Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[gonzalu]

Kris, I created a small video on cropping and ratios just for this very question some time ago :smile:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av-OgMIAgMI

[alevik]

Remember your images are screened at 500% and also equalized.

In screening we get the jpg file without watermark - there is no capability in the screening tool to zoom, equalize or anything else. Very occasionally I will save the file and open in Photoshop, usually when checking a suspicious area for cloning. However, if we did that for a majority of images the queue would be astronomically long.

[gonzalu]

In screening we get the jpg file without watermark - there is no capability in the screening tool to zoom, equalize or anything else. Very occasionally I will save the file and open in Photoshop, usually when checking a suspicious area for cloning. However, if we did that for a majority of images the queue would be astronomically long.

Pete,

I apologize, I was actually speaking of the JP.net process I was told that they have a tool on the browser on the URL they use for screening that does a few things like grid for centering checks, zoom, eq etc. Dana has told me many times you guys do none of the above except maybe check suspicious stuff once in a while and that even then, Photoshop can't be used to justify a rejection. That last one is kind of weird as there is never a time where I have appealed and been ever been justified and frankly, we can never tell if a Photoshop EQ was used or not :tongue:

[Kris V]

Kris, I created a small video on cropping and ratios just for this very question some time ago :smile:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av-OgMIAgMI

Thanks Manny, that answers a lot of my questions on cropping! :smile:
Now if I may ask on CS5 is there an auto fix or is it all manual?

[gonzalu]

AutoFix? like what, exposure/contrast/color balance? BETTER than Lightroom :smile:

For cropping in CS5, it sucks ass ... in my opinion, Lightroom is soooo ahead of Photoshop with the crop tool.

So, Auto Color is CTRL+SHIFT+B, Auto Levels is CTRL+SHIFT+L and Auto Contrast is CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+L :wink:

But be careful, they can sometimes bite you... you can use them individually or separately and definitely can be combined in any order depending on the result you want. Make sure you do it on a separate layer, always and mask mask mask!

[Cary]

Realized this was probably a motive rejection, but I wanted to post it here, because I think it's funny:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/57190_1329202190.jpg

[moose135]

For my next trick, I will land on the roof of this small van...

[megatop412]

Because this thread should never die- both for 'soft'
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120313_i1331083371.2369dsc_0024c_dxo.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120313_d1331084634.4894dsc_0403d.jpg

[gonzalu]

William, nothing a bit of USM can't fix :smile:

There are of course a bit oversharpened as I was working from your JPGs but given the right workflow, here is an idea of what A.net sharp is: Remember to right-click and view image at full size since the forum likes to resize to 800px wide.

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-X7DWQZq/0/O/i-X7DWQZq.jpg

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-4x9jrc7/0/O/i-4x9jrc7.jpg

[megatop412]

Thanks Manny that definitely looks sharper. I just have to make some time to sit down and actually learn the USM thing. I'm in the 'choose between sharpening the aircraft enough but now the sky is noisy or don't sharpen everything as much but now the plane's soft' catch-22 right now.

[moose135]

Don't sharpen the sky! When I'm sharpening an image, I select the sky, then invert the selection so that only the aircraft is selected before applying USM.

[gonzalu]

William, Moose is right... I go a bit further just to make it less abrupt...

--Duplicate your base layer or whatever your current final edit layer is.

--Select Sky, best as you can. Using the Magic Wand, change the [tolerance] to help you select more or less of it in one swoop without intruding on aircraft. Think of tolerance slider as the difference in brightness between where you click and any adjacent pixels. The tool looks at the pixels you clicked on (the area used to be an 8x8 grid but that was Photoshop 1.0 :tongue:) and then using the tolerance number you dialed, looks around and keeps selecting as long as the adjacent pixels are within the tolerance number in brightness up or down!

--Invert the selection (in Windows, the shortcut is CTRL+SHIFT+I)

--Grow the selection by 10-15 pixels: Select > Modify > Expand...

--I now like to soften the edges of the selection so that the effect is not so abrupt on the edge of contact between fuselage and sky. Select > Modify > Feather... I use 5 pixels.

--Now sharpen away to taste. After each USM pass or whatever sharpen method you use, go over the layer being sharpened and either mask or erase away areas that have been oversharpened. Flatten your image after each pass and then duplicate again and check for areas that may need more sharpening. The goal for A.net sharp is to have very very small jaggiess start to appear and then back away one level of USM.

If you start with a critically sharp original and reduce to 1024-1200 pixels wide, a single USM pass of say 50,0.3,0 should be sufficient. If your version of Photoshop is new enough, Smart Sharpen is a far better sharpening tool as it is dynamic as opposedto the blunt process of USM :smile:

[megatop412]

Thanks for the advice guys, I have heard the 'don't sharpen the sky' bit many times so that is no surprise. I'm actually using Paint Shop Pro Photo X2, I need to translate what you said into how to do it with that software(it was a free gift from the girlfriend)- I'm sure it can do layers and I know it has its own version of USM, just need to figure it out when I have some actual time. Hard to do that between work, my lady, my other photography, training for some upcoming road races, transitioning to the Captain Sim 757-200 and -300, and my 6 guitars.

I was on a strike of sorts with submitting to them for over a year as I refused to become a slave to their ridiculous acceptance criteria, but I decided to make an exception for the 787 and give it a whirl.

[gonzalu]

William, I hear you. You certainly don't have to upload to them if you don't want to... Do you have your own website? That's what I did and many of us have done to be able to show WHATEVER we like in whatever condition :tongue:

Let me know if I can be of further help... sorry about Corel X2 ... that is not a friendly piece of software unfortunately... powerful indeed, but kind of obscure. Here are some tuts I found on line...


http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/paintshoppro/Corel_Paint_Shop_Pro_User_Resources.htm
http://www.vtc.com/products/Corel-Paint-Shop-Pro-X2-tutorials.htm

[tlabranche]

You could also use the High Pass Filter to do sharpening. Duplicate the layer, go to filters/other/high pass. Select a radius of no more than 0.3 and hit enter. The screen will turn grey where you will see an outline of the photo. On the layers pallet, make the blending mode to "linear light." Note, this will sharpen the entire image. Simply take the eraser tool and pass over jagged edges, the sky, and any other areas with noise. The beauty of Photoshop is that there are many ways to do the same task.

[tlabranche]

Here are some of my recent rejects...

Take your pick here: Bad composition, bad framing, and motive. I wanted to point out how Phoenix is creating an air train to pass OVER the taxiway where planes filled with people will pass under. The logic is just mind boggling to me because FOD will fall off of that track onto the taxiway. I don't even want to think about some sort of structure failure over the taxiway. Anyways, apparently JP didn't appreciate what I was trying to display.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/4/7/90724_1330556742.jpg

A bit of heat distortion in this one. This a is a major problem with Phoenix, but it's so much fun to spot at!
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/7/4/34753_1330786471.jpg

This one hurt SIMILAR PHOTO UPLOADED!. Anyways, the similar photo is just of this one coming around the corner. I forgot I had gotten it accepted a few weeks ago
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/5/6/47953_1330786652.jpg

[gonzalu]

Timothy, I think the motive on the first one is justified as it has lots of dead space ... You could have certainly gotten the message across by cropping tighter and still show the overpass. Perhaps a more balanced image with the plane directly below the structure.As for the overpass, LAX is going to have a sky bridge across the ramp between the two International Arrival Terminals, high enough for an A380 to pass under. I think the engineers have thought through all the issues ... in your image, it looks like a concrete design where the actual bridge is a tub and tracks, electrical, etc. is completely embedded without gaps... having a bridge collapse is highly unlikely in this day and age. I can;t wait to see images shot from the train with traffic passing below :-)

[Kris V]

A few rejections:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3779027
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3779041
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3779281

[jerslice]

Dark, soft, motive, and they didn't like that I wrote in comments: for NYCAviation
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=n1334293383.4196obamaboeing visit2.jpg

[gonzalu]

Dark? A little :-) Soft? hmmm, maybe the tail a little bit? that's a stretch... Motive, indeed, looks like the president did not help :tongue: and the comments, yeah, they have gotten a bit strict on that. For example, no more pixel dimensions allowed. I guess shout-outs are also not acceptable.

[moose135]

And yet, a picture of an airplane shadow on the ground is accepted. That's why I rarely upload anymore.

[gonzalu]

And yet, a picture of an airplane shadow on the ground is accepted. That's why I rarely upload anymore.
Oh Moose you must show me that ... I hope it has an airport in it or else I have a few to argue about myself :smile:

[eric8669]

Oh Moose you must show me that ... I hope it has an airport in it or else I have a few to argue about myself :smile:

i've seen that shot too

[Cary]

REJECTION: Level
"Needs CW"

APPEAL REJECTION: Level
"Does need slight cw rotation, around 0,2 or 0,3 degrees"

I purposely put the first long line slightly off the edge of the building, as the 1px width would cover the edge, making it harder to see. You tell me...does this seem like a website where screeners find reasons to ACCEPT photos rather than reject them, as one crewmember put it? I wrote in the appeal that the building edges were parallel to the photo edges (very easy to tell in my hi-res), yet it's been determined in my 1200px that it's 2 tenths of 1 degree off?

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

[Kris V]

Ok so this one I don't see it's problem:
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Undersharpened (Soft)
- Too much noise or grain
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/5/5/3/13634_1332766355.jpg

[nssd70]

Ok so this one I don't see it's problem:
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Undersharpened (Soft)
- Too much noise or grain
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/5/5/3/13634_1332766355.jpg

It's a little high in the frame. It does seem to have a little too much grain,but I bet both of these can be fixed. Sharpness seems okay,but that's one thing I seem to have the biggest problem with.

Doug

[gonzalu]

Cary, do you have a version without the lines? It could be perceptual ...

Kris, all counts are accurate in my opinion. Easily fixed if you have a high res version :-)

[jerslice]

Cary, there's a simple solution: stop caring. :-). A site that is that bent on rejecting photos probably isn't worth the time spent on it :)

[NIKV69]

Cary, there's a simple solution: stop caring. :-). A site that is that bent on rejecting photos probably isn't worth the time spent on it :)

Unfortunately there isn't a site that even comes close to the exposure so the revolving wheel will just continue. Constantly complaining yet constantly uploading.

[jerslice]

Unfortunately there isn't a site that even comes close to the exposure so the revolving wheel will just continue. Constantly complaining yet constantly uploading.

Pretty much. It's slowly changing though as other sites pick up more and more of the share of traffic. Top shots on the front page used to knock in way way more than they do now. The wheels are turning, but very slowly.

