to make the artifacts (if indeed there) go away as I have no higher setting for the JPG output module ??? thanks all.

These have been resized by the vBulletin theme visually. The image itself is the full size from JP.net so feel free to right-click and view image or download to view on your PC using an editor of choice

http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/JetPhotosnet-Rejections/903241293502630/1147165157_SwpEM-O.jpg

http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/JetPhotosnet-Rejections/411411293429448/1147165166_e8iQg-O.jpg

I've posted this one before ...
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Spotting/JetPhotosnet-Rejections/617721292169727RejectedAppeale/1137795039_RE9UH-O.jpg

seahawks7757

2011-01-05, 12:38 AM

I honestly don't understand what the heck JPG Artifacts is.

gonzalu

2011-01-05, 02:18 AM

Well, I totally know and understand what it is, so that's why I am puzzled I got rejected on these for that reason. I don't see artifacts even at high magnification. The Evergreen I can see a bit of it at 500% magnification. Here is a good writeup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

gonzalu

2011-01-05, 08:58 PM

Brandon, congrats :-) JP.net liked it

7015908

seahawks7757

2011-01-06, 06:27 AM

Yep! Was about to post that lol

gonzalu

2011-01-06, 08:53 AM

Sorry for stealing your thunder. When I saw it I immediately recognized it LOL

seahawks7757

2011-01-07, 06:51 AM

Ah it is all good.

JDANDO

2011-01-07, 07:15 PM

this one had multiple issues :(

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3273158

Any clue on how I hosed up categories and location.

adscram14

2011-01-14, 11:30 PM

For cropping??
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3287946

seahawks7757

2011-01-15, 06:26 AM

I would agree, not centered would have been more appropriate in my opinion though for that rejection.

heeshung

2011-01-15, 12:55 PM

That's size ratio. For JP it has to either be 3:2 or 4:3.

gonzalu

2011-01-15, 01:42 PM

The EDGES I think has to do with balance...

--Your wheels should either be touching the bottom edge or the rear vertical stabilizer has to be equi-distant from the top border as the bottom wheels.

--The right engine is much further from the frame than the left engine...

Here are two optional crops

3x2

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1157350991_XDQAQ-O.jpg

4x3

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1157351007_vpEzv-O.jpg

Roush6NY

2011-01-18, 02:13 PM

Got 2, back 2 back Rejections today on Jetphotos, both for the same reason: - Cropping / Photo edges / Size Ratio

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5346492277_7481d5cc19_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5347197520_3f4b24e515_b.jpg

gonzalu

2011-01-18, 04:10 PM

Kaz,

Your aspect ratio is wrong... here is an example of the two accepted ratios

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1160905232_YW2DA-O.jpg

For A.net and J.net, you can;t just crop to your taste, it should always be a 4:3 or 3:2 ratio.

Cheers!

Roush6NY

2011-01-18, 04:56 PM

Gotcha , I was pretty confused about that, I'm saying to my self I did crop them pretty tight!

Thanks as always for your help pal

Zee71

2011-01-18, 05:09 PM

When cropping it should be pretty easy enough to set. Don't use free cropping. I always try to crop at 3:2 and when cropping make sure your image is centered and watch the edges.

gonzalu

2011-01-18, 05:25 PM

Another option is to simply SELECT THE ENTIRE IMAGE with the Lasso Tool (don't use crop tool in Photoshop if you don't know how to use it :-) and then change the dimensions of the selection while holding the SHIFT KEY (which constrains the aspect ratio) or the shift key AND the alt key at the same time. The ALT key is a modifier to the first way which CENTERS your modification. Let me put together a quick video... brb

Zee71

2011-01-18, 06:47 PM

Manny......you should be a screener.

gonzalu

2011-01-18, 07:01 PM

View this in HD... Note that I prefer the Crop Tool (unlike what I said above) because it is much more powerful But it can get you int trouble if you define your own dimensions etc. It will resize your image if you're not careful instead of cropping it. So, let me know if you like it. Remember the SHIFT or SHIFT [and] ALT while moving the control points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkZTgwlUUb4

gonzalu

2011-01-18, 07:05 PM

Nah, I would suck at it I think... Maybe when I have 2500 images in the database, then I would have enough experience LOL. Although I do love to help :-)

Roush6NY

2011-01-18, 07:20 PM

You are the best Manny !

JDANDO

2011-01-22, 08:13 AM

Well here is another one for the personal collection. It is frustrating, because I think it is a good shot.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3297181

Any insight on "motive"

lijk604

2011-01-22, 12:19 PM

Jeremy, My guess would be the fence. It's rather noticeable and distracting.

gonzalu

2011-01-23, 11:42 PM

Thanks Kaz for the kudos... Jeremy, maybe if you had the tower in the shot... but to them, the AWOS is likely not good enough motive and yes perhaps also the fence :frown:

Roush6NY

2011-01-24, 12:22 PM

Manny, i re submitted 3 of them with the way you showed me, lest see !

Zee71

2011-01-24, 10:32 PM

I'm not sure what they mean by "bad motive".

gonzalu

2011-01-24, 11:12 PM

Zee,

Motive on both A.net and JP.net means the same thing or close to the same. It means the MOTIVATION of the shot is unclear or poor to their eyes/opinion and it can be a broad brush. Generally any or all of:

--ANY objects blocking ANY part of the plane... even the slightest... For example, the slight shrub that may block an engine of a plane on 4L taxiing into position from Bayswater. If the fence touches ANY part of the plane. Any ramp warts... stairs, tugs, cargo bins, etc.

--Poor crop or not motivational crop. If the crop takes away from the COI of the image. If the image is unbalanced or otherwise, motive is unclear. Say you crop a bit of the engines, or one horizontal stabilizer but not the other, etc. These rules will sometimes be forgiven if the WHOLE image is balanced. Always think symmetry ... I always try to keep my plane withing an imaginary box that's perfectly centered. If the whole thing is not centered, don;t crop indiscriminately ... always keep in mind either horizontal or vertical balance.

--Two competing subjects and no clear winner. Say you have half a nose from one plane and 3/4s of another in the same frame. Which one is it? Motive rejection.

There are more but those are the big ones.

mattdueck

2011-02-03, 09:24 PM

Hey everyone, I havent posted in quite sometime. I just got a rejection (here is the link http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3313161). As you will see underexposed and soft (unsharpened). I would like to know what everyone thinks and get some insight so as to improve my editing skills.

Thanks,
Matt

gonzalu

2011-02-04, 01:32 AM

Hey Matt,

Here is my take on it... definitely soft and slightly underexposed... You should take a look at the LEVELS and use the histogram to lead you in the right direction. In your case, there was a bit of data missing from the highlight side of the house :-)

Here is a before and after and below that a re-work I did quickly ... I also sharpened it up a bit.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1177035281_jkkVU-O.jpg

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1177035293_kFZPq-O.jpg

If it is TOO MUCH for you, just step it back a bit. After I adjusted the levels, I applied a slight midtone boost via a curves adjustment. I will update this post here with screenshots of the settings...

The levels before, and after...

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1177046357_wSD7m-O.jpg

gonzalu

2011-02-04, 01:43 AM

BTW sharpening was a simple two pass of USM at 200,0.2,0

JDANDO

2011-02-04, 09:00 AM

Nice work Manny. I appreciate the side-by-side shots to see the affect of the edit.

mattdueck

2011-02-04, 08:56 PM

Thanks for the advice and the visuals and how you edited. I am always scared of pulling the marker on the highlights side of the levels all the way to where the data on the histogram begins because I think it would create a overexposure on the airplane itself. I got another picture approved today on jetphotos.net.

Delta777LR

2011-02-11, 02:10 PM

Does anyone see where these are very grainy??

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110211_g1296672550_4999img_5548.jpg
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110211_g1296673994_7434img_5570.jpg
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110211_s1296666123_5295img_5459.jpg
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110211_p1296675037_9251img_5568.jpg
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110211_v1296675349_9025img_5572.jpg

Shamu737

2011-02-11, 03:06 PM

Oh, this is sad. I don't see any grain... Butt these are Beauitful pictures.

Delta777LR

2011-02-11, 03:22 PM

Yeah but theres always a possibility.. Thats what the rejection is about.. Maybe NickV or Manny might be able to see what the problem is..

JDANDO

2011-02-11, 07:14 PM

Not seeing the grain on my laptop. But then again this monitor is :rolleyes:

From JFK I assume?

Delta777LR

2011-02-11, 08:16 PM

Not seeing the grain on my laptop. But then again this monitor is :rolleyes:

From JFK I assume?

Yes this was at JFK.. But still I don't see how they are very grainy..

NIKV69

2011-02-12, 10:24 PM

Not seeing much grain but all are very soft and I don't like te contrast on the DL747. What settings you using?

Delta777LR

2011-02-12, 10:53 PM

then why is it im being said that they were very grainy?

gonzalu

2011-02-13, 12:08 AM

Sergio, sadly, yes, there is a lot of noise in these images and it is visible. I believe you overcompensated for underexposure :-( I am more than happy to help if you allow me... feel free to post an original here or send me one via E-mail and I will edit for you to A.net standards...

I blew up two of the ones above to show the noise and also equalized to show the amplification effect of compensating for underexposure.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689289_bpdRs-O.jpg

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689293_zkqZy-O.jpg

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689331_NAGeb-O.jpg

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185689358_uStJo-O.jpg

Nick is also right about the softness...

My E-mail if you want to let me give it a shot, is in my profile... or manny (at) manny (dot) org :-)

gonzalu

2011-02-13, 12:17 AM

I tried to salvage the first image to my taste color balance wise and contrast wise... and also reduce noise to a more tolerable level.. note the difference in the equalized image.

First, your original above for comparison

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110211_g1296672550_4999img_5548.jpg

and a simple color balance using levels in Photoshop.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185700372_7M5CE-O.jpg

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1185700403_C9beQ-O.jpg

Delta777LR

2011-02-13, 10:47 AM

Thanks for the help Manny!! PM me your email when you can.. I still got some originals..

NIKV69

2011-02-13, 11:19 AM

Sergio check your settings because you can save a ton of time editing by just getting better captures with the right settings. It looks like you have your ISO high and your shutter fast which will give you these grainy, noisy, flat shots. On days with good light your caqptures should only need a level, crop, clean the dust spots and maybe a slight boost of color before USM.

Delta777LR

2011-02-13, 04:19 PM

moose135

2011-02-13, 09:24 PM

If it's a typical sunny day, I always use ISO 100. With the aperture around f/7.1, that will give me shutter speeds in the 1/400 - 1/800 range, more than enough for capturing airliners. At worst, I'll bump it to ISO 200. You don't need to be at ISO 640. And I don't like to use intermediate ISO values either - I still with "standard" values (100, 200, 400, 800, etc.) From what I've read, using values between those, the camera has to extrapolate the value, and can result in more noise than a higher, standard value.

gonzalu

2011-02-14, 09:35 AM

Moose is right about the intermediate ISO settings... but only on SOME cameras... not all use the same technology for boosting ISO. Some cameras do amplification post ADC and some do it in the actual sensor itself. This needs lots of research from you in terms of your camera and how it does the amplification. In the end, the camera is simply mathematically amplifying the signal readout of the sensor... the sensor's NATIVE sensitivity is base ISO. For most cameras today it is either ISO 100 or ISO 200. Same with WB... if you much outside of Daylight too much, you;re compensating by boosting the BLUE or RED channel signal data which will increase noise etc. etc.

If you can shoot at base ISO, always do so... never let the camera amplify anything mathematically LOL. It is a great computer but it can't yet invent photons :tongue:

Summer days will be worse as the noise in the wells will be already amplified by heat. COLD days will be better for high ISO shots but likely indiscernable by eyesight alone and usually only measurable in a lab.

Bottom line, stick to base ISO. On a fully sunny day, I get 1/1000 to 1/1250 sec at ISO 200, f/7.1 which is good enough to handhold my very heavy lens with VR off... on my 70-200m f/2.8, I can get sharp shots all the way down to 1/250sec with VR on.

Also, don;t use post processing or "D-Lighting" to compensate for harsh contrast. A harsh contrast day is actually natural and bellies are expected to be underexposed... unless the planes are very close to the ground or there is a lot of snow on the ground, this is inevitable especially in NY ... in Las Vegas and LA, they enjoy natural bounce cards! Al lthat sand laying around is great for bounce light :cool:

Delta777LR

2011-02-14, 12:54 PM

thanks for all the help guys..

gonzalu

2011-02-14, 01:16 PM

Sergio... my E-mail is posted at the end of the my first response... but here you go again (it is also on my profile I think)

manny (at) manny (dot) org

steve1840

2011-02-25, 09:34 PM

I just had these rejected on JP.net:

This one they said was blurry:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335404

Is there anyway I can fix these for "backlit"? I'm thinking that maybe being backlit I never should have tried to submit them.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335396
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335393
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3335383

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

gonzalu

2011-02-25, 10:06 PM

Steve, just give up on the backlit images on the DBs... keep em for your collection as they are nice images. Backlit is backlit, can;t be "fixed" ... it can be made to look good but never like a front lit image unless you properly expose for the unlit side of the image which is typically 2 to 3 stops over the normal exposre for the other side.

In the case of the Habitat, it is very soft :-( here is my take on it from your JPG. Of course the original would look much better. Let me know if you want me to help edit it.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1198642233_cMjmQ-O.jpg

and your version for comparison

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/3/3/9/55319_1297652933.jpg

mattdueck

2011-02-25, 10:11 PM

Hi Steve,

I am no pro like Manny but from my first look at your images, the first one to me looks soft and slightly underexposed. There is no way I have found to fix a backlit photo. The fact that the sun is behind and thats the light source then there is no magic way to turn the sun to where you need it. My two cents.

Matt

gonzalu

2011-02-25, 10:20 PM

Hi Steve,

I am no pro like Manny but from my first look at your images,

Matt, I am more of a wannabe hack :tongue: lol ... I am humbled by your kind words ... thank you sir :cool:

steve1840

2011-02-25, 10:23 PM

Thanks Manny. I appreciate your compliment on the images that are backlit. I didn't think there would be any way to correct for backlit. So from now on any backlit shots I take I will keep them only for my private collection. As for the Habitat, I would definitely appreciate your help editing that one if you think it does have a chance of getting accepted with a little work. Your take on it looks much better.

gonzalu

2011-02-26, 01:06 AM

Steve, no problem. Send me an original RAW if you have it or a JPG. I will do my best on it and send it back for your perusal.

manny (at) manny (dot) org

RomNYC

2011-02-26, 01:35 AM

Yes Steve, your backlit images are actually fantastic... they're just backlit :frown:

Besides that, they look awesome! Keep up the good work :cool:

steve1840

2011-02-26, 08:44 AM

Manny - Thanks, I will send you the original jpeg when I get home from work this afternoon. Damn OT. Well, at least I can get the battery grip I've been after and a new set of ink ($100) for my photo printer with the OT pay!

Rom - Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm starting to get the hang of it. Just need good light next time. Wish I could get non-backlit shots from the mounds of 22L arrivals in the morning/early afternoon. Oh well, guess when they are using the 22's at that time of the day I will have to just settle for keeping those pics for my self.

Zee71

2011-02-26, 09:12 AM

I submitted these two photo's and they got rejected because of back lite issues (what do you expect the sun was just rising, but I thought they would work well).

http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airplanes-and-Spotting/LAX-06Jul2010/AsianaAirlines03LAX05Nov2010/1082161340_SuJDW-L.jpg

http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airplanes-and-Spotting/LAX-06Jul2010/Qantas02LAX05Nov2010/1082180204_TMEio-L.jpg

NIKV69

2011-02-26, 09:58 AM

Steve the Habitat IMO can't be saved. Manny did an great job but it's got slight blur all over. As for the backlit shots, not much you can do.

gonzalu

2011-02-26, 10:02 AM

Mark, the first one COULD work depending on the screener you draw. The second one, IMO just won't make it in ...

Nathan McGrew

2011-02-27, 05:15 PM

Hi guys, joined this forum after getting multiple rejections from that other website. Thought I'd share.

All images shot using a Canon XSi and a Sigma 150-500 OS.

340mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 400
Reject reason: quality soft contrast editing.
I admit it's a bit noisy around the wings, but that's all I can see wrong with it. Won't appeal, but might re-edit a little more carefully.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110227_g1298137944.4396airliners747-8f2.jpg

164mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200
Reject reason: distance
I see nothing wrong with this one at all. Might appeal, but I'm getting tired of being rejected.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110227_p1298138277.2294airlinerswedgetail.jpg

370mm, F/11, 1/200, ISO 200
Reject reason: quality. And a personal note, "Heat haze kills quality".
I appealed because the heat haze from a fighter jet is kind of the point. Especially in this shot! Got this from the head screener.
Reject reason: quality bad personal centered soft
Whatever.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20110219_y1297397976.3237img_9001.jpg

500mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 200
Reject reason: heat haze kills quality quality
What heat haze? I decided to not appeal this one because it's fairly clear that it's pretty soft.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110219_y1297399062.7946final.jpg

Cary

2011-02-27, 06:19 PM

Welcome, Nathan!

There is quite a bit of artifacting in the first picture, which is mostly apparent around the landing gear. What quality are you saving your JPG as? If you re-edit, I'd suggest resizing to smaller photo dimensions, and sharpening a tad more.

The second picture is nice. Distance just means to crop more closely.

Third picture is a tiny bit soft (try a little more sharpening). I suspect their problem with the heat haze is how it's distorting the intakes and wings a bit. If you get a different screener the next time around, they might take it...who knows.