[Kris V]

Cary, do you have a version without the lines? It could be perceptual ...

Kris, all counts are accurate in my opinion. Easily fixed if you have a high res version :-)


It's a little high in the frame. It does seem to have a little too much grain,but I bet both of these can be fixed. Sharpness seems okay,but that's one thing I seem to have the biggest problem with.

Doug
I think I have fixed it now. Thanks!
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/7/5/52980_1334328571.jpg

[moose135]

Unfortunately there isn't a site that even comes close to the exposure so the revolving wheel will just continue. Constantly complaining yet constantly uploading.
All that exposure has ever gotten me was plenty of requests for free pictures. I think I've uploaded two pictures in the past year. I really don't care any more.

[NIKV69]

Pretty much. It's slowly changing though as other sites pick up more and more of the share of traffic. Top shots on the front page used to knock in way way more than they do now. The wheels are turning, but very slowly.

Not sure what sites you are talking about but that wheel is turning very slowly.

http://www.alexa.com/search?q=airliners.net%2C+jetphotos.net&r=site_siteinfo&p=bigtop

[eric8669]

All that exposure has ever gotten me was plenty of requests for free pictures. I think I've uploaded two pictures in the past year. I really don't care any more.

same here. airliners & jetphotos are the last places I will post to these days.

[Cary]

Pretty much. It's slowly changing though as other sites pick up more and more of the share of traffic. Top shots on the front page used to knock in way way more than they do now. The wheels are turning, but very slowly.

The Top shots on A.net isn't indicative of the site traffic (although I'm convinced Demand Media thinks it is). It's only indicative of how many shots A.net promoted on their FB and Twitter pages, and how quickly they were promoted after being added. So, the days you see 20,000+ views in the Top 5, it's usually because a photo was promoted within a few hours of being accepted. They quickly get about 1k views per hour, and hog up a place in the Top 5 for the rest of their first 24 hours. On days where the Top 5 is much lower, it's because they haven't promoted newly added photos (but the number of photos that get into the Top 5 is much greater, since they continually cycle through all day long).

[JDANDO]

Any idea on what horizon I should be leveling to in this shot? Shooting these 3/4 shots rather than straight on is still giving me fits :mad:

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/6/0/56750_1334016062.jpg

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3816965

[gonzalu]

You can use the fence or trees in bg :-)

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-5xR5Dwq/0/O/i-5xR5Dwq.jpg

[alevik]

A bit of a pedantic rejection I will agree Cary (I didn't screen this one). if you look at the horizontals on the buildings right and left though, they do indicate a bit of cw required. However, I would probably have HQ'd the image because it looks level for the most part. When I get rejections like this I just adjust a bit and re-upload.

I'm not trying to defend the screening process - it will have flaws as there are many humans involved in judging photography which is very subjective in nature.

[alevik]

Jeremy if I was screening your Delta CRJ, I would immediately drag the window to the right side of my monitor and look at those three grey posts under the horizontal stabilizer. That indicates it needs some CCW rotation.

[lijk604]

A bit of a pedantic rejection I will agree Cary (I didn't screen this one). if you look at the horizontals on the buildings right and left though, they do indicate a bit of cw required. However, I would probably have HQ'd the image because it looks level for the most part. When I get rejections like this I just adjust a bit and re-upload.

I'm not trying to defend the screening process - it will have flaws as there are many humans involved in judging photography which is very subjective in nature.

So even with Cary overlaying perfectly level vertical lines on the buildings on BOTH sides of the photo, AND a perfectly horizontal line with the ground, you still think it needs CW rotation? This my friend is one of the reasons people are not uploading to that site as much. It's almost as if they are looking to reject excellent photos just to say they can.

[Kris V]

No Motive on this one...I am baffled.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3826433
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/1/2/37021_1334878212.jpg
I thought JP loved air->ground shots??

[Cary]

No Motive on this one...I am baffled.

I thought JP loved air->ground shots??

Unfortunately, your plane's shadow is hurting the quality of the main subject...that's the reason for the Motive rejection.

[Cary]

A bit of a pedantic rejection I will agree Cary (I didn't screen this one). if you look at the horizontals on the buildings right and left though, they do indicate a bit of cw required. However, I would probably have HQ'd the image because it looks level for the most part. When I get rejections like this I just adjust a bit and re-upload.

I'm not trying to defend the screening process - it will have flaws as there are many humans involved in judging photography which is very subjective in nature.

Thanks for the response. As for using the horizontals for leveling, those buildings are skewed to the runway, so they wouldn't make for accurate guides. Even in my adjusted (accepted) photo, the building horizontals are still slanted. That being said, since it is now in the database, I have nothing more to add, as it will just bring about more stress :)

[alevik]

So even with Cary overlaying perfectly level vertical lines on the buildings on BOTH sides of the photo, AND a perfectly horizontal line with the ground, you still think it needs CW rotation? This my friend is one of the reasons people are not uploading to that site as much. It's almost as if they are looking to reject excellent photos just to say they can.

You must have missed the part where I said I would have given it HQ.... that is not a rejection but a vote to accept. Don't let your predetermined notions get in the way of reading to understand.

Not sure where you get the not uploading to site as much. The daily uploads are higher than I can remember since I started screening a few years ago.

[megatop412]

Cary, there's a simple solution: stop caring. :-). A site that is that bent on rejecting photos probably isn't worth the time spent on it :)

When I think of all the time I spent doin the nasty(something constructive) instead of wasting valuable life time trying to conform to their craziness(in the insane belief that somehow, having pictures on there will bring me some kind of recognition and somehow my life is now worth living).....it makes me smile

They should take a clue from the Roman Empire

[seahawks7757]

I'm about ready to give up on A.Net, something like 0 for 30 in my recent uploads.

This one was rejected for quality, I have looked at it on 4 different screens and fail to see where the quality issue is.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6962753384/sizes/o/in/photostream/


Then the head screener gave me an ass of a response back that I need to be more judgemental of my pics. If I thought they were crap I wouldn't have uploaded them in the first place.

To be honest I would be happy to have my last shot be the all blacks I had accepted a while ago-
2091677

[Roush6NY]

I do not mess with Anet, so I personally do not know exactly what they want, but WHAT is wrong with the quality of this pic? Everything looks pretty damn good in my eyes, what are they expecting!

[gonzalu]

Brandon, I think the image is terrific. However, for A.net, in my own opinion given my own experience, it looks to be a bit oversharpened in some areas and too contrasty and too dark on the belly/shadow areas.

The crop does not work for me either and I have been rejected for similar crops in the past so I stay away from them.

Regardless of the A.net metrics, I like the shot :-)

[Cary]

This one was rejected for quality, I have looked at it on 4 different screens and fail to see where the quality issue is.


The problem is that the paint scheme is completely crummy. It should look more like this:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/PaintThePlane-1.png
:tongue: Seriously though, I agree with Manny - oversharpened and the crop is a little weak. If the engine wasn't blocking so much fuselage, it might work.

[lijk604]

Brandon, don't let rejections get you down. Your work is top notch, and if the screeners at Anet do not want your work, screw 'em!
You have your blog and your Flickr account, post 'em there. Between those two and linking the pics to this site, will get you plenty of views.

[megatop412]

That All-Blacks shot is freakin phenominal man

Stick with Flickr, you'll get less heartburn

[Kris V]

I'm about ready to give up on A.Net, something like 0 for 30 in my recent uploads.

This one was rejected for quality, I have looked at it on 4 different screens and fail to see where the quality issue is.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/6962753384/sizes/o/in/photostream/


Then the head screener gave me an ass of a response back that I need to be more judgemental of my pics. If I thought they were crap I wouldn't have uploaded them in the first place.

To be honest I would be happy to have my last shot be the all blacks I had accepted a while ago-
2091677
Well on my Mac's screen I notice some small round bumps on the landing gear doors and the tip of the nose, but I don't think that has anything to do with the overall quality. Asides that I am stumped. :confused:

[Cary]

Two frustrating rejections, both appealed, both rejected again:

Color: "orange tint"
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/APPEAL_20120605_o13381698041806caryliao_1205262134 54_mg_9400a.jpg

No kidding there's an orange tint. Do they think I'm stupid or color blind and can't see the orange? In appeal, I explained that you will get an orange tint when you shoot at FRG in those conditions, towards that direction, and showed some examples of my previously accepted FRG shots, and it still got rejected.

1932582
1932433
1719504
1538452
1533683
1533623
1361099

Perhaps all of those were incorrectly screened?

And this one is borderline, but the generator/cart is only blocking half of one set of gear, and normally, that's allowed. I only appealed it after seeing a similar shot that was accepted, however that has 1 set of gear completely blocked, with the remaining two partially blocked. The appeal was rejected with "Clearly a motive obstruction rejection."


http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/APPEAL_20120602_d133775105912caryliao_120519170439 _a1c1006.jpg

[Cary]

Quality, Over-sharpened
"Titles over sharpened"

EDIT: accepted on appeal. Some faith restored :biggrin:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120611_x1338733237.5886caryliao_120602182507_mg_ 9730.jpg

[lijk604]

Cary, they only accepted because there was no orange tint to the Lufty shot. ;)
Seriously though, good shots, shame on them if they don't want them.

[Cary]

Cary, they only accepted because there was no orange tint to the Lufty shot. ;)
Seriously though, good shots, shame on them if they don't want them.

Thanks, John. I was actually concerned (as I am with most late PM shots now), that it would get rejected for yellow tint, since there is a tad (from it being late PM). The good thing is they accepted it...the bad thing is they promoted two photos over it, when it would have been second to only Sam Chui's shot. I guess I can't have it both accepted and get a fair shot at Top 5. That would be expecting too much :)

[wunaladreamin]

Cary, they rejected you because they know you terrorized the Andrews JSOH!

[Cary]

Cary, they rejected you because they know you terrorized the Andrews JSOH!

You know it :smile: Actually, the going joke is that they always reject me for yellow tint, because I'm yel....Asian :wink:

[Chris102]

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120618_q1339293139.0643img_7795.jpg

They rejected it because it's an unbalanced crop, but it's the unbalancing that makes it interesting! I may appeal.

[Delta777LR]

Blurry!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867868

Blurry
Bad Quality
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867874

Heat Distortion
undersharpened(soft)
Blurry!
Horizon
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867877

Undersharpened
Bad Color
Contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3865399

[adscram14]

Blurry!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867868

Blurry
Bad Quality
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867874

Heat Distortion
undersharpened(soft)
Blurry!
Horizon
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867877

Undersharpened
Bad Color
Contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3865399

Look at the regi on the first one, it is a bit blurry.