Fourth picture is slightly soft/out of focus and possibly unsalvageable. It don't think it's necessarily the heat haze that's causing it, though.

Don't get discouraged by the rejections...A.net is pretty picky, and sometimes a little inconsistent depending on who screens your photo. For any of the reject reasons you don't understand, just go to A.net's guide and you should be able to figure out how to fix the problem (if it's fixable): http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php Good luck!

Hi guys, joined this forum after getting multiple rejections from that other website. Thought I'd share.

All images shot using a Canon XSi and a Sigma 150-500 OS.

340mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 400
Reject reason: quality soft contrast editing.
I admit it's a bit noisy around the wings, but that's all I can see wrong with it. Won't appeal, but might re-edit a little more carefully.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110227_g1298137944.4396airliners747-8f2.jpg

164mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200
Reject reason: distance
I see nothing wrong with this one at all. Might appeal, but I'm getting tired of being rejected.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110227_p1298138277.2294airlinerswedgetail.jpg

370mm, F/11, 1/200, ISO 200
Reject reason: quality. And a personal note, "Heat haze kills quality".
I appealed because the heat haze from a fighter jet is kind of the point. Especially in this shot! Got this from the head screener.
Reject reason: quality bad personal centered soft
Whatever.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20110219_y1297397976.3237img_9001.jpg

500mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 200
Reject reason: heat haze kills quality quality
What heat haze? I decided to not appeal this one because it's fairly clear that it's pretty soft.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110219_y1297399062.7946final.jpg

Joe

2011-03-04, 09:12 PM

Hello Guys,
I uploaded my first shot to Airliners.net and of course it got rejected. Here is a ink to the shot:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=b1298474966.8889joeogden496 9.jpg

Reasons for rejection were grainy and soft. They also said my registration info was incorrect plus the fact that I put Quonset instead of Westfield.

I'll try again another day.
Joe

gonzalu

2011-03-05, 01:31 AM

Joe, NICE SHOT... I must have been a few feet away from you ;-) I got about 100 shots just like it from that show last year.

OK, so unfortunately, this is a private regi. The military markings are fake (well, sort of) it is in private ownership and the real regi is "N2011V" .. as for the airport, it should have been Barnes/Westfield (KBAF), NOT Quonset Point which is actually in Rhode Island... what were you thinking :confused: :cool:

The image looks sharp on first glance but if you look closely, it is a bit soft by A.net standards and they are SUPER HIGH... don;t worry, with a little tweak to your workflow, she should be able to make it in as it is a great shot.

wunaladreamin

2011-03-06, 11:03 AM

Adding to what Manny has already pointed out, when sharpening, use your select tools and only sharpen the plane! The effort taken in that alone will spare you from the extra noise generated throughout the whole frame. Also, sharpen in layers. That way you can erase and smooth out any jaggies created. It is a cracking shot Joe, and with a retweeking, is sure to make it in.

gonzalu

2011-03-06, 12:55 PM

Good point Kenny... DO NOT SHARPEN THE WHOLE IMAGE ever is my rule. However, some technical knowledge of how sharpening algorithms work, can lead to better technical results. For example, when you USM, there is no need for masking. All other sharpening tools may be brute force but not un-sharp mask.

While I would definitely do it on a separate layer, I do not mask the sky for instance. USM has a slider called a Threshold... this is the mask portion of the name. It allows you to control what areas of the image get sharpening calculated and which do not. The larger the mask, the greater the area calculated in finding contrast differences to "sharpen" against. Skies are seldom devoid of sensor induced noise. NO MATTER how clean the sensor or how low the ISO, you;re bound to find noise. But if it's very low noise, the contrast differences between those pixels is so minute, the simplest mask will completely exclude them from the calculation ... in most cases you can even leave your threshold at zero and it would not affect the sky in any considerable manner.

I always show people how to zoom in to the maximum zoom level while adjusting the settings and watching how one step up or down changes the effect in the preview. As I like to say "It is Therapeutic"

Joe

2011-03-06, 10:14 PM

Thanks for the tips guys, I will try to play with it again when I get the chance. Also, thanks for the info on the regi, as for the airport, I did several air shows last year and realized after I sent it in that I had the wrong airport.:confused:

JDANDO

2011-03-09, 07:15 PM

Hey guys;

Any clue what level could be on this shot? It apparently is not what I thought it was :(

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/1/4/9/7/93979_1298599794.jpg

thanks

adscram14

2011-03-09, 07:30 PM

Try leveling on the parking garage in the background.
Edit: or whatever that brick structure may be lol.

gonzalu

2011-03-09, 08:04 PM

Jeremy, it could probably use .02 degrees more but here it is with 1.15deg CCW rotation

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1211355163_49iXu-O.jpg

JDANDO

2011-03-09, 09:49 PM

Thanks Manny. That does look better.

Nathan McGrew

2011-03-10, 01:04 AM

Passed first screen.

Rejected second screen.

Reason: Low in frame, dark.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110309_p1298951054.8384wedgetail.jpg

Nathan McGrew

2011-03-10, 01:43 AM

I centered it and brightened it. What do you think?

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/wedgetail-2.jpg

Also started from scratch and used a different white balance color tone. Not sure I'm in love with it.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/IMG_8784c.jpg

RomNYC

2011-03-10, 01:46 AM

I can see the low in frame with my novice eyes, try to fix this slightly (if you can, I don't know how the original is). Dark, hmm, maybe I guess.

It should be a fixable shot as it looks stunning to me, no matter what!

RomNYC

2011-03-10, 01:47 AM

Love that second "from scratch" edit! But feels a little oversharpened to me (look at the titles).

Nathan McGrew

2011-03-10, 01:58 AM

I did a couple of different levels of sharpening to see what looked best in the saved JPEG. That one was the most sharpened. This one is middle of the road.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/EarthonFirePhotography/Others/IMG_8784b.jpg

seahawks7757

2011-03-13, 07:29 AM

Looks better center wise but now the sky looks weird and over sharpened.

gonzalu

2011-03-13, 10:43 AM

Nathan, if you care, I'd love to get a crack at the original and see what I can do with it for you :-) You should be able to get it accepted as it is a fine image. I am betting the rejection(s) are strictly re: processing, not the image :biggrin: If you wish, my e-mail is manny (at) manny (dot) org

nssd70

2011-03-15, 08:33 PM

I've been geting alot of Dark rejections lately,and I was hoping to get some help on what I need to do to fix the problem,other than waiting for a sunny day!:smile:

Doug

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110315_p1299457494.9197n836rp.jpg

gonzalu

2011-03-15, 09:20 PM

Hi Doug,

I think that had this been on Jet Photos, it may have made it... it is not that much off. That being said, it is a bit on the dull side and that is because the histogram has bit of missing data towards the highlights end of the house.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1217773253_qbvRt-O.jpg

Now, we can easily correct this by re-distributing the data so that the current highest level data moves a bit further to the right thereby gaining a bit of amplification and ultimately the image becomes brighter.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1217773285_GWYGb-O.jpg

However for my taste, it is still a bit dull because of the lack of contrast due to the poor weather... I like using Curves better than Levels. Curves lets you act on different parts of the image independently. Levels works on ALL data evenly (unless you're working on individual channels, and even there, it is a global type of adjustment)

Here is what curves I would apply to enhance not only the highlights and midtones, but also cut back the shadow areas and increase overall contrast.

You may ask yourself, why not just use the easy contrast control? Well, you can not select the mid point and how much to shadow and how much to highlight... Contrast is an even split, equally opposing :-)

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1217773290_ky2GT-O.jpg

Given more time, you could do some selective layer masking and control your different areas differently ... for example, the UPS trucks in the BG are now a bit too dark for my taste ... so I would correct that on a separate layer and mask it to blend in naturally

Hope you like my attempt :-)

nssd70

2011-03-15, 10:25 PM

Thanks Manny,I'll give it a shot. I was only using the contrast,and it wasn't working.

Doug

gonzalu

2011-03-15, 11:27 PM

I usually measure the whites on the TOP of the plane, or the most exposed part to the sun or the clouds on a cloudy day, and if the level is not at least 245-250, I keep cranking :cool:

However, if it is over 255 in RAW, or 100% in Lightroom (I don't know why they measure it differently, but I digress) WITHOUT any compensation, it is likely blown beyond repair. Especially if it is a JPG.

Setting the Black Point and White Point will usually yield a remarkably contrasty image, but yet it can help show you the POTENTIAL for the image... I use that trick sometimes to see how far I can go with the other control. Rarely does setting the points yield an acceptable image for screeners at the top two DBs. Artistically it can be a dynamic image.

TallDutch

2011-03-24, 01:15 PM

Accepted on A.net
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Transavia-Airlines/Sud-SE-210-Caravelle/1879257/L/

rejected on JP..:confused:

moose135

2011-03-24, 01:26 PM

Same thing happened to me recently, Joop. If anything, I would have expected it to be the other way around. What was the reason for the JP rejection?

Cary

2011-03-24, 01:55 PM

Same thing happened to me recently, Joop. If anything, I would have expected it to be the other way around. What was the reason for the JP rejection?

I would venture to guess that it's the left side of the photo looking soft/blurry - maybe just from the edge of the lens. I've had a few JP.net rejects that were first accepted on A.net, too. In one case, it was completely justified because A.net missed a faint speck of sensor dust, that JP.net caught.

TallDutch

2011-03-24, 04:11 PM

I would venture to guess that it's the left side of the photo looking soft/blurry - maybe just from the edge of the lens. I've had a few JP.net rejects that were first accepted on A.net, too. In one case, it was completely justified because A.net missed a faint speck of sensor dust, that JP.net caught.

Indeed it was rejected because of blur. but what annoys me is that initially it was rejected because I didn't tick the category 'warbird/vintage' as the cockpit is in a museum.
Now, after reuploading they come with 'blurry'. I've had it a zillion times that after the second or maybe the third upload of the same pic (including adjustments of course) they end up with different reasons for rejections each time.
And of course, the vintage category I should havbe selected but I had initial rejections for unlevel, 2nd time blurry and 3rd time overexposed..

NIKV69

2011-03-24, 04:44 PM

Indeed it was rejected because of blur. but what annoys me is that initially it was rejected because I didn't tick the category 'warbird/vintage' as the cockpit is in a museum.
Now, after reuploading they come with 'blurry'. I've had it a zillion times that after the second or maybe the third upload of the same pic (including adjustments of course) they end up with different reasons for rejections each time.
And of course, the vintage category I should havbe selected but I had initial rejections for unlevel, 2nd time blurry and 3rd time overexposed..

It is not done with pissing people off in mind. Remember how many pictures these guys are screening. They always check info first and go from there. If info is wrong and warrants a reject they cease screening at that point.

moose135

2011-03-24, 04:58 PM

It is not done with pissing people off in mind. Remember how many pictures these guys are screening. They always check info first and go from there. If info is wrong and warrants a reject they cease screening at that point.
True, but how much time would be saved if they fully screened the photo, rather than a quick rejection, followed by several more runs through the queue? If I get an "info" rejection, and realize I forgot to check a box when uploading, I'm not going to take another look at the photo, I'm going to simply resubmit it unchanged, save for the correct info. Then, a week and a half later I get a "level" rejection, so I fix the 0.02 degrees that it is off and resubmit again, only to get a rejection for a dust spot you can't see when you look at the photo....and so on, and so on....

NIKV69

2011-03-24, 05:16 PM

If I get an "info" rejection, and realize I forgot to check a box when uploading, I'm not going to take another look at the photo, I'm going to simply resubmit it unchanged, save for the correct info. Then, a week and a half later I get a "level" rejection, so I fix the 0.02 degrees that it is off and resubmit again, only to get a rejection for a dust spot you can't see when you look at the photo....and so on, and so on....

John let's be real here. If you (not saying you but in general) are submitting pics that are not level and are dirty with sensor dust your problems are way more than how anet handles it info rejections. Fact is most info rejections are of pics that are fine otherwise and only need to be resubmitted with proper category. Let us not tie in shots that have major flaws too. Is the system used now a pain in the rear end? Sure but I think anet does it to save the 3-4 minutes to go on to another photo which over the long haul saves a bunch of time in the screening process. One can make arguments that the screener could fix the category or that when we resubmit a pic with just info reject it gets priority but it seems this is the way they will always do it and one should prescreen and edit more aggressively.

Cary

2011-03-27, 12:21 PM

Don't really get this one...got rejected for "centered" with personal note "high in frame":

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20110326_c1300513746.641caryliao_1103171604 _mg_3380.jpg

I appealed, saying the fuselage at the center was almost equidistant (360px to top, 362px to bottom), and the head screener rejected it again, saying "You are ignoring the winglet and fon, it is high".

I've never had a photo where the winglet was a factor in centering, even when it looks higher than the tail, and other people have centered using the fuselage and been accepted (all accepted in the past 2 months):

1880991
1877994
1865524

Any suggestions on how much lower I should put the plane? I don't think the winglet down to MLG would work, as the fuselage would be really low in the frame.

EDIT: I just overlaid my photo with the last example, and the fuselage and tail almost match up, with the only difference being that my wing is actually *lower* in the frame as the accepted photo, mainly because of the difference in angle:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/lanreject.jpg

wunaladreamin

2011-03-27, 01:07 PM

I don't really get it either Cary. Do you think rotating the image cw pre-crop would help with the appearance? On a side note, that image overlay is ****ing my eyes all up bro lol.

Cary

2011-03-27, 01:38 PM

I don't really get it either Cary. Do you think rotating the image cw pre-crop would help with the appearance? On a side note, that image overlay is ****ing my eyes all up bro lol.

A little rotation might help, but I'd prefer not altering the original angle just to get a photo accepted. I might just push the fuselage down by 5px instead, and hope for the best.

Sorry, I wanted to simulate spotting while drunk in that overlay :)

wunaladreamin

2011-03-27, 01:40 PM

It's like 3D man!

MarkLawrence

2011-03-27, 02:05 PM

I'm with you on the centering Cary - I've never had that - a winglet factored into the centering - I've always used the center of the cropping tool on the window line of the aircraft - and never had a centering rejection...that's all kind of angles as well - can you post anything on the a.net forums?

Cary

2011-03-27, 06:44 PM

Well, I guess I pushed a wrong button, because one of the head screeners thought I posted the examples because I thought they were flawed. I thought it was obvious I posted them because those were examples where the fuselage was centered, regardless of where the winglet was. My gosh.

NIKV69

2011-03-27, 07:10 PM

Cary

2011-03-27, 07:38 PM

LOL. How did I know you were going to use the same pics on anet as you did here.

The images you linked are all high in the frame. Of course, that doesn't mean that yours can slip by too

I almost pissed myself after I read this.

Cary using pics already in the DB is never a good idea. Even when you have an argument. Better to just post rejection when asking for help. Personally I think your shot needed maybe 3 minutes to redo by just dropping the fuselage in the frame ever so slightly to get it accepted. Not sure you needed to start two threads on it. Not to mention alienating the people that screen your shots.

Why is it such a no-no to post examples that you think are good/the standard? If you want to figure out how to center something that might have different centering criteria than normal, you look to the database to find what screeners accept, and those were examples I found, where a 767 with winglets were at a high angle. So my point was "I thought it was the standard to center the fuselage regardless of how high a winglet is, based on all the photos I looked at - can you tell me how to fix it?" Sure, I can drop the fuselage ever so slightly, but what if it's still too high? What if it's too low? That's why I needed to know what specifically should be centered in this case. Don't know how that question alienates screeners.

gonzalu

2011-03-27, 08:03 PM

Cary,

I think you are correct... I always center on the ENTIRE fuselage, not the center of it. I use centered HOR and VER guides and then using the marque tool I draw equally while snapping the center (ALT+CLICK+DRAG) and draw until I touch the entire fuselage. If it is not centered perfectly, I will go back to the Lightroom original and re-crop/center. Unfortunately I can not do this with LR and must use visual queues to help me.

jerslice

2011-03-27, 08:14 PM

I see what they're saying but at the end of the day I'd rather center by the fuselage. But you're also talking to someone who thinks the concept of centering is kind of crap to begin with.

NIKV69

2011-03-27, 08:42 PM

Why is it such a no-no to post examples that you think are good/the standard?

Nothing as long as they don't include pictures already accepted. You could have done a re-edit and posted that. Or asked what they look for when centering.

As for the centering issue you really can't focus on the fuselage only in shots that include banking and not flying level. The wing and or winglet will represent part of the entire subject and need to be taken into account. If you notice here.

1888635

If you just take the fuselage into account when centering the wing would be chopped so I had to center taking the wings and fuselage together as one as just looking at the fuselage it's well below the centerline.

wunaladreamin

2011-03-27, 08:48 PM

In other words, they know they're inconsistent. Problem is, you're not supposed to know it. So keep it under your hats!

Cary

2011-03-27, 09:08 PM

Nothing as long as they don't include pictures already accepted. You could have done a re-edit and posted that. Or asked what they look for when centering.

Well, I think it's only because there's a stigma attached to people posting database photos to say "hey, these are so much worse than mine...why didn't I get accepted?" If you are using database examples with the understanding that they were accepted because they were correctly screened, and that is how your photo should look if you want it accepted, I don't see the problem. But yeah, I probably won't be posting examples in any context again, and doing a re-edit and posting that for opinions is a good idea.

If you just take the fuselage into account when centering the wing would be chopped so I had to center taking the wings and fuselage together as one as just looking at the fuselage it's well below the centerline.

Yeah, I would obviously move the fuselage if something would be chopped off, but it was always my understanding to center the fuselage if nothing is getting cut off.

Well, I'll just center it so it looks centered in thumbnail view, and we'll see how it goes.