Second one seems hazed or the shutter wasn't fast enough. Look at the Star Alliance logo, it's messy.

For the third, look at the top of the plane. It's not straight, but jagged and soft.

Last one is just a weird contrast, and the quality is poor.

[MarkLawrence]

Bad quality - I'm looking for some guidance here guys - I had 4 rejected yesterday for bad quality - just looking for some pointers...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3870178

[Cary]

Bad quality - I'm looking for some guidance here guys - I had 4 rejected yesterday for bad quality - just looking for some pointers... I'm guessing it has to do with the heat haze, and how it's affecting the edges of the wings. Not a ton you can do about heat haze, but I'd say if you want to try to do something, to selectively sharpen the wings less than the rest of the plane. It seems to be affecting/distorting the closer wing tip area the most. See how the leading edge slats and back edge in your photo are a little "wavy" compared to something like this?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/1/8/55959_1335962814_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7367471)

If you can mask the wavy look a bit, you might be able to get it in.

[moose135]

Looks like all I got were a bunch of crappy shuttle photos - all rejected by A.net

Distance and Oversharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_p1339818530.064jm_2012_06_03_enterprise_0 09-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=p1339818530.064jm_2012_06_0 3_enterprise_009-1024.jpg)

Grainy and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_l1339818340.7568jm_2012_06_03_enterprise_ 005-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=l1339818340.7568jm_2012_06_ 03_enterprise_005-1024.jpg)

Grainy and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_f1339818111.1884jm_2012_04_27_shuttle_ent erprise_001-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=f1339818111.1884jm_2012_04_ 27_shuttle_enterprise_001-1024.jpg)

Grainy, Soft, and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_c1339818209.3353jm_2012_04_27_shuttle_ent erprise_008-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=c1339818209.3353jm_2012_04_ 27_shuttle_enterprise_008-1024.jpg)

Looks like the JP.net queue is running nearly 3 weeks, so it will be a while before I see if they reject them also.

[lijk604]

Moose, the real reason they rejected the first show was because the site is Airliners dot net, not Cranes.net :tongue:

Second shot the sky is very grainy, looks like it was pushed too far in post.

Third, to me, looks like it needs contrast. I don't really see the grain, but definitely a lot of haze.

Fourth looks to suffer from heat haze, and you probably could brighten it up a bit.

Oh well, guess you'll just have to throw 'em all out. :cool:

[JDANDO]

Any tips on re-editing this one?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3871356

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3871356

jeremy in mn

[lijk604]

Jeremy the sky under the aircraft is a tad grainy, and the right wingtip is slightly blurry. Although, I think that has to do with the exhaust from the #2 engine.
See if you can clean that sky up a little and appeal. If it were me, I'd be happy to have that shot in my collection.

[Delta777LR]

Heat Distortion
soft
Bad Color
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3872785

[adscram14]

The sky is sort of a weird green-blue. It's also VERY soft, look near the American Eagle title and the registration.

[gonzalu]

Sergio, did you disagree with the rejection? What was the outcome?

[NIKV69]

Looks like all I got were a bunch of crappy shuttle photos - all rejected by A.net

Distance and Oversharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_p1339818530.064jm_2012_06_03_enterprise_0 09-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=p1339818530.064jm_2012_06_0 3_enterprise_009-1024.jpg)

Grainy and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_l1339818340.7568jm_2012_06_03_enterprise_ 005-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=l1339818340.7568jm_2012_06_ 03_enterprise_005-1024.jpg)

Grainy and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_f1339818111.1884jm_2012_04_27_shuttle_ent erprise_001-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=f1339818111.1884jm_2012_04_ 27_shuttle_enterprise_001-1024.jpg)

Grainy, Soft, and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/small/20120623_c1339818209.3353jm_2012_04_27_shuttle_ent erprise_008-1024.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=c1339818209.3353jm_2012_04_ 27_shuttle_enterprise_008-1024.jpg)

Looks like the JP.net queue is running nearly 3 weeks, so it will be a while before I see if they reject them also.

Think the first one is fixable. Little tighter crop, the cranes make the shot. The second one even with fixing the grain anet would shoot it down for motive with the people blocking the subject.

[gonzalu]

Think the first one is fixable. Little tighter crop, the cranes make the shot. The second one even with fixing the grain anet would shoot it down for motive with the people blocking the subject.

Nick, Airliners.net is flexible with people blocking the main subject if it is motivated. In this case, I believe the motivation would be met as the folks are "part of the scene" akin to ramp workers in front of a jet engine while preparing to depart or similar

As for the cranes, I agree, so it would be hard to crop tighter and get the cranes in the shot as well. It is always a judgement call on the screener's part. I can tell you if it were me screening it, I would be torn between the value of the photo, the artistic nature, the fact that the database is a database to begin with and not really meant for artistic photos (been there myself :tongue:) etc. Tough call but one that could likely be made by Paul as he himself has a few shots which are in the same nature!

[Cary]

A.net decided to go on a Cary Liao-rejection party today, rejecting 2 of 2 shots for "green tint", and now 2 of 2 shots for "low in frame". I did the centering by eye and using LR's grids. I just measured the top of the photo to the top of the fuselage and the bottom of the fuselage to the bottom of the picture, and came up with:

1st photo: 246px to top, 248px to bottom
2nd photo: 259px to top, 258px to bottom

Again, I eyed these in LR, and came within +/- 1px of being dead-centered. If they are rejected again, undoubtedly the excuse will be that the top and bottom of the fuselage don't constitute how it should be centered, and that I should move it up a little. Yet, overlaying one of them with a photo that was only rejected for "green tint", the centering is virtually identical (sans the fact that one is a 777-200 vs 777-300). Also, the only time I've seen where the measurements from the top/bottom of the fuselage don't work is when a winglet or tail is sticking too far up, and the picture should be centered to what feels better in thumbnail view. Am I being completely ridiculous here? I can't even appeal yet, because of my two "green tint" photos I'm appealing (I'll get to those later, depending on what they have to say).

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/20120627_w13402409012285caryliao_120616072708_mg_0 304.jpg

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/20120627_s1340206244193caryliao_120616065918_mg_01 76.jpg

"Low in frame" super-imposed over my 777-300 that was acceptably centered:
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/lowinframe.jpg

[moose135]

1st photo: 246px to top, 248px to bottom
2nd photo: 259px to top, 258px to bottom
This is A.net, you have to be closer than that, Cary!




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

Rejected - Bad Double... :tongue:

[Cary]

Rejected - Bad Double... :tongue:

Ha! :smile:

[Cary]

Amazing. Now my China Cargo, taken 30 minutes after my "green-tinted" Avianca shot, at the same WB and Tint, and had been (wrongly) deemed to be only off-centered, has been rejected on appeal: "Centering passable, but has a slight cyan tint". Also, literally having the centering off by ONE pixel is "passable"?


http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/20120627_w13402409012285caryliao_120616072708_mg_0 304.jpg

[gonzalu]

I know you're gonna hate me for this, bud, but I notice it too :frown: and before you kill me, you know I am also on a good hardware calibrated Apple 30" Cinema Display and take color casts as serious as you do. I know you're upset but maybe you can be objective... take the night off and look at it tomorrow.

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-WSWKF2F/0/L/i-WSWKF2F-L.jpg

Auto-Color and Auto-Tone in PSCS5.5, nothing more.

[En11RVC]

Cary, just try appeal to head screener. Me personal opinion is both photos are good to A.net.

[Cary]

Oh Manny, Manny, Manny....you know you can't just post one color cast relative to another one like that. (Also the Auto Color is far too red to my eye.) But I can play that game, too :tongue:

Better, left or right?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/colors1.jpg

Better, left or right?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/colors2.jpg

[Cary]

Cary, just try appeal to head screener. Me personal opinion is both photos are good to A.net.

Unfortunately, I can't Enxian. This was initially rejected for only being "low in frame". After I politely informed them it was 1px from being centered on appeal, they rejected it for the cyan cast. So you can't appeal again.

[gonzalu]

Oh Manny, Manny, Manny....you know you can't just post one color cast relative to another one like that. (Also the Auto Color is far too red to my eye.) But I can play that game, too :tongue:

Better, left or right?

Better, left or right?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/colors2.jpg

Bottom right looks best to me. Mine was just to highlight my point... yours did have a slight cyan cast to my eye. My quick AUTO was to show the levels per channel were not in concert that's all. Indeed mine has a slight bend towards red...

[Cary]

Bottom right looks best to me. Mine was just to highlight my point... yours did have a slight cyan cast to my eye. My quick AUTO was to show the levels per channel were not in concert that's all. Indeed mine has a slight bend towards red...

Bottom right was my rejected image :)

[Cary]

I've written a piece about my color rejections here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/photography_feedback/read.main/365562/

Even if you skip my whole long explanation, I think everyone should check out the color illusions at the end, if you haven't seen them before.

[Kris V]

I'm officially sick of A-net now after they rejected a couple photos of mine.
For bad size:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120628_y1340275458.1833img_0162.jpg
and for Undersharpening, and size.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120628_f1340274663.8264img_3959.jpg

[moose135]

What is the image size you uploaded them at, Kris?

[gonzalu]

Chris, your images are 1200x918, outside the rules.. Why are you CROPPING your originals in a non standard ratio? Just curious.

Landscape photos:
The first number is the longer side (horizontal) * second number is the shorter side (vertical one) in a 3:2 ratio and third (last) number is the shorter (vertical) side in a 4:3 ratio. Note that these numbers do not include the Airliners.net copyright banner which is added during upload, and is 12 pixels high. This would then add 12 pixels to the shorter (vertical) size.
1000 * 667 -> 750
1024 * 683 -> 768
1100 * 733 -> 825
1200 * 800 -> 900
1300 * 866 -> 975
1400 * 933 -> 1050
1500 * 1000 -> 1125
1600 * 1066 -> 1200
Portrait photos
The first number is the shorter side (horizontal) * second number is the longer side (vertical one) in a 3:2 ratio and third (last) number is the longer (vertical) side in a 4:3 ratio. Note that these numbers do not include the Airliners.net copyright banner which is added during upload and is 12 pixels high. This would then add 12 pixels to the longer (vertical) size.
667 -> 750 *1000
683 -> 768 *1024
733 -> 825 *1100
800 -> 900 *1200
866 -> 975 *1300
933 -> 1050 *1400
1000 -> 1125 *1500
1066 -> 1200 *1600



BTW, what are the pixel dimensions of your camera?