JDANDO

2011-05-01, 01:37 PM

Just got this one from my "2011 Phoenix AZ Airport Tour"

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3405800

Think there is any hope for it editing or a smaller size?

gonzalu

2011-05-01, 09:24 PM

Jeremy,

Send me an original and let me see what I can pull off... if it is minor, you can usually make it look more acceptable using Smart Sharpen. Let me see what I can do...

manny (at) manny (dot) org

JDANDO

2011-05-01, 11:01 PM

acote

2011-05-09, 08:12 PM

RomNYC

2011-05-09, 08:17 PM

What about your horizontals? It may just be an optical illusion, but the runway and the background building do not seem horizontally leveled to me *at first glance*, which is most likely the only glance you will get from screeners. Otherwise, lovely shot! Hope it'll make it.

heeshung

2011-05-09, 08:40 PM

It does look unlevel on first glance, but you can appeal and argue that the light pole right behind the A380 is perfectly vertical.

moose135

2011-05-09, 09:40 PM

It does look unlevel on first glance, but you can appeal and argue that the light pole right behind the A380 is perfectly vertical.
I submitted a shot of an NCPD helicopter making a medevac pickup at the Oyster Bay train station parking lot once. When I cropped it appropriately, nothing in the photo looked level, and there was a light pole, at an angle, prominently placed to the side of the helicopter. I made sure I included a note to the screeners explaining that the light pole was not level, and that I had leveled the photo to a building that was cropped out of the edge of the frame. It was accepted.

heeshung

2011-05-16, 01:51 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3425091

:/

Roush6NY

2011-05-16, 02:01 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3425091

:/

Mark, Ive had a few rejected for that reason too, I feel like they will accept it if its cropped right behind the wheels, I have some in queue like that, lets see ! That is one heck of a shot by the way :wink:

seahawks7757

2011-05-16, 08:26 PM

This one for level :mad:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/5700834982/in/photostream

For me that is caused by the angle you are shooting at from the top of the parking garage.

gonzalu

2011-05-17, 08:46 AM

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3425091

:/

As Kaz said, they and A.net have the same criteria to crop tight on the wheels if not showing full aircraft

This one for level :mad:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/5700834982/in/photostream

For me that is caused by the angle you are shooting at from the top of the parking garage.

I think if you align the right side doors it would get accepted... being close to the frame they are obviously concentrating on it as your eye is drawn to it. Give it a whirl ;-)

gonzalu

2011-05-17, 08:55 AM

I just got this one rejected for level, I appealed it because the I checked the verticals are really vertical, I checked them with the grid in Photoshop, I'm very puzzelled with this one.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20110509_q1304371535.7278f-hpjc_r.jpg

At first glance it does look like it is level, but two things to keep in mind:

--A.net is really strict about this. I have had many of a long discussion about leveling in the forums. They are really strict about it
--They screen your images at not only normal size but also zoom in to look at various details such as leveling

If you see my example below, note that you are a bit off the mark by a hair on the left side mostly. Toss in a little CCW and you should be all in. RIGHT-CLICK | VIEW IMAGE to see the full size version.

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/i-gKmVh7M/0/O/i-gKmVh7M.jpg

Cary

2011-05-21, 11:38 PM

- Subject too far / too much dead space

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/9/4/3/97429_1304874349.jpg

seahawks7757

2011-05-23, 05:19 AM

Seriously? I see what you were trying to do. I think you just got a super picky screener.

steve1840

2011-05-25, 03:00 PM

This is even better than Cary's "dead space".......this one they said was digitally manipulated

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3435835

Needless to say I have appealed it.

NIKV69

2011-05-25, 03:09 PM

This is even better than Cary's "dead space".......this one they said was digitally manipulated

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3435835

Needless to say I have appealed it.

Did they send a personal message saying what was manipulated?

steve1840

2011-05-25, 03:26 PM

Not at all! THats what bugs me. They reject it cause they think it was manipulated, but don't bother to tell me why they think that. In my appeal I stated that the only adjustments made to the photo where adjustments made in post processing that are outlined in the guides in there help section. Nothing more, nothing less. And I did ask them in the appeal if they could give me a brief explanation of why they believe it was manipulated. We'll see what they say.

steve1840

2011-05-25, 03:27 PM

- Subject too far / too much dead space

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/9/4/3/97429_1304874349.jpg

Cary, did you submit this as a particular aircraft, or as a ramp/terminal shot?

steve1840

2011-05-25, 03:40 PM

Another one for digital manipulation.....again with no explanation.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3435848

NIKV69

2011-05-25, 05:51 PM

Weird, keep us posted Steve.

gonzalu

2011-05-25, 07:36 PM

Steve, that's easy. Everyone clearly knows that an A319 does not have wings and yours clearly has wings... so nice try bud!

Seriously though it looks a bit underexposed... other than that, digital manipulation?

gonzalu

2011-05-25, 07:42 PM

I think I found it... Steve, did you cut corners and erase your logo? :tongue:

http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/i-4TRjXvx/0/XL/i-4TRjXvx-XL.jpg

steve1840

2011-05-25, 09:54 PM

Yeah. I felt like an a@@ after i got an answer to my appeal. It finally hit me that i remembered erasing my logo from the photo. How do i get rid of my logo from a photo?

gonzalu

2011-05-26, 01:03 AM

You do not... you simply RE-EDIT it and do not apply the logo to it before sending to the DB ;-)

steve1840

2011-05-26, 07:11 AM

Thanks Manny. Thats what I figured, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't a way to go about doing it.

Delta777LR

2011-06-02, 02:19 PM

5 rejections on Anet

Soft
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110602_e1306370910_8107img_1681.jpg

Weak contrast
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110602_j1306367470_0971img_8756.jpghttp://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110602_e1306370910_8107img_1681.jpg

Soft underwings and gears.. Can anyone see where that is?
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110602_m1306367396_8154img_8698.jpg

Grainy
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110602_u1306368641_3705img_2712.jpg

Oversharpened
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20110602_v1306372471_1934img_8371.jpg

Can anyone help me out with these issues?

gonzalu

2011-06-02, 10:41 PM

Sergio, the screening was spot on on all of them unfortunately... been there MANY times to know that :frown:

So, I have possible solutions for all of them if you're willing to give me a try :cool: If so, please contact me off-line and I ask for the originals (RAW hopefully, otherwise at least original JPGs) and I will edit to my taste and hopefully A.net standards. No promises of course, but at least we can get to a better starting point. I see the issues on all the above ... I think all may be salvageable... it is ALWAYS a learning experience so I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you sir...

Roush6NY

2011-06-08, 03:01 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3451459

I don't see how much sharper I can go :confused: Any ideas ?

gonzalu

2011-06-08, 05:02 PM

Kaz,

The original, I am betting, is a bit soft or even OOF :-) if you look at the SIZE of the jaggies, is a dead giveaway of the processing involved. So it looks like the OOF or blur was overcompensated for in post.

Or, the ORIGINAL crop you started with was less than 3000px which I use as my guide to properly reduce to 1200 pix wide final... if your crop is less than 3000 pix, you will not get a good result in my opinion... but given the new 16-18MP sensors, you may have enough left... just an observation :-)

Roush6NY

2011-06-08, 05:07 PM

Thanks as always Manny, I will look into the original and see :)

Delta777LR

2011-06-27, 11:03 AM

Horizon level.. I dont see how its not leveled... help?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3475159

moose135

2011-06-27, 11:05 AM

The vertical lines on the building look like they are leaning just slightly to the right. A touch of CCW rotation would help.

JDANDO

2011-07-24, 07:40 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3502489

Do you think this one is worth an appeal? Besides submitting an appeal, what do I say. "I think the contrast is just fine!" or what?

MarkLawrence

2011-07-24, 08:56 PM

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

heeshung

2011-07-24, 09:39 PM

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

Roush6NY

2011-07-28, 11:25 AM

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

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

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

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

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/0/9/93869_1310528903.jpg

NIKV69

2011-07-28, 11:44 AM

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

JDANDO

2011-08-04, 09:37 PM

Any insight on what an acceptable crop would have been?