[eric8669]

I've written a piece about my color rejections here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/photography_feedback/read.main/365562/

Even if you skip my whole long explanation, I think everyone should check out the color illusions at the end, if you haven't seen them before.



All this just to get your images on anet.lol. WOW! You guys are nuts...

[gonzalu]

All this just to get your images on anet.lol. WOW! You guys are nuts...

It's OK, you have salvaged a few shots you should have thrown in the trash just to post them here so we are about even :tongue:

[gonzalu]

Kris, never mind. You have a Canon 60D

Pixel Dimensions are: 5184 x 3456

So without changing the aspect ratio, a 1200px wide shot should be 1200x800 naturally.

[eric8669]

It's OK, you have salvaged a few shots you should have thrown in the trash just to post them here so we are about even :tongue:

Wait, what?

[gonzalu]

Wait, what?

You know... exposure didn't work out, light sucked.... HDR to the rescue kind of thing? :tongue: :tongue:

I have my nomex undies on... LOL

[Kris V]

Chris, your images are 1200x918, outside the rules.. Why are you CROPPING your originals in a non standard ratio? Just curious.

Landscape photos:
The first number is the longer side (horizontal) * second number is the shorter side (vertical one) in a 3:2 ratio and third (last) number is the shorter (vertical) side in a 4:3 ratio. Note that these numbers do not include the Airliners.net copyright banner which is added during upload, and is 12 pixels high. This would then add 12 pixels to the shorter (vertical) size.
1000 * 667 -> 750
1024 * 683 -> 768
1100 * 733 -> 825
1200 * 800 -> 900
1300 * 866 -> 975
1400 * 933 -> 1050
1500 * 1000 -> 1125
1600 * 1066 -> 1200
Portrait photos
The first number is the shorter side (horizontal) * second number is the longer side (vertical one) in a 3:2 ratio and third (last) number is the longer (vertical) side in a 4:3 ratio. Note that these numbers do not include the Airliners.net copyright banner which is added during upload and is 12 pixels high. This would then add 12 pixels to the longer (vertical) size.
667 -> 750 *1000
683 -> 768 *1024
733 -> 825 *1100
800 -> 900 *1200
866 -> 975 *1300
933 -> 1050 *1400
1000 -> 1125 *1500
1066 -> 1200 *1600



BTW, what are the pixel dimensions of your camera?
Now I see where I messed up, my camera (60D) has a 3:2? ratio last I checked.
So I have to recrop both pictures then. JP did accept the DC-6, the DC-9 is still in the Q.

[JDANDO]

A bit disappointed this got rejected. Any ideas on what to level to?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/0/3/49138_1339271306.jpg

Thanks

[Cary]

A bit disappointed this got rejected. Any ideas on what to level to?

Thanks

Rotate the white tower near the middle, on the horizon CCW. Everything seems to be leaning very slightly to the right.

[JDANDO]

Rotate the white tower near the middle, on the horizon CCW. Everything seems to be leaning very slightly to the right.

Thanks Cary. I will give it a little tweak. It was hard to find something to level this one to.

[Roush6NY]

A bit disappointed this got rejected. Any ideas on what to level to?

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/0/3/49138_1339271306.jpg

Thanks

Here is my take on it

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8150/7466715150_d5118bb65f_b.jpg

[CX777]

My latest A.net go around..... :confused: :frown:

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7390208&nseq=0

And ofcorse it was screeners choice and Top of the day on JP. :biggrin:

http://nycaviation.com/forum/webkit-fake-url://6E5A37A2-C71E-4E2B-A705-2BC1EFDED076/imagejpeg

[Cary]

My latest A.net go around..... :confused: :frown:

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7390208&nseq=0

And ofcorse it was screeners choice and Top of the day on JP. :biggrin:[/IMG]



What was it rejected for? Grain? Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet casts? :tongue: It's an awesome shot.

[gonzalu]

What was it rejected for? Grain? Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet casts? :tongue: It's an awesome shot.

Cary, you're confused. RAJ posted that shot, not you :tongue:

Indeed, superb capture (and Raj-Luck)

[CX777]

What was it rejected for? Grain? Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet casts? :tongue: It's an awesome shot.

Thanks Manny & Carey, was rejected for grainy and color cast. (I usually don't reprocess and repost).

[Cary]

Thanks Manny & Carey, was rejected for grainy and color cast. (I usually don't reprocess and repost). I agree with the grain (easily fixable with NR software), but color cast? That's A.net for you. They won't take any color casts like that, even if it looked like that in reality, unless you're a screener. Your golden fuselage (which I'm guessing is the cast they're referring to):

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/6/5/21450_1339215562_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7390208)

is virtually identical to that on Stefan's pictures:
2122654
2122655
2122656
Not dumping on Stefan's pics, BTW...they're great, and I was pointed to them by a colleague who was there and told me that's how the scene looked. Just making the point that non-screeners are unlikely to get the same benefit of doubt on early/late day color casts.

[moose135]

Just making the point that non-screeners are unlikely to get the same benefit of doubt on early/late day color casts.
Why, do you know someone who has trouble getting color casts rejected?

[Cary]

Why, do you know someone who has trouble getting color casts rejected?

Yes, my friend gets all his pictures taken before 7am rejected. All around the same time, all with the same WB/Tint/Exposure, but rejected for different casts...yellow, blue, and green :tongue:

[Just_Lucas]

I dont know why This was rejected can someone explain me these two photos on why they were rejected? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120630_a1340482923.5463deltaairlinedepaturingiiw ebsite.jpghttp://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120629_z1340408005.1649unitedairlinescopyrightii .jpg

[gonzalu]

See my post re: the above pics on the pre-screening thread :-(

[Just_Lucas]

eh,still Dont Understand,where u talking to me or no,is the Quality good? or is it the colors
See my post re: the above pics on the pre-screening thread :-(

[Cary]

eh,still Dont Understand,where u talking to me or no,is the Quality good? or is it the colors

Lucas, this page should give you some guidance:
http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php

There's multiple issues with those photos, and they should be stated in the e-mail you received from A.net.

[gonzalu]

Lucas, this is directed at your question re: your rejections ... just in case you may think it is regarding some other post.

--Both pictures lack punch or what is commonly known as A.net contrast. A lot of what Airliners looks for is uniquely their own taste, do not think it is about what everyone agrees with. So keep it in mind that just because you or one hundred others disagree, it is somehow wrong or right. It has nothing to do with wrong or right, it only has to do with what A.net likes to see.

Top Pic (A320)

-Lack of contrast
-Motive: This is related to your motive for the image. Meaning what did you intend to show? For Airliners, the intent or motive should be primarily the airplane. They like it to be centered and balanced. So, your image lacks a motive. There is too much space on the left of the aircraft and it is also not centered horizontally. The airplane is also not centered vertically. Finally, it is not level. The image needs a bit of CCW rotation. That is Counter-Clock-Wise ...
-Soft: It lacks sharpness. Images posted to the A.net database must be A.net sharp. This is a level of sharpness you and many may not be very comfortable with as it borders on oversharpening. Be prepared to suffer in this area. I still get soft rejections from time to time. I have learned to accept them and recognize them :-)

Bottom Pic (B737)

-Soft
-Level
-Motive

In this one, the left horizontal stabilizer is stabbing the edge of the image frame. This is not acceptable and it is also unbalanced as there is too much space to the left of the aircraft.

--

I will upload a couple of edits to see if I can highlight some changes you can make and try to upload again.

[gonzalu]

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-39M2spL/0/L/i-39M2spL-L.jpg

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-nH88zks/0/L/i-nH88zks-L.jpg

[Delta777LR]

blurry/JPG Compression Artefects
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896850

Dust Spot/Dirty Scan
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896853

Too much or too little contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896856

Dark/underexposed/soft
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896857

Blurry
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896862

Blurry
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896864

Blurry
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896868

Blurry/soft
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3896869

[gonzalu]

Halos around aircraft... I think the fact that it was very humid that morning, there was a bit of turbulence and when the plane goes through it... what can you do. To see it you must view it under Photoshop and Equalize the histogram or compress it in curves...

JetPhotos.net VX San Francisco Giants Beard and Mustache
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/3/9/8/33126_1341418893.jpg

[Chris102]

Any thoughts on how to level this one? I always have problems uploading shots from this spot--it always takes forever to get them "level" according to A.net.

By my Photoshop ruler, it is level with the horizon. Thoughts?

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/Screenshot2012-07-17at65959PM.png

[Cary]

Any thoughts on how to level this one? I always have problems uploading shots from this spot--it always takes forever to get them "level" according to A.net.

By my Photoshop ruler, it is level with the horizon. Thoughts?



If Level was the only rejection reason, I'd appeal it...looks perfectly fine to me. Is it just me, or does the striping down the airplane look fuchsia/red, instead of gold, though?

[JDANDO]

If Level was the only rejection reason, I'd appeal it...looks perfectly fine to me. Is it just me, or does the striping down the airplane look fuchsia/red, instead of gold, though?

Colors look a bit off to me, but I am no expert

[Cary]

Colors look a bit off to me, but I am no expert

After looking at it again, I think it's just the picture being so small that the gold stripe is mixing with the black stripe outline to make it look like a different color.

[gonzalu]

Cary, I think that stripe is very reflective strip so since it is at an angle to the floor, it looks like it may be reflecting dark instead of the bright sky.

Jeremy, color looks fine to me given that it looks very overcast and early.

[Just_Lucas]

yea,it looks fine to me Mabye the less open space? mine was only rejected For centering And left a lot of open space >.<,there really strict

[Just_Lucas]

Nice how did that get rejected? Colors or cenerd?
Halos around aircraft... I think the fact that it was very humid that morning, there was a bit of turbulence and when the plane goes through it... what can you do. To see it you must view it under Photoshop and Equalize the histogram or compress it in curves...

JetPhotos.net VX San Francisco Giants Beard and Mustache
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/3/9/8/33126_1341418893.jpg

[Cary]

Nice how did that get rejected? Colors or cenerd?

Slight blue cast on the window shades.. :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

[gonzalu]

Slight blue cast on the window shades.. :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

Cary, do NOT disrespect me, those shades are YELLOW!!! You blind? You always confuse blue with yellow...

Lucas, it was properly rejected for halos ... I pushed the Highlight recovery slider in Lightroom a bit too hard to the left and while I argued that in normal viewing conditions it does not show much, under Histogram Equalization, it does show some areas with halos. JP.net rules state that the slightest issue with the image under severe scrutiny should be rejected. So it is been re-edited properly and re-uploaded. :smile:

Yellow shades, Cary, YeLlOw!!!!! And the beard is a deep charcoal, not black... the white, you know it, nice and yElLoW :tongue:

[Cary]

ROFL, Manny :tongue:

[Chris102]

Thanks for the help on the C-32, Cary. I'll be appealing it. The stripe doesn't look red in the larger image. I noticed the smaller images of the C-32 on A.net all have this same color thing going on.

Any thoughts on this one? It was rejected for needing a CCW adjustment, but it is already leveled by that orange/yellow line under the aircraft on the ground at the end of the pavement.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/Screenshot2012-07-21at33447PM.png

[moose135]

It may be level based on the line, Chris, but looking at it on my monitor, it does look like it needs some CCW - it just "feels" like it is going downhill.

[Chris102]

Thanks John!

[gonzalu]

Hey Chris, use the runway or whatever that is behind the aircraft :smile: Here is a quick edit using the guides Photoshop to help ... I used the measuring tape to lay down a line on that feature to help with accurate rotation.

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

[Just_Lucas]

@ manny we worked so hard on it :(,Wonder why it got rejected for Copy Right,Reject reason: size grainy soft info centered level category copyright
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120724_s1342410516.144920120629_z1340408005.1649 unitedairlinescopyrightii.jpg.jpg

[Just_Lucas]

Reject reason: quality size grainy soft overexposed contrast centered copyright Should i Delete The jet center in this one? i think i did Over Edit it But i wanted to see what The screeners would say,I dont know why Copyright is on there..:( Thanks for help Manny By the way

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120726_p1342516496.0416boeingunited_737s-website.jpg.jpg

[Cary]

,I dont know why Copyright is on there..:(


Like I said before, you can't have your own watermark in there.

[Just_Lucas]

oh haha sorry i didn't see it if you told me before thanks
Like I said before, you can't have your own watermark in there.

[Chris102]

This one was rejected for being overexposed. I really don't think it is, so I may appeal this. Thoughts?

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/Chris102/Screenshot2012-08-18at122409PM.png

[wunaladreamin]

There is a clear spike in the levels at the right side of the histogram, and to my eye it also looks like it lacks contrast. Do you have an original, unedited version?

[moose135]

Hard to tell with a small image, but it does look a little bright on the fuselage forward/below the cockpit windows and again behind the cockpit over the door. The detail looks washed out there, but again, it could be the small image I'm looking at.

[Chris102]

Any thoughts on this one? They rejected it because they said it needed CCW rotation, but I don't see it. It's leveled on the horizon.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120830_m1345569628.1324080512_mpo_4758.jpg

[Cary]

Any thoughts on this one? They rejected it because they said it needed CCW rotation, but I don't see it. It's leveled on the horizon.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120830_m1345569628.1324080512_mpo_4758.jpg

It's probably worth appealing that one. The water tower sides are virtually square to the sides of the picture. I think they are letting the crooked windsock and other pole on the right, influence their judgment. If you appeal, note that those two are crooked in real life, and that the water tower is level. Architectural features/buildings (which need to be built level) always trump lightpoles/windsocks/etc.

[Chris102]

Thanks for your advice, Cary. I just appealed it and I'll keep you updated!

EDIT: Accepted! :cool:

[JDANDO]

Thanks for your advice, Cary. I just appealed it and I'll keep you updated!

EDIT: Accepted! :cool:

Yeah. always nice when an appeal is accepted.

Need some guidance on this jp.net reject.

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/4/3/22434_1345169341.jpg

here are the "similar" ones

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7423684&nseq=0

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7411091&nseq=1

Thanks,


I thought noses/tails were different that full-one shots?

[gonzalu]

Jeremy, typically same side same approach is considered similar enough (or not dissimilar enough) and you could agree that we see the same image technically in your close up. Although if the dates are different, technically it should be ok. What was the exact reason for rejection?

[JDANDO]

Jeremy, typically same side same approach is considered similar enough (or not dissimilar enough) and you could agree that we see the same image technically in your close up. Although if the dates are different, technically it should be ok. What was the exact reason for rejection?

It was rejected for similar. It bugs me, since it typically does not give me the same image at the same airport note.

[Chris102]

Any thoughts on this one? Rejected for "dark."

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120901_c1345764843.343408232012_avp_4987_2.jpg

[gonzalu]

It was rejected for similar. It bugs me, since it typically does not give me the same image at the same airport note.

If it makes you feel any better, I just made the same mistake :) Although I thought mine were definitely dissimilar enough, it is same side and so it was rejected.

[gonzalu]

Any thoughts on this one? Rejected for "dark."

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120901_c1345764843.343408232012_avp_4987_2.jpg

Oooh, yeah Chris. Looks very dark to me sorry. Here is what I think would be better to my taste anyway. Although harsh light to begin with... :-)

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-S2cSFg9/0/L/i-S2cSFg9-L.jpg

[Chris102]

Thanks Manny! I'll brighten it up.

[Chris102]

Just got a few rejections and thought I'd post them here to see if I have any chance at appealing.

Low contrast:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120908_h1346367917.5869img_4791.jpg

Overexposed, soft: (someone else has a near-identical photo in the database of this aircraft, but that wasn't rejected for o/e):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120908_h1346367814.4396img_4847.jpg

Contrast high, "nose soft contrast," "soft soft contrast:" (too much contrast? I guess they punish you for using a professional camera/lens):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120908_b1346367745.9348img_4711.jpg

Soft (I don't really see it being soft--maybe someone here can point it out):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120908_l1346368015.9345img_4780.jpg


Thanks as always!

[gonzalu]

I think they are all fixable. Remember that Airliner's sharp may not be your idea of sharp. It is a very very fine line between overdone and just a tad soft for their standards. So, yes, I tend to agree on all the above counts. I think they are all fixable. Just do exactly as they ask and you should be in on round two.

For the sharpening, on those that are soft, just another round of USM on the plane, or Smart Sharpen at very low amount and radius (say 30 at 0.3) will give you a crisper look. Pro cameras are EXACTLY the problem you;re having. Trust me, I get rejected A LOT!!!!! lol. Pro Cameras demand a higher level of attention as the files come out a bit more RAW.

Do you shoot RAW or JPGs? If you're processing from RAW, you will have much more trouble than from JPGs until you get the right mix of settings for A.net and JP.net output.

Once again, A.net sharp is NOT by any means your preferred sharpness. This is not a big deal but more a preference. However, one thing you must keep in mind is that certain parts of certain aircraft at certain angles and certain weather will render them LOOKING less contrasty or more and thereby enhancing or hampering apparent sharpness.

For example, the windows on the last one could you a bit more USM ... they look soft partly because of lack of contrast due to the WX conditions... etc. etc.

I also tend to sharpen wheels and windows a lot more than the rest of the plane and usually completely erase sharpened airframe edges or boundaries. I will also oversharpen very very small or low contrast edges.

The fact that another image is in the DB seemingly identical to yours will matter not much unfortunately. You are screened on your own merits alone, and only point out another accepted photo if there is a mistake of some kind other than editing :smile:

[Chris102]

Thanks, Manny! I just got a chance to rework these tonight.

I've been getting a lot of rejections lately, too. All of mine are either for soft or contrast. Eventually I'll get the hang of the A.net required processing!

I shoot RAW. The worst part is having to edit them--they freeze up my computer and it takes forever just to edit a few!

[NickPeterman]

Well, I decided to complain about a recent rejection finally, so we'll see how it goes...


http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/photography_feedback/read.main/367153/

[MarkLawrence]

Personally, I think you have a good reason to appeal Nick - both look very acceptable.

[Kris V]

Thanks Anet...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120914_m1346896617.7768img_3880.jpg

Is this a good fix?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/o1347730824.7666img_3880anet.jpg

[JDANDO]

Thanks Anet...


Is this a good fix?


Looks better to me if it was a "dark" reject. Personally I like the first edit.

Got lit up on jp.net for this;

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/0/7/0/83058_1346028070.jpg


overexposed

[JDANDO]

Rough week on jp.net....

Bad info in aircraft???
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962809
Zooming in on the plane it appears to say TBM850 above the wing, but the FAA website and Airport Data have as a 700. Perhaps I should not have believed the government.

Bad info in serial number?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962819
Perhaps a space at the front on the s/n?

Wrong categories?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962821

Appreciate some help on these.

[gonzalu]

Jeremy,

The whites on the fuselage are showing close or at 255 on my setup here at home... I would back out the contrast a bit and it should be ok.

The Socata is clearly a TBM700 from not just the Govt site :smile:

N1HS: Seems like you entered the serial with the regi... Serial goes into its own field :-)

[JDANDO]

Thanks Manny!

Not too surprised with the reject here, shooting from the Parkade and nothing is squared up. Horizons are my nemesis.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3966053

Any suggestions on which way it should rotate?

[nssd70]

Looks like it needs to be rotated counterclockwise a little.

Doug

[JDANDO]

Thanks Doug, it is back in the queue with a tweak.

[Chris102]

Anyone think I have an appeal here? It was rejected for being "washed out," but I don't think it's overexposed...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20120930_z1348152189.149080312_mpo_4695.jpg

[gonzalu]

I wouldn't waste time appealing it... rather edit it again... bring down the exposure a bit and bump up the contrast a bit ... play with it a little and find the right combo. Findthe brightest while in the fuselage and measure it with the eye dropper to be no more than 240-250 level. Measure the blacks on the darkest part of the tire and see that it is close to zero level... perhaps 5 or so :-)

May look a bit more acceptable to the screeners.

[gonzalu]

http://www.mannyphoto.com/webforums/Chris-WashedOut-Winglet.gif

[Cal07]

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121006_l1348714431.6984zs-rsaair-1.jpg
Reject reason: editing halos soft overexposed editing personal

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121006_i1348713468.29019y-jmcair-1.jpg
Reject reason: editing halos overexposed editing personal...
Air Jamaica was approved on JP.net...guess its not to Airliners.net standards...

[Zee71]

If you are using the shadow/highlight selection in photoshop it will do that. I try not to use that feature.

[moose135]

Akie, to me, the tops of both fuselages, and the vertical stabilizer on the South African are blown out. Much too overexposed.

[Cal07]

If you are using the shadow/highlight selection in photoshop it will do that. I try not to use that feature.
Mark thanks, i'll try and not use that feature.

[Cal07]

Akie, to me, the tops of both fuselages, and the vertical stabilizer on the South African are blown out. Much too overexposed.

i was thinking that when was uploading, but i was using the histogram reading...

[Chris102]

Thanks, Manny, for the help with the Learjet.