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

Thanks,

Roush6NY

2011-08-04, 10:28 PM

Jeremy

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

JDANDO

2011-08-11, 08:45 PM

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

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3527171http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/9/7/25229_1311735792.jpg

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

MarkLawrence

2011-08-11, 09:08 PM

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

Cary

2011-08-11, 09:33 PM

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

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

mgwsy

2011-08-15, 06:52 PM

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

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

Greg_NY

2011-08-15, 08:25 PM

gonzalu

2011-08-15, 10:08 PM

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

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110815_r1312664567.3769img_2381_jp.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110815_y1312664815.1036img_2453_jp.jpg

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

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

alevik

2011-08-16, 10:46 PM

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

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

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

Pete

alevik

2011-08-16, 10:50 PM

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

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110815_r1312664567.3769img_2381_jp.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110815_y1312664815.1036img_2453_jp.jpg

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

Pete

Dahemody

2011-09-08, 11:51 AM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110906_b1314580097.16855172011-n787ba.jpg

gonzalu

2011-09-08, 02:46 PM

David, looks reasonably sharpened to me. What was the outcome of your appeal? I say post it in the photography feedback forum and see if the screener or one of the screeners can point you in the right direction. It used to be that sometimes a soft/oversharpened rejection would result in confusion and I later found out that it was given when an otherwise blurry or too soft shot was over-sharpened to compensate. I believe the new rules are the screeners will try to reasonably explain the rejection reasons better but, could this be the case here? I notice the top of the fuselage has a bit of jaggies starting to creep in (fuselages being round should be somewhat smooth and soft atthe very edge since it is an infinite fade to the bg (this is my opinion and observation, not a rule :tongue: )

I have learned that A.net sharp is a bit higher than I am comfortable with for my taste so I adjust accordingly. With that being said, I felt your image could withstand another round or even two... here is what I came up with... I say put them both in layers in PS and turn off/on repeatedly and see if you like it or not...

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-ZkXZHqg/0/O/i-ZkXZHqg.jpg

I wasn't careful with masking so, from the original, you will get far better results of course...

Cheers!

alevik

2011-09-08, 09:04 PM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20110906_b1314580097.16855172011-n787ba.jpg

Seems either heat hazed or out of focus to me. 1280 wide doesn't help that situation either.

Dahemody

2011-09-08, 11:58 PM

Here's the deal:
Canon 1DM4
Canon 300mm f/2.8L
Cropped dimensions of 4332 × 2888
"Experimental" above passenger door and the Rolls logo on the engine are clearly legible.
Very slight heat haze at full size on the bottom of the nacelles.
I've sharpened until the jaggies start to concern me.
I've printed this at 20 x 30 a number of times and it's still sharp all around.

If this isn't good enough for Anet, I don't know what they need. I don't want to start another Anet rant, but the inconsistency in screening is mind boggling. The one photo that got accepted from my last set I almost didn't submit because I know the tail is soft - quite soft. And I refuse to sharpen my photos to the point of gross jaggies, which is not uncommon to see in Anet photos.

Starting with 4000 pixel photo, the difference between 1024 and 1280 is negligible. At least quality wise. Do the screeners have something against photos above 1024?

Is sharpness/softness purely subjective? Or is there a qualitative way to assess softness?

alevik

2011-09-09, 12:45 AM

Just giving my opinion.

It is very clearly soft to me, I would have spent only seconds on that image before rejecting it for soft (I did not screen it). Looking at other images from airliners.net taken from the same perspective they are sharper and crisper. You are seeing jaggies because (in my opinion) you are trying to sharpen a soft image - I see this all the time where images are still soft but also oversharpened. I admit, many people don't understand how an image can be soft *and* oversharpened, but trust me, I've seen plenty. In your case I haven't seen the original so basing my evaluation off the edited image. Your image isn't horribly soft - but to me it is soft. *edit - I notice a fellow screener chimed in on the photography forum post. Similar opinion to mine.

I'm not here to defend airliners.net. I get rejections too and they p*ss me off. Why would I upload a photo if it was rejectable, and as a screener I should know it is? I guess I'm just too close to my own images and don't judge them as subjectively as others. I had about 1000 images on anet before I started as a screener, and I'm just about to top 2000. I haven't changed my editing techniques over the years but I have upgraded my gear from the D70s to now D3s over the years, and I see a difference from my earlier images. Sure there will be inconsistencies - there are 20 or so screeners and there is no way everyone of us will interpret every image the same way. You should try it some time - I screen 500 to 1000 images a week, sometimes up to 2000 or 3000. After awhile (I've been at it for over 2 years) you get a good feel for the large cross section of quality and subjects that get uploaded.

Screeners have nothing against larger images just because they are larger. Larger images do show flaws much more clearly. I often see an image on my camera that looks good on the small screen, only to see it is soft or out of focus in the larger screen. Same effect with image size - that's why thumbnails look good when the full size doesn't. I actually do a happy dance when I get a batch of images with some at 1600 wide in good quality. Unfortunately, I would say there are less than 10 uploaders (again, in my opinion) who can upload consistently quality images at that size. Their best attribute? They don't try to upload every image at 1600 - only the ones that can support the larger size.

I see you have excellent camera gear. I do too. And I have been to that spot at KBFI several times. Unfortunately even the best gear can't always get perfect focus or overcome atmospheric effects. I've seen some great images taken with entry level gear, and some horrible images taken with pro gear.

Again - not trying to change your mind about anet or whether your image is soft or not, just providing more context to my previous answer.

JDANDO

2011-10-02, 09:29 PM

Thought I had the horizon squared away on this one. Any help on what it needs?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3582571

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/9/1/80449_1316056192.jpg

NIKV69

2011-10-02, 10:01 PM

Thought I had the horizon squared away on this one. Any help on what it needs?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3582571

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/9/1/80449_1316056192.jpg

Little bit of CCW rotation

seahawks7757

2011-10-14, 05:40 PM

Soft? Where is my question, the logo's are literally not able to take anymore with out de-forming.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6205398907_05c0830fc6_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6205398907/)
N553UA United Airlines 757-222 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6205398907/) by seahawks7757 (http://www.flickr.com/people/seahawks7757/)

Yellow? Ya think? The sun is setting, also too much contrast. I think it is just that the shutter speed was 1/125th of a second, any feedback?
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6210829320_70762d43b1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6210829320/)
N495UA United Airlines A320-232 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6210829320/) by seahawks7757 (http://www.flickr.com/people/seahawks7757/)

Also whats up with the 10 days to get results? Sounds like A.Net needs more screeners.

NIKV69

2011-10-14, 06:44 PM

Great shots Brandon. Second one is a little yellow but a quick redit should fix it. As for the screening time yea queue is 11k and they average 1000 a day so it's about right. I wish they would take on a bunch of trainee guys just to screen the obvious rejects. Think about it if the veteran screeners only had to screen the close ones I bet the queue would go half as fast. Also seems like many more are uploading as well. Which is also contributing to the length. They have always screened the same # of photos a day. Just seems like a bit more is being uploaded.

gonzalu

2011-10-14, 09:20 PM

Brandon, the first one, yup, very soft all over :-( Mind you am no screener bbut I am an expert because I get rejected a lot for this very thing :tongue: So, loot at the cheat lines... the rear fuselage up to the APU, your rear regi and the united logo could use SOME more passes of USM. THe softness is not the whole image in my opinion. Just some selective sharpening will do it I think.

The second one, yes, it is not that it is sunset, it is more that it looks too yellow all over. Basically there was a boost of saturation in post and it can be easily seen. The real scene is likely much less yellow and just a cast of gold on the fuselage will be OK. Trust me, the camera can;t pick this up on its own LOL. Only the JPG engine or your own RAW processor can boost saturation like that. I say try to use the original default settings from the camera if RAW. If from JPG already baked like this, try a little negative saturation and also tweak the WB to neutral on the very top of the fuselage. The top of the fuse should be on a slight blue cast as it reflects the nice blue skies of the desert. Also looks a bit too contrasty to me. There should be some detail in the shadows... I aim to make the rubber on the tires black where it should be. But then stop. I like to see some detail in the belly.

VEgas is tricky to get this right as the landing zone is full of rubber and it reflects NOTHING back up to the belly. I got a few rejections from my Vegas trip for such similar situations.

Your shutter sped had nothing to do with it. The overall exposure is the one that matters. 1/125 @ f/8 ISO 100 is a similar exposure to 1/250 sec @ f/5.6 ISO 100 but less blurry :tongue:

Either way, love these images... always remember A.net sharp is a bit more than you or I may be comfortable with

gonzalu

2011-10-14, 09:31 PM

I took the liberty and did a couple of tweaks to yours to show you how I would deal with these ... totally my opinion and not even close to what you may like or what the db will accept :-)

Just pushed back the saturation of the yellows a bit and also boosted the Gamma by .05 to reveal some shadow detail. Added some USM to make it pop a bit more.

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-VH7Q8RH/0/O/i-VH7Q8RH.jpg (http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-VH7Q8RH/0/O/i-VH7Q8RH.jpg)

On this one, I just gave it a few more passes of selective USM. Compare with your original and you can see the slight boost in apparent sharpness. CLICK for full size image... these are reduced indiscriminately by the Wordpress theme :mad:

EDIT
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-dx8x864/0/O/i-dx8x864.jpg (http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-dx8x864/0/O/i-dx8x864.jpg)

Your Original
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6205398907_05c0830fc6_o.jpg (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6205398907_05c0830fc6_o.jpg)

seahawks7757

2011-10-15, 05:25 AM

Both look a little better, my only thing though is the N495UA shot now looks dark.

NIKV69

2011-10-15, 06:13 AM

It doesn't look that dark besides they give a little more latitude for those late day shots from the viewing area. When the engines get lip up. Should get in now.

gonzalu

2011-10-15, 08:18 AM

Both look a little better, my only thing though is the N495UA shot now looks dark.

Brandon, by all means give it a boost in contrast but please, use a Curves layer :cool: don't use Brightness or Levels as they are blunt tools. Curves allows a more graceful tuning of the areas you want to touch. I say start with a mild S curve that has a flatter shadow area and a more pronounced highlights area. Move the midtones down a but in the center so as to protect the contrast and give a boost to the brights only.

Here is what I mean... I split the screen to show the affect better and overlayed the settings to make it easier for others to visualize. Again, click image for full size view!

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-8KhbjKD/0/O/i-8KhbjKD.jpg (http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-8KhbjKD/0/O/i-8KhbjKD.jpg)

seahawks7757

2011-10-15, 09:55 PM

I'll have to look into that some more, I appreciate the help Manny

Wondering about this one now, rejected for "Dark in spots." Just wondering what others think.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6236/6213814442_4fe2209f4e_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6213814442/)
G-BNLF British Airways 747-436 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6213814442/) by seahawks7757 (http://www.flickr.com/people/seahawks7757/)

NIKV69

2011-10-15, 11:18 PM

Touch rejection but basically valid. The sun is obviously nose on and the rest of the fuselage is dark.

moose135

2011-10-20, 04:08 PM

- Dark / Underexposed
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/2/5/89445_1317689522.jpg

- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/7/1/35320_1317686172.jpg

- Subject too far / too much dead space
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/6/1/35200_1317690162.jpg

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

http://www.moose135photography.com/photos/i-tkLz8FZ/0/X3/i-tkLz8FZ-X3.jpg

Roush6NY

2011-10-20, 07:34 PM

Moose

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

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

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

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

seahawks7757

2011-10-28, 03:56 AM

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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6256421581/sizes/o/in/photostream/

alevik

2011-10-28, 09:45 AM

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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6256421581/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Hi Brandon;

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

Pete

NIKV69

2011-10-28, 11:20 AM

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

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

Delta777LR

2011-11-04, 10:41 AM

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

Needs CW rotation, soft level personal
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_v1319593787_2322_mg_7114.jpg

Harsh Contrast/ contrast personal
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_t1319595551_3202b436.jpg

Harsh Contrast
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_e1319595476_29057478.jpg

Harsh Contrast/Dark!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_e1319594272_3488img_1639.jpg

Harsh Contrast/Soft!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_h1319594440_4506img_1691.jpg

High contrast/ Dark/Contrast personal
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111104_k1319594546_0185img_1761.jpg

Grainy!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_c1319593989_3571747.jpg

Harsh Contrast/ Grainy!
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_b1319595629_0773img_0745.jpg

Grainy/ Dark
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111104_f1319595082_113img_2717.jpg

Quality/ Grainy/Dark/
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/20111103_n1319594878_7038ke2.jpg

info plz

moose135

2011-11-04, 10:56 AM

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

gonzalu

2011-11-04, 12:59 PM

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

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

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

gonzalu

2011-11-04, 01:01 PM

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

seahawks7757

2011-11-07, 09:28 PM

Won the appeal on the Delta Shot!
2010959

moose135

2011-11-15, 09:13 AM

Dark/Underexposed:

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/4/3/64909_1319933345.jpg

Zee71

2011-11-16, 02:30 PM

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

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/5/5/90897_1319985555.jpg

Cary

2011-11-16, 05:27 PM

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

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

1962489

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

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

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

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

NIKV69

2011-11-16, 05:46 PM

JP.net recently rejected a photo of mine:

1962489

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cary

2011-11-16, 06:11 PM

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

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

gonzalu

2011-11-16, 06:55 PM

Cary, I am sorry... I called them before they screened them and told them to just reject a few of your pictures because I was jealous of you... and they love me :tongue:

Cary

2011-11-16, 08:01 PM

Cary, I am sorry... I called them before they screened them and told them to just reject a few of your pictures because I was jealous of you... and they love me :tongue:

Yes, I'm sure JP.net loves you after they caught wind of your "huge lens".

NIKV69

2011-11-16, 10:03 PM

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

Of course that is the best appeal reason!

TallDutch

2011-11-20, 08:28 AM

Can someone tell me what is unlevel about this?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20111119_s1321120589.1505ph-ofe3.jpg

moose135

2011-11-20, 10:36 AM

Looks like it needs a little CCW rotation, Joop.

JDANDO

2011-11-20, 12:00 PM

I got this reject this am :(

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3635810

I think the plane is fine, but the tower does have some distortion. Does the tower need to be razor sharp also? Is it worth an appeal?

gonzalu

2011-11-20, 12:43 PM

Jeremy, how far away were you and how far off the ground was the aircraft? Look at your tail right in front of the tower... it is heavily heat hazed :-( Tower has nothing to do with it and typically does not matter. Your aircraft is all that needs to be tack sharp and well exposed/sharpened.

JDANDO

2011-11-20, 01:34 PM

Hey Manny;

thanks for the feedback. I was a rather long way away. This was 320mm required to get near fully frame. The plane was a 50-100 feet off the ground.

I can now see the tail is heat hazed, now that you pointed it out. Another one for the personal file.

JDANDO

2011-11-29, 09:49 PM

Ack. Thought I had this one figured out. :confused:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3644679

I leveled it to the handles on the first set of overhead bins.

NIKV69

2011-11-29, 10:30 PM

Ack. Thought I had this one figured out. :confused:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3644679

I leveled it to the handles on the first set of overhead bins.

Bank angle! Bank angle! LOL

Forget the overhead bins use the bottom of the rear door which acts as the horizon.

heeshung

2011-11-29, 11:04 PM

Either that, or the top of a row of seatbacks.

gonzalu

2011-11-29, 11:40 PM

Jeremy, the best way to level an image that has no TRUE OVERALL guide, is to do it by feeling. Does the image make you feel dizzy or does it just look not leveled? Technically you can select many a reference, and it sometimes works. But when it clearly does not, use the liquid in your ears :tongue: Seriously, your brain is so good at detecting things like vertical lines that it is not easy to fool.

IF you need a good reference point, start with ANYTHING in the center of the frame. If the central vertical lines are upright, the brain (and sometimes screeners) will forgive anything that isn't level on the edges.

Here is the level on the door in the back... better but not by much...

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-pBt9T6c/0/L/i-pBt9T6c-L.jpg

let's try the seat back reference

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-GX2gRwx/0/L/i-GX2gRwx-L.jpg

Feels a little better... but now the rear door is leaning a bit to the right. Balance it out until it looks visually pleasing to you. If using Lightroom, pay attention to the gridlines on the rotation/cropping tool.

Delta777LR

2011-12-08, 09:31 AM

this one for backlit dust spot, can anyone help?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3654994

tlabranche

2011-12-08, 10:00 AM

this one for backlit dust spot, can anyone help?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/5/8/98574_1321969853.jpg

Look on the far left side of the image, about one inch down. There is a black dot on the image. What program are you using to edit your shots? If you are using Photoshop, you can create a duplicate layer and equalize it. That will show all dust spots. As far as the backlit, that is debatable since it is an overcast day. The aircraft has a pretty even cast of light on it.

gonzalu

2011-12-10, 12:27 AM

Hey Sergio... here is what I see:

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-WGDVZ9t/0/L/i-WGDVZ9t-L.jpg

and I tried to clean it up a bit and play with curves to try and minimize the look of it being back-lit.

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-BrFhWQ4/0/L/i-BrFhWQ4-L.jpg

Original for comparison

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/5/8/98574_1321969853.jpg

Delta777LR

2011-12-12, 07:13 PM

Manny thanks alot man

gonzalu

2011-12-13, 10:18 AM

You're quite welcome sir... shoot me an E-mail if you want me to help further :-)

JDANDO

2011-12-28, 09:38 AM

Got a unique vantage point for this one, the old observation deck in concourse C, but the horizon evaded me. Any suggestions? I tried to level to the tree line in the background.

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/5/0/54486_1324855054.jpg

Thanks

MarkLawrence

2011-12-28, 09:50 AM

Jeremy

I'd try and take the horizontal or vertical on the hangar on the right of the shot - or maybe the vertical on the light poles - they all seem to lean to the left a little..

gonzalu

2011-12-28, 03:09 PM

if anything, the lights on the right of frame are a hair CW not CCW. But, it is really close. Not sure what the screener used as a reference but the lights are OK to my eye. Perhaps the fuselage of the front-most bird is what was used? The A320 does sit a bit nose high in real life... it is not that horizontal to begin with :P

I would also say your exposure is a bit under as well... here is my take on it.

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-wbFmXMw/0/O/i-wbFmXMw.jpg

I did rotate it CW a bit to the truck on the lower right...

JDANDO

2011-12-29, 10:58 AM

Arghhhhhhhhh. I fail, maybe my monitor is not level :mad:

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/9/4/94671_1324939496.jpg

What do you guys think, 0.3 CCW?