This one was rejected for being unlevel, but my Photoshop ruler shows it as level when measured from underneath the 727 to the nose of the Spanish A310.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121008_h1348876125.6051swf_5488.jpg

[Cary]

Thanks, Manny, for the help with the Learjet.

This one was rejected for being unlevel, but my Photoshop ruler shows it as level when measured from underneath the 727 to the nose of the Spanish A310.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121008_h1348876125.6051swf_5488.jpg

Using that tarmac/grass edge for leveling will only work if the tarmac/grass line is exactly perpendicular to your lens. It does have a little bit of "needs CCW rotation" look to it, but I don't know what you'd base your leveling on. Maybe the nose gear strut at 100%. Looks very minor though...maybe .1 to .2 CCW.

[MarkLawrence]

Too much red/yellow - personal color.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121008_m1348925645.3654smc130-85-1362-kfll-09152012.jpg

[Cary]

Mark, your photo was probably realistic for the lighting situation, but A.net probably wants something more like this: http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/soak2179/ml.jpg

I just played with the Color Balance in PS, but if you have a RAW file and can change WB/Tint, that would be easier.

[moose135]

Mark, your photo was probably realistic for the lighting situation, but A.net probably wants something more like this:
Trust him, he knows...
;-)

[Cary]

Trust him, he knows...
;-)

:mad:

:wink::wink:

[gonzalu]

Using that tarmac/grass edge for leveling will only work if the tarmac/grass line is exactly perpendicular to your lens. It does have a little bit of "needs CCW rotation" look to it, but I don't know what you'd base your leveling on. Maybe the nose gear strut at 100%. Looks very minor though...maybe .1 to .2 CCW.

Agreed Chris... it looks too CW ... add a bit of CCW and be done ... awesome shot!!

[gonzalu]

Mark, it's more like

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-Z8t55CQ/0/X3/i-Z8t55CQ-X3.jpg

[Cary]

My interpretation doesn't look yellow enough, Manny.

[MarkLawrence]

Thanks Manny and Cary - I have the raw original so I'll make it look like a cold hard....LOL..

[gonzalu]

Thanks Manny and Cary - I have the raw original so I'll make it look like a cold hard....LOL..

Mark, in all seriousness, take a look at the red channel. It looks blown out... so think about desaturating the red channel or even the yellow orange tint or sat sliders in Lightroom... or in Photoshop ...

:)

[MarkLawrence]

Mark, in all seriousness, take a look at the red channel. It looks blown out... so think about desaturating the red channel or even the yellow orange tint or sat sliders in Lightroom... or in Photoshop ...:)

Let me not go into the accepted on jp, rejected on A.net saga :) :) :)

[gonzalu]

Let me not go into the accepted on jp, rejected on A.net saga :) :) :)

Happens to me often enough too... :smile:

[moose135]

Let me not go into the accepted on jp, rejected on A.net saga :) :) :)
I can name that tune in 3 notes...

[MarkLawrence]

You know Manny - I drove past there again this evening - and - the lighting - is - really an orange/red with the lights on the ramp - so - if I made it colder - does that count as digital manipulation?? LOL...just asking...

[gonzalu]

Mark, OF COURSE it is... but you'd be barking up the wrong tree in some circles :tongue:

[Chris102]

Any hope appealing this one? It was rejected for being soft but the pinstripes look sharp to me.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121010_b1349047466.2181reedited_4711.jpg

[gonzalu]

Chris, the tail logo is soft... You may want to try USM a bit more on that area alone. Also, the other edges may be bordering on oversharpened... I am on my s h i t t y work PC so I could be wrong :tongue:

[Chris102]

Thanks Manny--I tried your suggestions but was again rejected for soft http://nycaviation.com/forum/webkit-fake-url://9F0C62EA-5BF0-4DFE-863C-F82D4551394E/confused.gif


Any thoughts on these:


"Soft/jagged in places grainy soft oversharpened contrast"
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121031_b1350938966.991img_4995.jpg

This one was rejected for soft and quality, but I don't see the problem. The titles and colors are bordering on oversharpened.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121031_m1350938842.562610222012_reedit_5484.jpg

Also, any thoughts on the best way to save my images after I edit them? I'm using Photoshop CS6 Extended on a Mac, but I've noticed that the saved images are usually much softer than the image in Photoshop pre-saving.

[Cal07]

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/5/2/70413_1350271256.jpg
- Undersharpened (Soft)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/8/3/1/49022_1350353138.jpg
- Undersharpened (Soft)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/7/7/55893_1350271775.jpg
- Categories wrong or missing
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Registration,Serial Number/CN
(» United States - US Air Force (USAF)
» Boeing C-17A Globemaster III » New York John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport - KJFK
» USA - New York
Registration/CN/Date Photographer
» 980265 / CN:
» October 13, 2012 » akash deen (65197)

Guys little help on the info. for the C-17
Thanks

[MarkLawrence]

C-17A 88-0265 C/N F004/P1

I always go to http://www.scramble.nl/milbase.htm for military information - usually the best to find everything.

[Cal07]

Thanks Mark.

C-17A 88-0265 C/N F004/P1

I always go to http://www.scramble.nl/milbase.htm for military information - usually the best to find everything.

[Cal07]

A.net
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121110_j1351953573.0572pt-mva-1.jpg
Reject reason: 1000 pix minimum j1351953573.0572pt-mva-1.jpg blurry size soft common personal...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121110_v1351953791.1509ja784a-1.jpg
Reject reason: quality size soft overexposed...

What size should i use? I'm using 1024*683 resolution 1600

[gonzalu]

Akie,

Why did you upload at less than 1000? You just didn't know or was it an accident? It is also a bit soft indeed. Nothing you can't easily fix :-)

[Cal07]

Hey Manny,
I didn't know what was the size..i had it pre-set in lightroom @ 1024*683 and some how it was coming out less that 1000...
Akie,

Why did you upload at less than 1000? You just didn't know or was it an accident? It is also a bit soft indeed. Nothing you can't easily fix :-)
think i just found the problem i was cropping @ 5*7 when it should of been 2*3/4*6..

[gonzalu]

http://youtu.be/Av-OgMIAgMI?hd=1

[nssd70]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=s1351908810.281n652sw3.jpg
"Low contrast, narrow 1 pixel wide border all around image." My biggest question is I don't see the 1 pixel border. I've had a couple more rejected for border,and I can't figure out why. I'm using Element 10 for editing,and I haven't had a border issue until recently.

Doug

[Cary]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=s1351908810.281n652sw3.jpg
"Low contrast, narrow 1 pixel wide border all around image." My biggest question is I don't see the 1 pixel border. I've had a couple more rejected for border,and I can't figure out why. I'm using Element 10 for editing,and I haven't had a border issue until recently.

Doug

If you open up http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121110_s1351908810.281n652sw3.jpg against a dark background (like in Firefox), there is a faint/transparent 1px border around the image. Sometimes happens after you sharpen.

[nssd70]

If you open up http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121110_s1351908810.281n652sw3.jpg against a dark background (like in Firefox), there is a faint/transparent 1px border around the image. Sometimes happens after you sharpen.
What's the bestway to avoid getting the border after sharpening?

Doug

[JDANDO]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=s1351908810.281n652sw3.jpg
"Low contrast, narrow 1 pixel wide border all around image." My biggest question is I don't see the 1 pixel border. I've had a couple more rejected for border,and I can't figure out why. I'm using Element 10 for editing,and I haven't had a border issue until recently.

Doug

Wow, I have not heard of that happening before. That would be a hassle if you have to do another crop at the end of your workflow just to make sure it is not there. About the picture, what is going on with the nose of the plane? Looks like some skin work, it almost has a "zipper scar" on it. :frown:

[moose135]

About the picture, what is going on with the nose of the plane? Looks like some skin work, it almost has a "zipper scar" on it. :frown:
May have repaired a little ramp rash or something.

[Cary]

What's the bestway to avoid getting the border after sharpening?

Doug

Whenever I have that problem, when I resize down from the original, I make the photo 1px bigger on each side (so 1002x669 for a 1000x667 photo), then do the sharpening, and finally crop out the 1px edge by changing the canvas to -2px horizontal/vertical relative, making it 1000x667.

[nssd70]

Wow, I have not heard of that happening before. That would be a hassle if you have to do another crop at the end of your workflow just to make sure it is not there. About the picture, what is going on with the nose of the plane? Looks like some skin work, it almost has a "zipper scar" on it. :frown:

I like all the patch work on the plane. I have only ran into the border issue recently,and since I haven't changed the way that I edit,it is driving me nuts trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong.

Doug

[Delta777LR]

Oversharpened and Blurry
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4029880


Soft/undersharpened
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4029879

[Delta777LR]

does anyone see how this is oversharpened?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4055999

Contrast. Im not sure
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4055993

[wunaladreamin]

does anyone see how this is oversharpened?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4055999

Contrast. Im not sure
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4055993
Jaggies in the cheat stripe, and flat on the contrast. When correcting your levels, do it by individual color channel and not by RGB and that should help fix the problem.

[Delta777LR]

Jaggies in the cheat stripe, and flat on the contrast. When correcting your levels, do it by individual color channel and not by RGB and that should help fix the problem.

Thanks Kenny

[deltaA330]

These were all rejected by jetphotos today.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/5/4/8/89120_1355097845.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/9/7/4/65273_1355097479.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/4/3/54152_1355097343.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/7/6/1/27779_1355097167.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/7/0/9/95413_1355096907.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/3/7/83450_1355096733.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/1/4/43081_1355096410.jpg
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/3/1/90753_1355096134.jpg
Wasn't surprised most were not accepted. Only surprised about the Frontier and Airtran. The MD-90 Delta was only rejected because it was underexposed, so I may try again with that one.

[moose135]

They all look dark to me, and most look like they could use a little CW rotation.

[deltaA330]

They all look dark to me, and most look like they could use a little CW rotation.

Its funny because only two had underexposure listed as a reason for rejection. A few listed CW as a reason, it was hard with few buildings to guide to and an uneven runway. They looked good to me in CS6. Everyone except for the two DL MD-90s listed over-sharpening as a problem.

[deltaA330]

I just don't get this. Maybe one of you non-noobs could help. Here are the pics and reasons for rejection.
Reason: Oversharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/9/7/9/10145_1355434979.jpg
Reason: Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/3/1/31459_1355435132.jpg
Reason: Oversharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/4/3/2/18185_1355435234.jpg
Reason: Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/3/6/6/15201_1355437663.jpg
Reason: Oversharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/1/4/8/45359_1355437841.jpg
Reason: Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots, Horizon unlevel
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/9/9/97127_1355437992.jpg
That last one I really don't understand. I appealed the 2nd one because there was nothing wrong with the airline info I put (Untitled). Thoughts?? What should I do better? Thanks as always.

[nssd70]

The last photo I see a huge dust spot just to the left of the tail,and just a little CCW.

Doug

[deltaA330]

Yes I saw that and a smaller one right over the cockpit area; I fixed both. I will try again. What about the other ones?? Also fixed the CCW.

[JDANDO]

The aircraft not centered reject seems valid, it looks a bit low to me. Oversharp is a bit hard for me to judge, what is your workflow? Are you cropping a lot and then sharpening a lot? Try to fill the frame, but leave enough room to level it up.

[deltaA330]

Yes the more I look at it, it seems a bit low. Its funny because A.net loves really sharp images, while jetphotos rejects for it. Here is my workflow:
1. Level image (using the ruler tool)
2. Crop (3x2 ratio)
3. Adjust Levels
4. Resize to 1024 pixels wide (Bicubic sharper)
5. Duplicate backkground layer
6. Use magic wand to select the sky, then select inverse
7. Unsharp mask, 200% at .2 radius. As many times as I see necessary.
8. Eraser for oversharp areas.
9. Flatten.
10. Duplicate again, then equalize.
11. Clean up dust spots, then delete the copied layer.
Finished. BTW, I always shoot raw so obviously I make those adjustments first.

[Chris102]

I these two got rejected for "poor editing of sky" and "odd looking sky," respectively. Any thoughts?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121221_s1355440371.0453121212_5484_bcs.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121221_p1355441140.3935121212_3557.jpg

[gonzalu]

I these two got rejected for "poor editing of sky" and "odd looking sky," respectively. Any thoughts?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121221_s1355440371.0453121212_5484_bcs.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20121221_p1355441140.3935121212_3557.jpg

Yeah, shows up pretty readily in EQ... and be careful, on the Thai, you can see you clearly did some extra doctoring on the Sky, perhaps even copy/paste or clone. You could get yourself banned :-(

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-czCGpFp/0/L/i-czCGpFp-L.jpg
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-XZxG93b/0/L/i-XZxG93b-L.jpg

[gonzalu]

Yes the more I look at it, it seems a bit low. Its funny because A.net loves really sharp images, while jetphotos rejects for it. Here is my workflow:
1. Level image (using the ruler tool)
2. Crop (3x2 ratio)
3. Adjust Levels
4. Resize to 1024 pixels wide (Bicubic sharper)
5. Duplicate backkground layer
6. Use magic wand to select the sky, then select inverse
7. Unsharp mask, 200% at .2 radius. As many times as I see necessary.
8. Eraser for oversharp areas.
9. Flatten.
10. Duplicate again, then equalize.
11. Clean up dust spots, then delete the copied layer.
Finished. BTW, I always shoot raw so obviously I make those adjustments first.

Alex,

The screening was spot on on all of them in my opinion. The sharpening is borderline neither here northere. Remember it will be a judgement call by the screener in the end so there isn;t a clear cut THIS IS IT sharp :-)

As for your workflow, I'd change a few things.

--ALWAYS try and make all your edits on the FULL SIZE image... the last thing you should do is sharpen and save
--Make your workflow in order of MOST destructive to LEAST destructive step by step.
+ Spot Removal First
+ Denoise
+ Exposure/Contrast/Levels/Color Balance etc.
+ Resize
+ Sharpen
+ Save As... (Never "Save for Web...")

--Sharpening will depend on each and every image... (to me at least. I use a brand new sharpen workflow for each image. Never same formula unless absolutely identical images within minutes of each other)
--If shooting RAW, sharpening will be MUCH different than if shooting JPG
--If editing JPGs, sharpening differs depending on the settings of your camera, the contrast levels in the scene, etc. etc.

Good luck!

[Chris102]

Thanks, Manny. I'll have to re-edit that seam--that was where I removed a dust spot. Do you think that's why it was rejected for poor editing?

[gonzalu]

Thanks, Manny. I'll have to re-edit that seam--that was where I removed a dust spot. Do you think that's why it was rejected for poor editing?

That and the bad halo on the tail... I can see it even without equalizing :/

[deltaA330]

This was rejected for "Blurry." I don't really see how it is blurry, do you guys think so? Is it worth an appeal?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/0/4/4/58078_1357437440.jpg

[Cary]

This was rejected for "Blurry." I don't really see how it is blurry, do you guys think so? Is it worth an appeal? Alex, it looks to me as if the front of the plane has a little motion blur. It's most noticeable on the nose gear door number and on the red static port outlined boxes. The right side of the plane looks okay. When I go through my pics, for F9 A319s especially, I always like to check the static port boxes at 100% to see if they have crisp edges or are soft in any way. Here is one of my recent additions, where the outline was pretty sharp: 2209782

[deltaA330]

Thanks Cary! I just don't see how much blur could warrant a rejection. Anyways, it's fine because I got a shot of the same a/c taxiing accepted.

[Cary]

Thanks Cary! I just don't see how much blur could warrant a rejection. Anyways, it's fine because I got a shot of the same a/c taxiing accepted.

No problem. You wouldn't believe how many old (and some new) pics I have, where one side or small area has the slightest bit of motion blur, and the rest of the plane is sharp. It's devastating for me to go through those pics now :) Normally A.net is more strict and JP.net is less strict with borderline cases like that, but maybe JP is getting more picky.

[Delta777LR]

Can anyone see where this is blurry? oversharpened? contrast?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4100026

[gonzalu]

Sergio, it looks oversharpened to me in a lot of places. Perhaps a pass at a lower setting, or use Smart Sharpen which is a much better algorithm than USM.

[Delta777LR]

now this one for backlit, soft, and contrast

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4111731

[RomNYC]

Hey folks, a little help here.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4130475

The rejection is, in my eyes, valid for various reasons. However, I got "undersharpened" and "bad composition". In regards to sharpness, I actually thought I was on the edge of being OVERsharpened. In terms of bad composition, well, I guess I don't handle that kind of angle quite yet. Any suggestions on these issues? (yes, I do realize the shot is too dark, etc.).

Thanks!

Edit: Same here: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4130469

Slightly too high in frame, so I understand the "bad composition". But I got undersharpened, and this is where I'm puzzled.

[gonzalu]

Rom, that's an easy one to fix...

--Soft
--High in frame
--A little dark...

So just center it more, sharpen it a bit more, the rear of the plane is softer than the front...

If you have the original and want me to give it a go, feel free to send me the file off-line and I will gladly do an edit on it and see if it suits you :-)

[RomNYC]

Hey Manny, thanks :)

I'll PM you a link. So it is indeed undersharpened then... Lately, I have switched from PS to Lightroom which is much noob-friendlier, but I don't seem to be getting results.

[gonzalu]

I do all my MANAGEMENT and initial RAW processing in Lightroom... but final edit is still in Photoshop for me. I have yet to find good formulas for what I do in PSCS5 in Lightroom... I may one day but for now, AUTO-CONTRAST alone in Photoshop is an invaluable tool missing from LR :tongue:

[gonzalu]

Rom,

Thanks for giving me a chance to edit your image. I think you weren't too far off (to my taste and that of what I think JetPhotos was looking for) .. here is a before and after...

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/5/4/37331_1358785458.jpg

Mine is a bit oversharpened, but that's because I did not mask like I normally would and given that vBulletin will resize it, I overdid it a bit to make it show better as resampled by the forum. But you get the idea. The WINDOWS is what I usually sharpen more ... the rest I pull back a lot. I do usually different passes for windows, wheels, lines, titles etc. depends on the shot/plane...

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-xx42XXB/0/XL/i-xx42XXB-XL.jpg

[gonzalu]

BTW, you should also take a look at your sensor... seems to be a bit dusty and that is a surefire way to get an easy rejection,especially JetPhotos!

[RomNYC]

Thanks Manny! Definitely sharper. Windows: do you select each window individually, or do you select the zone around them? I always find it hard in PS to select specific zones/objects accurately. Like I want to select a window and bang, it selects the entire tail....

Yes, my sensor doesn't look quite right. Not that it carries a considerable amount of dust spots, but I always feel like my images look "foggy" somehow. I think I need to find the thread in this forum that explains how to clean sensors and the tools required (I'm kinda chicken about doing that though!).

In any case, thanks for your input!!

[gonzalu]

Rom,

While I do clean my own sensors, I would suggest just taking it somewhere that does it. Eric knows a great place in NYC that can do it while you wait... (I always forget the place)

So, I never actually select stuff like that :-) Layer Masks are your friend! I will do whatever I need to do to an area in a separate layer.. .apply the effect to the whole image, no selections.. .then I mask the entire layer in black. Using a white brush, I paint over the areas I want to apply the effect to 9essentially I am just REVEALING that layer in those areas) and I can go back and forth revealing more or less as I please... no complicated selections.

Only try to do magic wand selections on large swaths of color.. like blue clean skies. Otherwise, you'll be spending some time at your Psychiatrists office !

Your FOGGY sensor is the Lens you;re using, NOT the sensor. This is the effect of a cheaper lens wide open. I am not knocking you or anyone, but this is just factual. Unfortunately, those lenses will only start to perform well when they are stopped down a lot. The primary reason the 70-200mm f/2.8 is $2100+ and the 70-300mm is less than $500 is because of that.. CA correction and contrast and expensive coatings are not part of the formula. :-( Sadly, it is nothing you can do other than try to stop down a lot which robs you of light meaning higher ISO ... In full sun, ISO 400 and f/8 to f/11 on those lenses will work out to about 1/500sec minimum to a decent 1/1000sec so it would work nicely.

TEST my theory, do not take my word for it. Set up your camera on a tripod and take a series of pictures at different apertures... from wide open to fully stopped down. Make sure you use a far subject that is HIGH above the ground... like a distant building. Try to mimic the conditions a plane will be in ... You will find the lens' sweet spot or the best aperture that will give you the most contrasty and less milky images.

[RomNYC]

Thanks Manny,

It is indeed a cheap lens, and it shows in my aviation photography. Which is why I stopped this activity for a while because each picture is a battle. HOWEVER, it does perform much better in other situations. I have nice results every year at the US Open for instance, it is sharp in spite of the moving "objects" :P

But yes, aviation photography with my current equipment is EXTREMELY frustrating. Oh sure, you'll make it to anet once in a while, but even when I do, I look back at the picture and think that the screener was probably wasted ;) I have compared my photos to those of other folks using the exact same equipment on JP and anet (D60 + 55-200-cheapster), and I could not honestly see any major differences quality-wise. I feel that I am reaching the limit of what my current setup can offer, at least in the aviation photography field.

And of course, there is the KNOWLEDGE, which I am seriously lacking.

[Delta777LR]

Made a little boo boo. This one gets rejected because I forgot to place Night on the category. I wasnt sure what was missing but the screener mention that because of the horizon shadow.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4132691

[deltaA330]

I'm not sure why these two photos got rejected? Worth an appeal?
This one, subject to far away, but I thought I had motive for doing so.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4134509
This one they claim is not level, although it looks pretty dang level to me.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4134500

Should I appeal?? Thanks guys!

[gonzalu]

Both are fixable and the rejections I believe were warranted in both instances... great shots though :-)

The first one, I see your motive but it may not be strong enough for the screener. I say you could still show the effect and tighten the crop a bit... maybe there is a happy medium?

Second one, well, it is very obvious to me it needs a lot of CW. Easy fixes I believe

[gonzalu]

Sergio, the JP.net dark category is definitely an odd one... I argued it once and they really were serious about it being just before actual sunset (which is technically NOT dark) and that they should use the rule at least as within Twilight and Dusk ... but no, I was told it has to be any long shadows, dark category... Kaz should be the expert by now on exactly when is the cutoff time for Dark or not :-)

[gonzalu]

Thanks Manny,

It is indeed a cheap lens, and it shows in my aviation photography. Which is why I stopped this activity for a while because each picture is a battle. HOWEVER, it does perform much better in other situations. I have nice results every year at the US Open for instance, it is sharp in spite of the moving "objects" :P

But yes, aviation photography with my current equipment is EXTREMELY frustrating. Oh sure, you'll make it to anet once in a while, but even when I do, I look back at the picture and think that the screener was probably wasted ;) I have compared my photos to those of other folks using the exact same equipment on JP and anet (D60 + 55-200-cheapster), and I could not honestly see any major differences quality-wise. I feel that I am reaching the limit of what my current setup can offer, at least in the aviation photography field.

And of course, there is the KNOWLEDGE, which I am seriously lacking.

Rom, you are SERIOUSLY being too hard on yourself. You do know that much lower end equipment is used all the time. Marseno Bremmer of SXM fame uses a Panasonic Bridge camera and he gets great results.

I think the conditions you are shooting in may be at play.

For example, my rule for resizign a photo to 1200px wide is that the final BEFORE cropping... once I am done with all the editing etc. and cropping, has to be 3000px wide... only then do I reduce to 1200... if it is 2800px and it is SUPER SHARP original, I may reduce it to 1024px wide and see if it works.

If you're resizing from anythign less than 3000px you are really gong into maybe territory. In my experience, anything less is hard to edit correctly down to 1200px ...

On the contrary, a 7000+ px wide frame from my camera with a really poor quality consumer lens such as a 55-200mm with heavy CA and Fringing etc. can be somewhat easily reduced to 1200px and cover up all the flaws and look like a terrific shot at 1200px wide.

Let's chat more next time we are together. Perhaps some of my techniques or editing can help you feel better about your photos.

And don't let anyone kid you here... it is NOT that easy to get a clean shot of a moving object... sure it is made to look easy by Mark and Cary and Kaz and Eric, but those guys have been shooting planes since like 1990 or even before!!!! :)

[deltaA330]

Thanks Manny, I still feel my motive was appropriate. Should I appeal?

[Roush6NY]

ust before actual sunset (which is technically NOT dark), Kaz should be the expert by now on exactly when is the cutoff time for Dark or not :-)

Thanks Manny, took a few rejections to get them right :) Here is how I go about it, pretty much if there a tint of yellow from dawn or dusk lighting, I go with the night shot, just to be safe.

This is where it is starting to get to that point:

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/6/8/52346_1358907863_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7547832&nseq=5)


This is pretty much a must at this point:

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/7/8/40187_1351305871_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7476480&nseq=167)

[eric8669]

Rom,

While I do clean my own sensors, I would suggest just taking it somewhere that does it. Eric knows a great place in NYC that can do it while you wait... (I always forget the place)



Photo Tech Repair Services Inc

110 E 13th St, New York, NY
(212) 673-8400 ‎ · phototech.com (https://maps.google.com/local_url?dq=Camera+cleaning+place+in+NYC&q=http://www.phototech.com/&ved=0CBQQ5AQ&sa=X&ei=j0wIUcmWLpOwxAGd8YH4DA&s=ANYYN7nlOk2I4Sza1MJYrHQQkyz5ze3KvA)

[Cary]

For example, my rule for resizign a photo to 1200px wide is that the final BEFORE cropping... once I am done with all the editing etc. and cropping, has to be 3000px wide... only then do I reduce to 1200... if it is 2800px and it is SUPER SHARP original, I may reduce it to 1024px wide and see if it works.

If you're resizing from anythign less than 3000px you are really gong into maybe territory. In my experience, anything less is hard to edit correctly down to 1200px ...

Agreed 110%. A lot of people think there's some magical post-processing that makes photos better, and while there are some techniques that help, the key is to start off with a tack sharp, well-exposed photo, with the plane covering as much of the sensor as possible. I still kick myself for only filling < 75-80% of the frame on shots...and that yields about 4,000+px width on the 5DmIII as a starting point.

As for the JP.net "Night shot", I have asked them repeatedly to change their description, or the criteria. It still reads: "Night Shot: Depict an aircraft in night/dusk/dawn lighting?" Dawn is before sunrise, dusk is after sunset...so sunrise/sunset shots shouldn't be classified as Night Shot according to that. Let alone post-sunrise and pre-sunset :confused:

[RomNYC]

Photo Tech Repair Services Inc

110 E 13th St, New York, NY
(212) 673-8400 ‎ · phototech.com (https://maps.google.com/local_url?dq=Camera+cleaning+place+in+NYC&q=http://www.phototech.com/&ved=0CBQQ5AQ&sa=X&ei=j0wIUcmWLpOwxAGd8YH4DA&s=ANYYN7nlOk2I4Sza1MJYrHQQkyz5ze3KvA)

Excellent, thanks Eric.

[JDANDO]

I'm not sure why these two photos got rejected? Worth an appeal?
This one, subject to far away, but I thought I had motive for doing so.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4134509
This one they claim is not level, although it looks pretty dang level to me.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4134500

Should I appeal?? Thanks guys!

The first one is a toss up. It is a good shot, tells a story and has an aviation theme......but for jp/anet it is sometimes more about cataloging than aviation.

Second one looks pretty good to me also, perhaps .3 degree ccw. Take it with a grain of salt, I had 4 horizon rejects in the last week!

Not sure I would appeal.

jeremy

[deltaA330]

This is getting frustrating. Rejection number 4 for this photo, all for the same reason! Horizon unlevel yet again...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4140971

Again this one too, after two motive rejections now rejected for being soft.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4140978

Not sure what do now. It seems like some of my photos of airliners get accepted even though they are far less quality than these and other photos I have of general aviation aircraft. Does jetphotos sometimes reject just because the subject of the photograph isn't an airliner? It sure seems that way to me...

Alex

[gonzalu]

Sergio, the helo crop now does look soft/distance... looks like you cropped a lot to get the tighter shot... there aren't rnough details in the original to get a good sharp result...

The first one is obviously CCW... just use the GUIDES in PS and make sure that very prominent building is STRAIGHT as a soldier! ;-)

[deltaA330]

Manny,

You may be confused because me and Sergio have similar user names, but I am not him. I believe he is Delta777LR, I'm deltaA330. Ya I've tried rotating both ways a little but no dice so far. Do you think the helicopter has a chance I add some USM?

Alex

[gonzalu]

Apologies Alex... yes, there ought to be a rule that screen names MUST be very different :tongue:

Anyway, what do you mean you tried?

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-Qhr6Vb6/0/O/i-Qhr6Vb6.jpg

I assume you shot from the Observation Park... if you look at the position of the terminal relative to your position, it is at almost 45 degrees to you..

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

This means the horizontal lines in those buildings SHOULD drop down and to the right as viewed, but your VERTICAL lines should still be vertical as long as your camera sensor is also perfectly vertical... the lines will begin to skew if you move your sensor up or down vertically (pitch?) otherwise the tower should be straight... and from the looks of it the aircraft is straight ahead from your position, not too far up or down... hope this BS makes sense :biggrin:

The helicopter is DISTANT and SOFT which means it will be VERY HARD to save unless the original is VERY VERY sharp... even then, if your resulting crop is less than 3,000px wide BEFORE reducing, I personally will not bother... but yours may be of higher quality. Feel free to PM me with the originals if you;d like me to give it a go :-)

[deltaA330]

I think I will send you them. I actually have a bunch of the helicopter but I felt that one was the best with the snow. But maybe I'll see what else I have regarding that. I will send you later today. Thanks very much!

Alex

[deltaA330]

Got 4 more for ya (ugghhh!!)
Soft again (even with 800% USM!)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141885
Over sharpen and similar photo (which makes no sense because I don't have any pics of this plane yet)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141888
Over sharpen
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141891
Blurry
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4141898

[gonzalu]

The E90 is pretty obvious... I would say even heat haze and distant as well...

The ERJ may be appealable (is that even a word? :smile:), does not look oversharp to me... the SIMILAR sounds like some other pic in your queue, not yet accepted maybe?

The MD-80 looks a bit over the border, maybe due to softness in the original and compensated for by extra USM in post... the jaggies should be TINY, as close to dots as possible... the longer they look, the worse your chances of making it look great at small resolutions. Try it at higher res (1300, 1400, 1500, 1600) and see if it looks any better... also go down to 1000px as well and see..

The Beech 1900 is a bit blurry but the wingtip gives it away the most... it also is a bit overexposed/too contrasty to me, but could just be the snow reflecting (snow on the ground?)

[deltaA330]

Yes I have has this problem with many small planes like that. As for the ERJ, I agree. And no, I don't have any other pics of it in the que, which is why I am confused. MD-80 I thought was fine but apparently not. Finally on the Beechcraft, I had a hunch it was blurry. Yes there is A LOT of snow on the ground! I'll try another picture of the Air Canada and see how it looks.

[lijk604]

The Chautaqua ERJ...you can see the tail# is severely over sharpened. On my monitor it is heavily "jaggied"

[JDANDO]

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/3/1/7/73784_1359901713.jpg

I love the reason for this one....part of aircraft cut off. Ya think?

[wunaladreamin]

It also looks soft in the nose area.