Roush6NY

2011-12-29, 12:31 PM

Here is my take on it

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6594747183_e7537626eb_b.jpg

NIKV69

2011-12-29, 12:40 PM

Arghhhhhhhhh. I fail, maybe my monitor is not level :mad:

Sounds nutty but it could be, your original was way off. You using a notebook or desktop?

JDANDO

2011-12-29, 01:14 PM

Sounds nutty but it could be, your original was way off. You using a notebook or desktop?

Desktop.

Kaz, that edit looks great. Not sure what I was thinking with my original edit:confused:

NIKV69

2011-12-29, 01:17 PM

May want to check how the monitor is sitting. It may look level to you but once someone else looks at it on a level monitor it's way off.

Kris V

2012-01-19, 03:15 AM

What happens when you take advice from fellow NYC members, but forget to delete the older pic...oops. :redface:
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/4/2/69780_1326580248.jpg

JDANDO

2012-01-19, 10:40 AM

Opps. Wait until you upload the same picture twice :rolleyes:

Cary

2012-01-19, 10:23 PM

This one was frustrating. Originally rejected only for Level. I fixed the Level, and it got rejected for Centered (stating "High in frame - no motivation for off cneter"). I appealed, and got rejected for Centered and Level (again!). I put a centered vertical guide in the photo...sorry, but I don't see how it's not level, and I think the Centered is pretty minor for a reg with 5 photos in the database. There are other SXM photos in the DB, with partial buildings/no beach/no ground and high in frame planes.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/redix8eh.jpg

gonzalu

2012-01-19, 10:35 PM

Zee71

2012-01-19, 10:37 PM

Cary

2012-01-19, 10:51 PM

Cary, what happens when you try to use a horizontal line and level off the top of blue line in the background (as your horizon)? When processing did you use lens correction? I definitely have to agree with the jet being high in the frame. I'm sure Manny would have rejected it as well for other reasons!

Can't level based on the top of La Terrasse - it's angled to the perspective, and would tilt the whole picture too CW. The wall closest to the center line is parallel, and both ends bend inward. Didn't use lens correction.

gonzalu

2012-01-19, 10:54 PM

Mark, that building is actually at an angle to the shooting position so the roofline is NOT supposed to be level... but the verticals always are unless you are angled way up or way down

2032352
1911731

Zee71

2012-01-19, 10:59 PM

Got it!!! Thank you sir.

Cary

2012-01-19, 11:04 PM

:-( Maybe Pete can give you a better explanation but I believe it to be level and properly motivated for SXM. However, I may be wrong but, the motive is OK when it is the beach that shows with people ... Just the top of the hotels may not be enough motive for this composition. I say if you have enough pixels, place it dead smack in the center and it may be more acceptable? Just a thought.

I suppose I could re-crop, but as you probably know - it's annoying when you spend time fixing the cited problem, only to have a new issue cited a week later :smile: More than likely, I won't bother re-uploading. Not a big fan of re-cropping out of the way I shot a scene.

gonzalu

2012-01-19, 11:13 PM

I hear you and understand... been there (am there) all the time :tongue:

Problem for me is that I manage in Lightroom but finish in Photoshop and when you have to start the process from scratch, it is a PITA. Not really but, you know... Editing should take no more than 12 minutes per image or thereabouts but sometimes with careful selective sharpening to get it just right and make it the best it can be, it can take some time. Having to re-edit means remembering the special edits which is harder.

Nick and Eric, don't bite your tongues, jump in here and comment :mad:

gonzalu

2012-01-19, 11:14 PM

More than likely, I won't bother re-uploading. Not a big fan of re-cropping out of the way I shot a scene.

Gift the RAW file to me, I'll post the re-edit! hhehehehe

Kris V

2012-01-20, 01:35 PM

Wrong serial number, though I did the auto fill. :confused:
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/8/3/3/61533_1326669338.jpg

Roush6NY

2012-01-20, 02:26 PM

Hmmm when you do auto fill it gives you the correct C/N # which is 35195. Is that what you had in there ?

NIKV69

2012-01-20, 02:27 PM

Cary raised a good point. The level was an easy fix but if he framed it to show more of the top of the building and anet wants it centered it's his call. I run into a similar thing shooting the garage at LAS you want to have the aircraft a little higher sometimes when you get some good stuff underneath but it's a chore to get it in the DB. Working on one for the last few months how to fit everything in the frame and get it past the screeners. It is what it is.

Wrong serial number, though I did the auto fill

Watch Auto-Fill it's not always accurate. Just google the tail # and the proper info will come up and just enter it yourself.

Zee71

2012-01-20, 02:51 PM

Also.......on the Alaska 737, it looks like the nose and tail are very very close to the edge of the frame.

Kris V

2012-01-20, 03:09 PM

Hmmm when you do auto fill it gives you the correct C/N # which is 35195. Is that what you had in there ?

For some reason I got 48574 for its serial...:confused:
Resubmitting with the correct number.
Yes I cropped it close because of the fact is how I straightened it brought the tail close to the tail area. :wink:

JDANDO

2012-01-31, 11:23 PM

Grrrrr.

Shot this with the 17-40mm, did not get a good chance to square everything during the picture taking.

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/4/2/72431_1327368240.jpg

Not sure which way to go with this one.

Cary

2012-02-01, 12:09 AM

Grrrrr.

Shot this with the 17-40mm, did not get a good chance to square everything during the picture taking.

Not sure which way to go with this one.

I'd say slight CW, and use the left wall of the 4 windows facing the red truck as your vertical guide.

gonzalu

2012-02-01, 04:45 AM

How about this?

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-pfVCsNX/0/X3/i-pfVCsNX-X3.jpg

Delta777LR

2012-02-02, 12:07 PM

Many rejections Grrrrr

United A319
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737846

JetBlue A320
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737848

AA 738
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737843

RAM 763
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737328

KLM 772
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737327

Delta777LR

2012-02-02, 12:15 PM

Harsh contrast, dust spots above titles
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120128_w1326990550.895img_7935.jpg

Harsh contrast, Green tint
[/URL][url]http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120128_h1326990453.2957_mg_7926.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120128_w1326990550.895img_7935.jpg)

Top left dirty
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120129_d1327102099.7197_mg_7923.jpg

Soft Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120129_w1327102179.783_mg_7920.jpg

Grainy
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120129_l1327103225.6362img_7985.jpg

Low Contrast, soft and Grainy
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120129_t1327102797.8717img_7955.jpg

Dirty blue sky, big dust spot
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120129_e1327103052.5467img_7967.jpg

Dust spot and grainy
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120129_q1327103148.2415img_7969.jpg

NIKV69

2012-02-02, 12:25 PM

I hear ya Sergio but all of them seem pretty straightforward.

JDANDO

2012-02-02, 11:27 PM

This one has me baffled...Bad Motive

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/9/6/85002_1327454691.jpg

Uploaded as a terminal picture.

Any insight for the rejection? Too much road, no planes, no people. It was like0500, everybody but me was asleep.

nssd70

2012-02-02, 11:36 PM

Seems to be too much road. The first thing I see when I look at the picture is the road.

Doug

Kris V

2012-02-03, 07:20 PM

A couple.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737498
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737437

threeholerglory

2012-02-05, 10:23 PM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120204_u1327624456.2624sharko.jpg

rejected for grain...it had just rained and was still misting...really?

gonzalu

2012-02-05, 11:29 PM

Sorry Mike, but it is not the rain.. Remember your images are screened at 500% and also equalized. If you do the same with your above image, you will see the heavy noise. Looks like an easy fix though... Lately also ANY blockage of any sort, even the slightest, will usually get rejected :-( So, give it another shot, and use the noise reduction wisely. Do you have Lightroom? IF not, do you have Imagenomic Noiseware Pro for Photoshop? If not, I'd be glad to denoise your final edit BEFORE resizing for you...

Kris V

2012-02-15, 11:20 AM

Cropping...yet I thought they were good crops.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3750073
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3748858

Roush6NY

2012-02-15, 11:48 AM

Cropping...yet I thought they were good crops.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3750073
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3748858

Its not your cropping that got you the rejections, its the size ratio and the 2nd I'm guessing you forgot to check off "cargo plane" once you were uploading

Here is what you have to remember as far as the ratio when cropping:

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
800 x 600
1024 x 76
1280 x 960
1600 x 1200

3:2
800 x 533
1024 x 681
1200 x 800
1600 x 1067

Kris V

2012-02-15, 08:24 PM

Its not your cropping that got you the rejections, its the size ratio and the 2nd I'm guessing you forgot to check off "cargo plane" once you were uploading

Here is what you have to remember as far as the ratio when cropping:

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
800 x 600
1024 x 76
1280 x 960
1600 x 1200

3:2
800 x 533
1024 x 681
1200 x 800
1600 x 1067
Is the size ratios visible? I personally don't know what to look for within that. :confused: