Post Your Recent REJECTIONS! [Archive] - Page 6

Cary

2013-02-14, 05:36 PM

JDANDO

2013-02-15, 09:44 PM

Had a few contrast rejects from this day.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4148508

I assume it needs a bit more contrast?

wunaladreamin

2013-02-15, 10:27 PM

Had a few contrast rejects from this day.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4148508

I assume it needs a bit more contrast?
Try less...look at your histogram.

deltaA330

2013-02-15, 10:59 PM

The edge of the tower looks pretty darn straight to me. I wonder how they're coming to the conclusion that it's unlevel.

The Air Canada has blown highlights, so I would recommend bringing down the exposure a bit.

Ya that's what I said! They're probably like, "UGHH!!!, not THIS guy again!! We are SO SICK of seeing gosh darn GRR! Lets find ways to reject his shots!" LOL! I do understand the Air Canada rejection and have revised the photo accordingly.

JDANDO

2013-02-15, 11:04 PM

Try less...look at your histogram.

I guess I do not understand. What component of the histogram should be guiding me? When I look at the histogram it looks a bit overexposed if anything. It seems to have a reasonable distribution of lights and darks.

wunaladreamin

2013-02-15, 11:45 PM

gonzalu

2013-02-16, 05:22 AM

Horizon unlevel again, 5th rejection on this for the horizon
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4149309
Overexposed (There was snow on the ground)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4149290
Do you really think the Air Canada was overexposed?

I can still see a bit of CCW unfortunately :( Alex, this is really a simple matter of NAILING the level... you have enough straight lines to guide you.. not sure what you;re not doing but the arbitrary level tool should be useful instead of doing it by eyeballing it ...

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-BMD7kM4/0/O/i-BMD7kM4.jpg

here is what the Air Canada Express should look like to my tatste (yours may vary). Aim to see details in the fuselage

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-krzg9CN/0/O/i-krzg9CN.jpg

gonzalu

2013-02-16, 05:57 AM

I guess I do not understand. What component of the histogram should be guiding me? When I look at the histogram it looks a bit overexposed if anything. It seems to have a reasonable distribution of lights and darks.

See if this helps... While there are sharp spikes, they are not up against the right hand side and also not too high up on the scale. Also, notice how the middle of the histogram got fatter? That means more data is now visible in that range of grays (yes, they are all grays per layer of color :tongue:)

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-nSmnqh5/0/O/i-nSmnqh5.gif

Everything I learned about histograms and color correction after much reading on the subject, was from the great Dan Margulis. I suggest you read him and learn a lot about how digital data is stored and used to represent real world scenes. Absolutely great learning from any of his books. The ...Canyon Conundrum... being my favorite!

His recent Picture Postcard Workflow is a terrific video tutorial from what I hear (have not had the pleasure...)

http://www.danmargulis.it/index.html

JDANDO

2013-02-16, 08:25 AM

Is there a spikes on the extreme edges of the histogram? That's what gives the shot a harsh look. Also when you correct levels, are you doing it in RGB? Or are you doing it by individual color channel?

See if this helps... While there are sharp spikes, they are not up against the right hand side and also not too high up on the scale. Also, notice how the middle of the histogram got fatter? That means more data is now visible in that range of grays (yes, they are all grays per layer of color :tongue:)

Everything I learned about histograms and color correction after much reading on the subject, was from the great Dan Margulis. I suggest you read him and learn a lot about how digital data is stored and used to represent real world scenes. Absolutely great learning from any of his books. The ...Canyon Conundrum... being my favorite!

His recent Picture Postcard Workflow is a terrific video tutorial from what I hear (have not had the pleasure...)

http://www.danmargulis.it/index.html

Thanks for the help guys. This was a horrible light day, but AF1 was in town and I figured I would give it a go.

Levels correction is done in RGB.

wunaladreamin

2013-02-16, 08:48 AM

Even though its quicker to do it in RGB, you'll have more accurate correction using individual channels.

deltaA330

2013-02-21, 05:41 PM

These rejections I'm going to have to call BS on!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4154787
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4154787
Both rejected for overexposure and CMOS dust spots. The overexposure I can see, but given the time of day and the amount of snow on the ground pictures are just going to look a bit brighter. The dust spots are totally messed up by the screener. The "dust spots" he/she saw are water vapor coming from a building nearby, anyone can clearly see. When equalized, NO dust spots are seen anywhere! I'm going to appeal, because whoever screened this clearly DID NOT take his/her time actually looking at the photo.

gonzalu

2013-02-21, 09:51 PM

Alex, sorry, no BS and you only linked one image twice... what is the URL for the other one?

In any case, the one above is clearly NOT overexposed; the brightest white I can find is about 251 level out of 255. Bright but not over in my opinion...

But it does indeed have large dust spots!!

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

Equalized I can see them clearly, but some curve work can show them even more

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-cg2LB6p/0/XL/i-cg2LB6p-XL.jpg

deltaA330

2013-02-21, 10:14 PM

Oh wow, when I equalized none of that seemed to show. Weird. The other must be the same.

gonzalu

2013-02-21, 11:25 PM

Why do you find it weird? If you;re not equalizing your FINAL JPG that you saved for upload, you're not really seeing what THEY see... always keep that in mind. I usually save the file and then open it back up in PSCS6 and EQ and Curves to see if there is anything I missed. Now for some of the rules applied by the two main database sites as I know them:

JP.net

--ANY dust spot or blemish will be revealed via EQUALIZATION even if invisible in regular shot and will be rejected (usually) and they are VERY good at this ;-)

A.net

--Screeners MUST be able to see the spots and/or blemishes UN-EQUALIZED ... Equalization is at the discretion of the screeners to CONFIRM something noticed in the regularly screened image as seen by anyone as normally displayed. So if there is a spot in the image but it is not discernible to the naked eye, it gets a pass usually.

Another trick to use (one used by the screeners at A.net is to rapidly circle your eyes around a picture. Your eyes are so good at hiding the HOLE in the back of the retina (where the optical nerve is) that you miss stuff that's directly focused / projected on that spot. By moving your eyes around quickly you pick up subtle differences in the image such as spots quite easily.

deltaA330

2013-02-22, 11:22 AM

I am equalizing the final JPEG, it is just hard for me to see dust spots for some reason. I guess I'll just have to train my eyes to see them better. It also doesn't help that my computer's screen is below average.

gonzalu

2013-02-22, 11:50 AM

Also good to know is that screeners use either a 24inch S-IPS panel or larger at at least 96dpi and hardware calibrated. If you are not doing the same, you're just guessing and getting lucky ... seriously, the A.net database literally wants perfect shots or close to it. There is no point in thinking of it any other way... you can upload to literally any other database or on-line gallery... they may not be as strict... but A.net is aiming to have the highest standards and that's their turf, whether you agree with it or not ;-)

deltaA330

2013-02-24, 08:26 PM

What do you guys think?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4156617

MarkLawrence

2013-02-24, 08:31 PM

You're in a double edge sword world there - the top of the aircraft is very bright - which can be classed as over exposed. While the Air Canada red titles are good - the express and the reg seem soft - just comments from looking on my Mac - if you can selective sharpen the tail area before processing - I think you might be in a better place...

deltaA330

2013-02-24, 08:37 PM

Thanks Mark! I can see soft, but overexposed I dont think so, given that the sun was high in the sky, few if any clouds, and tons of snow, so photos will be a bit brighter, right?

RomNYC

2013-02-24, 08:43 PM

It does look overexposed to me as well, mainly the fuselage. I would play with the brightness a bit. As for snow, sun, etc. the screeners don't know that and I believe they screen regardless of the conditions. First impression is important, and my first impression was "whoa, bright!". Should be easy to fix, try again because this is a very sweet shot.

JDANDO

2013-02-24, 10:57 PM

Overexposed in Minnesota :)

Reprocess, dial back the exposure a hair, sharpen a bit and it is in.

wunaladreamin

2013-02-25, 12:32 AM

Thanks Mark! I can see soft, but overexposed I dont think so, given that the sun was high in the sky, few if any clouds, and tons of snow, so photos will be a bit brighter, right?

I've said it numerous times in this thread already...LEARN YOUR HISTOGRAM! It will not only end your exposure issues but it will help with the overall sharpness of the image as well.

gonzalu

2013-02-25, 01:06 AM

WAAAAY overexposed, Alex... I actually SHOWED you how to get it better and you ignored good advice? Shame on me...!

gonzalu

2013-02-25, 01:43 AM

Here is the edit I showed you a few days ago and compared to yours... It still shows the BRIGHTNESS of the conditions yet it has some details visible in the fuselage. It is a balancing act. But you seem to be trying to force a square peg into a round hole. You are NOT playing by YOUR rules... it is THEIR rules you play by... You never get an argument from Flickr or from Facebook... or your own website. IF you want to upload to the main two databases, you need to learn how to accept the fact that the way they want the pictures is just the way they should be. In this particular case, you have many people telling you it looks overexposed and indeed it is a bit... I also think the contrast is a bit much in your last version... in any case, my edit isn't far from yours so I do not believe it is a huge effort for you to accept it as it being a bit over.

My Edit a few days ago...

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photos/i-krzg9CN/0/O/i-krzg9CN.jpg

Your image from above post

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/6/1/7/36340_1360887716.jpg

deltaA330

2013-02-25, 08:04 AM

I'm sorry Manny, I thought I was taking your advice when dialed back the exposure but I guess I didn't do it enough. I will try again.

adscram14

2013-02-26, 07:47 PM

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/7/9/58545_1361033976.jpg

Horizon unlevel (leveled it on building on the right)
Obstructing objects (they said the AIRSTAIRS are an obstructing object? Come on now.)
Categories wrong/missing (biz-jet?)

Not happy with that reject.

JDANDO

2013-03-17, 08:41 AM

Hey guys;

Got this one from the LA trip.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/1/6/42602_1362453615.jpg

Yes, bits are cut off, but I have the most important parts :)

Any suggestions on a better crop?

NIKV69

2013-03-17, 09:01 AM

deltaA330

2013-03-20, 06:43 PM

Some A.net rejections
Rejected: Grainy
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130320_l1363054340.7895n524nk.jpg
Rejected: Blurry
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130320_j1363053970.8759n301nb.jpg

Any feedback?

wunaladreamin

2013-03-20, 08:42 PM

Grainy you can fix by changing the way you sharpen and by monitoring your ISO. Keep the iso in good light at no higher than 200. When you're sharpening, select the sky, inverse, expand by 1 pixel, then sharpen. That will cut down on grain especially in the blue channel which is by nature the most noise susceptible.

Blurry is unfixable.

deltaA330

2013-03-20, 09:09 PM

That's what I do. I shot that picture at ISO 100 and sharpened as you said, it's what I always do. Honestly I don't see anything wrong with either shot by oh well...

wunaladreamin

2013-03-20, 09:16 PM

It's a.hole...I mean a.net. If its not perfection then it won't get in. I can clearly see the blur in the second shot on my iPad. Try selecting the sky, contracting by 1 pixel and add some Gaussian blur for the noise.

megatop412

2013-03-20, 10:46 PM

That's what I do. I shot that picture at ISO 100 and sharpened as you said, it's what I always do. Honestly I don't see anything wrong with either shot by oh well...

You know there's something wrong when you're shooting at base ISO and it is still 'grainy'. That's ridiculous. Those shots look fine to me, but I'm not a screener. If you're already selectively sharpening, I wouldn't drive myself excessively nuts to please those maniacs. Hell, they can't even decide what constitutes too much 'yellow tint'

flickr ftw

Cary

2013-03-21, 01:14 AM

Hell, they can't even decide what constitutes too much 'yellow tint'

Did somebody say my name? :confused::tongue:

jerslice

2013-03-21, 03:57 AM

Did somebody say my name?

No Cary...just relax and go back to Trenton ;)

Jared Blech

2013-03-21, 06:50 PM

Here is mine, i can clearly see the wingtip is pretty messed up, does anybody have any advice to fix this. Also, anybody have any advice, tips, methods, etc. to help me? I also realize i should probably shoot with aperture 8-11 on Canon 100-400, the shutter speed was 1/800, which was probably too slow. In good daylight, at which shutter speed and aperture can i get the sharpest and best image for A.net. I am open to any advise given to me... and especially yours manny... :tongue: haha

EXPOSURE REJECTION.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130320_r1363145491.8047img_18553.jpg
If someone would kindly show me what my image should look like...not necessary, but greatly appreciated. :)

moose135

2013-03-21, 07:08 PM

I also realize i should probably shoot with aperture 8-11 on Canon 100-400, the shutter speed was 1/800, which was probably too slow.
I usually shoot in Av at f/7.1 with the 100-400, ISO 100, shutter speeds end up around 1/400 - 1/640 depending light, which is plenty.

Jared Blech

2013-03-21, 07:16 PM

Hey moose. I still feel like my images come out unsharp, iso at 100 and everything, i feel like they are a little grainy too... Do you think this is because of my Av at 5.6, ive read many many times that you get a sharper image with 8-11. I am currently shooting with a 7D.
Thanks.

jerslice

2013-03-22, 02:59 AM

I always found the 100-400 to be on the softer side on the 7D...that being said you shouldn't be having any problem getting sharp enough images for a.net with it...and really as long as you're hitting at least 1/400 you should be fine. I usually shoot between f/4 and f/6.3 and haven't had any issues. You're shooting the highest jpeg quality or RAW, yeah?

Delta777LR

2013-03-28, 12:53 PM

these 2 blurry unsharpened/oversharpened

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/36105_1363401983.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/57806_1363402084.jpg

overexposed/too much noise and grain
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/13160_1363217923.jpg

these 2 unsharpened/too much noise and grain
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/95067_1363217867.jpg

http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/34627_1363218050.jpg

this one underexposed
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/51765_1363401660.jpg

JDANDO

2013-03-28, 10:22 PM

I am disappointed this got rejected. One of the grounded 787's

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4182740 Blurry

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/5/9/8/28934_1363449895.jpg

MarkLawrence

2013-03-31, 06:43 PM

Once again a.net blows me away - all the different things it is rejected for!!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130329_m1363893869.5693e145-n241bc-kfll-03082013.jpg

Needs CCW rotation
Low contrast
Low in frame
Grainy
Soft
contrast
centered
level

gonzalu

2013-03-31, 07:14 PM

Mark, all easy fixes :-) Unfortunately, I agree with the rotation/level as given by the look of the light towers. It also is a bit low in frame. The hard contrast is likely due to the hot upper fuselage. Otherwise it looks fine...

Here is my quick edit. I removed about 5 level from the bright side and rotated a bit CCW. Also move it up a bit in frame to center the bottom of the fuel tanks and the top of the fuselage by the cockpit.

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

and your version for comparison

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130329_m1363893869.5693e145-n241bc-kfll-03082013.jpg

MarkLawrence

2013-03-31, 07:24 PM

I guess I need to use that course that I bought on Photoshop :)

gonzalu

2013-03-31, 08:14 PM

Mark, you don;t need a course ... you are great with Photoshop... I think I know my way around PSCS2-6 and I get rejected on a daily basis :tongue:

tlabranche

2013-03-31, 08:36 PM

Motive rejection. Funny, I have over seven engine shots in my stream. Four are other FL special scheme engine shots. Their consistency is getting awful.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4186904

Heat distortion. I see the horizontal stab is a bit blurred. This solely due to engine exhaust and a 30 knot wind blowing it back. I personally don't agree with this one.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4186893

Over 400 accepted shots, and I forget to put a night shot category for a sunset shot.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4186892

This one floored me. The same BS heat distortion issue but they also said part of aircraft cut off. How many thousands of photos have half the tail cut off?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4182186

JDANDO

2013-03-31, 09:00 PM

Maybe it is heat-distortion day.....

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4186984

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/7/9/76962_1363827978.jpg

NIKV69

2013-03-31, 09:00 PM

The heat distortion rejects are obvious. Both nose gears have it and it's plain to see other spots though slight, it's there.

RomNYC

2013-04-01, 07:13 PM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/c1364166919.2996dsc_0406.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/c1364166919.2996dsc_0406.jpg

Rejection reasons: blurry, contrast, color. Extra comments: "strong contrast, magenta cast"

I'm not arguing the rejections or the reasons, but I would appreciate your comments to improve this. For blurry, I suppose the right wing/engine need some sharpening (I didn't give it as much as I did on the fuselage and windows). Contrast seems a bit harsh of a reason to me for a sunset shot, but I'll live with it. As for magenta cast, I can see where they come from, I'm just not quite sure how to fix this in CS5. Help appreciated, thanks!

gonzalu

2013-04-01, 08:58 PM

Can't see it :(

RomNYC

2013-04-01, 10:39 PM

Grr, dammit! Let's try again (thanks Manny)

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=c1364166919.2996dsc_0406.jp g

wunaladreamin

2013-04-01, 10:59 PM

You can see the blur in the winglet, and the artifacts resulting from the aggressive sharpening there even though it appears soft still. For the contrast and magenta issues, when you correct your levels, do so in each individual channel instead of through RBG. That will go a long ways in helping.

Delta777LR

2013-04-16, 11:21 PM

Yellow cast/flat
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130416_x1365283742.1525183.jpg

yellow cast/soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130416_v1365284359.5889306.jpg

yellow cast/Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130416_b1365284299.6602294.jpg

yellow cast/soft/overexposed
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130416_a1365283616.5596094.jpg

Light Post/motive Soft/oversharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130416_z1365282354.9141dddff.jpg

Can someone explain to me about the yellow cast? As well as the motive softness and how a light post being shown would reject a shot although it's not blocking the aircraft

moose135

2013-04-16, 11:57 PM

Talk to Cary. He'll tell you all about yellow cast photography...
:-0

gonzalu

2013-04-17, 07:24 AM

Sergio, all of them have a yellow or magenta cast... definitely easy fixing. If using Photoshop, use the LEVELS tool and while the midtones eyedropper is selected, click on a neutral color like white or black or gray. That is one easy way to see the color go neutral... you may have to manually tweak the results. I do it on a separate layer and mask it in or out as needed.

Delta777LR

2013-04-17, 11:51 AM

thanks Manny!

sdspinelli2

2013-05-01, 03:24 PM

One of my first attempted uploads to A.net. Go figure! http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130430_m1366575853.1029chinaairlines747.jpg
Reason - Poor crop motive

Jared Blech

2013-05-01, 05:42 PM

steven, theres alittle more than poor crop motive there, but looking good considering you are just starting. It is somewhat blurry and grainy... easy fixes!
Pointers
1. If you are going to crop, crop all the way
2. make sure you get some noise reducing software, I use noiseware, I don't like photoshops in house noise removal too much.
3.ASK ANYBODY FOR ADVICE AND POST YOUR PHOTOS IN THE PRE-SCREEN THREAD!!

Roush6NY

2013-05-01, 06:18 PM

One of my first attempted uploads to A.net. Go figure! http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130430_m1366575853.1029chinaairlines747.jpg
Reason - Poor crop motive

Here is an example of the type of crop you are trying to go for:

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/3/1/6/8/11422_1363484861.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7579458&nseq=52)

sdspinelli2

2013-05-01, 06:47 PM

Thanks for the input guys.

RomNYC

2013-05-11, 04:19 PM

Pink cast/soft

http://www.instantscaptured.com/photos/i-Gp828Sk/0/XL/i-Gp828Sk-XL.jpg

Pink cast

http://www.instantscaptured.com/photos/i-sdXLQFr/0/XL/i-sdXLQFr-XL.jpg

Not argueing, although I see more softness on the TAM than the Air India... Now, pink casts. I get automatically pink casted on every upload to Anet. I do my levels in each channel individually, and still don't get the result I'm looking for. I try tweaking the color balance but am unable to decide where the sweet spot is... Can anyone help with an EFFECTIVE method to send casts to hell (hint Cary)? Thanks.

JDANDO

2013-05-11, 05:23 PM

.....Now, pink casts. I get automatically pink casted on every upload to Anet. I do my levels in each channel individually, and still don't get the result I'm looking for. I try tweaking the color balance but am unable to decide where the sweet spot is... Can anyone help with an EFFECTIVE method to send casts to hell (hint Cary)? Thanks.

I am in the same boat as Romain, any shot in the morning/evening, etc. usually gets yellow, pink, orange cast rejection. No kidding the photo has a color to it, it was taken when the sun imparts a color to a white plane. That is how the picture really was. Rant mode off......

RomNYC

2013-05-11, 10:41 PM

In all honesty, I see the pink casts clearly. Especially on the TAM... not so much on the India, but the cloud gives it away. Removing the cast is not a problem, unfortunately everything I tried gave the photo a very un-natural, fugly look. Help?

moose135

2013-05-11, 11:48 PM

Did you shoot it in raw, Rom? It's a simple white balance adjustment if you did. If not, you can still adjust white balance, but you don't have as much room for adjustment.

RomNYC

2013-05-12, 01:48 AM

Yes I shoot in raw. Changed the WB to daylight as I like the effect on the sky, but it does warm up the picture as well. This is where I'm having trouble. When I leave the WB at "as shot" I generally get blue casts, and a sky that is way too blue for my liking. Now "daylight" WB doesn't work either.

I've come to a point in my learning process where I am able to see that something's wrong, except that now, it seems that every correction I make looks wrong as well haha! Even when playing on the tint and temp, I don't seem to find something acceptable (to me, let alone Anet).

Can't blame Anet here though, it DOES have color cast.

wunaladreamin

2013-05-12, 02:04 AM

What was your white balance set to in camera?

RomNYC

2013-05-12, 02:12 AM

What was your white balance set to in camera?

Auto.

moose135

2013-05-12, 02:13 AM

Don't know what raw converter you are using, but in Adobe Camera Raw, I would use the WB eyedropper and click on a white portion of the fuselage, rather than just picking one of the presets. It may be a bit cool for your liking, but it should give you a good starting place.

Jared Blech

2013-05-29, 06:09 AM

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=j1368846019.8371img_4093.jp g
I believe somebody told me to talk to cary on this one.
"Yellow cast"
"Soft"
"Color"
Maybe the softness a little, but yellow cast? I mean, at that time of day the sun creates a YELLOW tint on white surfaces.
I do see it now back in photoshop, easy fix on the levels.

Cary

2013-05-29, 11:51 AM

Delta777LR

2013-05-29, 12:31 PM

soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_e1368824894.5345312.jpg

soft/chromatic aberration? Never heard of
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_o1368825770.634063.jpg

Soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_t1368825889.3339233.jpg

Oversharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_a1368826733.3752aazz.jpg

Low Contrast/Cyan tint
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_g1368823626.5354163.jpg

Cyan tint
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_r1368823685.1582120.jpg

lower right dirty
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_u1368823750.5841007.jpg

low contrast/soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_o1368824193.2031131.jpg

low contrast/cyan tint
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130529_t1368824270.1229104.jpg

Can anyone tell me?

Aviation.High.Guy

2013-05-29, 02:14 PM

I like 'em Sergio and for many of the flaws they claim, I just don't see it.

wunaladreamin

2013-05-29, 09:07 PM

#1 is extremely soft in the nose.
#2 Soft in the nose and tail. The abberation was easily visible on the iphone. Look just above the rear fuselage. See the distortion?
#3 again soft in the nose and tail
#4 I think it's soft in the tail. Also it's dark and full of abberation.
#5 is an easy fix. READ YOUR HISTOGRAM.
#6 again...HISTOGRAM!
#7 I'd appeal.
#8 is a bit flat (HISTOGRAM!!!) and appears soft in the titles.
#9 back to the HISTOGRAM!

This is elementary for you bro!

Jared Blech

2013-06-06, 04:09 PM

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=m1369535864.2791img_4048.jp g
I don't see what they see? should I appeal?

wunaladreamin

2013-06-06, 05:11 PM

Let me guess...yellow tint?

Jared Blech

2013-06-06, 09:09 PM

No, soft, this time...lol

RomNYC

2013-06-06, 09:33 PM

It does look soft. Selective sharpening and you're good to go. And yes, a little yellow (not to me, but to Anet).

RomNYC

2013-06-06, 09:49 PM

My humble take on it. Lowered temp a bit, increase saturation slightly, and selective sharpening where needed (I went a lil too far on the titles but you get the gist). Large version here: http://www.instantscaptured.com/Portfolio/Misc/Misc/24911563_CvJWr3#!i=2559684991&k=78VHB4C&lb=1&s=O

http://www.instantscaptured.com/photos/i-78VHB4C/0/XL/i-78VHB4C-XL.jpg

sdspinelli2

2013-06-09, 08:14 AM

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130608_e1369778148.7554emb120ss.jpg
Reason - CW rotation, blurry, soft, center leveled personal (can someone explain to me what that means?) and high in the frame. Anyone think I can fix it?
Oh and thanks Jared for showing me how to post process better.

RomNYC

2013-06-09, 10:42 AM

I think you need to add some CCW rotation, like half a degree. It is blurry at the very top of the tail, see if some sharpening helps. High in frame, I personally don't see it.

sdspinelli2

2013-06-09, 11:03 AM

I think you need to add some CCW rotation, like half a degree. It is blurry at the very top of the tail, see if some sharpening helps. High in frame, I personally don't see it.
Thanks, ill try some sharpening on the tail, maybe if I crop it so the runway is more at the bottom of the frame? I thought it was perfectly center!

wunaladreamin

2013-06-09, 11:47 AM

Scrub it bro. Blurry wont be fixed by any sharpening.

Jared Blech

2013-06-09, 03:30 PM

Sorry Stephen,it looked better before ante :(

sdspinelli2

2013-06-09, 05:36 PM

Don't be sorry Jared, and thanks for the advice wunala.

Jared Blech

2013-06-14, 03:22 PM

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=u1370228475.8215img_4530-recovered-recovered.jpg
you guys said so...

Aviation.High.Guy

2013-06-14, 04:14 PM

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=u1370228475.8215img_4530-recovered-recovered.jpg
you guys said so...

What was the screener's reason for rejection?

Aviation.High.Guy

2013-06-19, 01:41 PM

I don't normally post here, but this one has stumped me. Rejection reason: "Grainy". I just don't see it.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130618_s1370561783.3167dhldon2.jpg

wunaladreamin

2013-06-19, 02:01 PM

Select the sky, reduce by one pixel, and run a noise reduction. Simple fix.

Aviation.High.Guy

2013-06-19, 02:08 PM

Ahh, good point. I was only looking at the plane, but the sky does have some noise. Thanks

Cary

2013-06-19, 02:19 PM

Ahh, good point. I was only looking at the plane, but the sky does have some noise. Thanks

The thing is, I'm pretty positive A.net increased the compression/lowered the quality of the re-saved photo (after the watermark and copyright banner is added). And that seems to add a tiny bit of grain, just by itself. So, I find the whole grain thing (unless it's blatantly obvious), to be overcooked...unless they are going to resave at 100% quality, which they'll never do.

wunaladreamin

2013-06-19, 02:51 PM

On top of that, the blue channel will naturally have more grain than the others so treating the sky only all the time will help matters.

Aviation.High.Guy

2013-06-19, 06:37 PM

Cary

2013-06-19, 07:04 PM

I think you're right Cary. I uploaded the same DHL image to JP at the same res. then opened the watermarked version side by side with the Anet upload. A noticable difference in quality. The JP is cleaner for sure. Try it. It's a shame because Anet is not practicing what they preach about quality by adding compressing.

I meant to say they increased the compression recently (back when they last had the missing pictures/thumbnails issue) -- but you got the drift :) I run most of my photos through NR, and save at 100%, but after A.net processed the photo, I could see at least a tiny bit of grain on a lot of my pictures.

Jared Blech

2013-06-21, 10:21 PM

Sorry buddy, for not responding.... Quality... and other crap
one more just now...
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=v1370837633.778img_4058.jpg
Comment from screener "HIF" Centered?
If anything I see low in frame!!!

moose135

2013-06-21, 11:00 PM

Comment from screener "HIF" Centered?
If anything I see low in frame!!!

Look at the distance from the window line at the overwing exits to the top of the frame, then look at the distance from there to the bottom of the frame...it's high.

gonzalu

2013-06-22, 12:41 AM

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

Jared, I try to use this system to judge centering... it is NOT PERFECT but for side-ons it usually works well. Ultimately there are three major factors that go into play with the Screeners:

--Isometric Frame Centering as shown above.
--Visual Balance Full Frame
--Visual Balance in Thumbnail form.

So always look at it and FEEL the picture and see if it looks balanced at full resolution and also as a Thumbnail AFTER you center it as in my example

Sometimes centering is also considered based on the center of the aircraft being on the center of the frame. That does NOT always work, but sometimes it helps.

In the end, it is a toss up. Look for my thread on the Photo forum on A.net where I argue this very same thing and come up with a 50/50 split opinion.

gonzalu

2013-06-22, 10:02 PM

The thing is, I'm pretty positive A.net increased the compression/lowered the quality of the re-saved photo (after the watermark and copyright banner is added). And that seems to add a tiny bit of grain, just by itself. So, I find the whole grain thing (unless it's blatantly obvious), to be overcooked...unless they are going to resave at 100% quality, which they'll never do.

Even if you re-save a JPG at 100% Quality, it will continue to lose data... it is ALWAYS lossy generation to generation.

On top of that, the blue channel will naturally have more grain than the others so treating the sky only all the time will help matters.

Only if unfiltered and only if the white balance is off. If a given sensor is tuned correctly for a particular blue/red balance and the light striking is exactly as it was tuned for, the blue channel should be no less or more noisy than the rest.

Try this trick.

--Take a shot under tungsten lighting in RAW with your camera set to DAYLIGHT balance
--Place a Kodak Wratten 80A filter over the lens, increase exposure by 1/3 stop. Take another shot, same WB on camera
--Bring both in to Photoshop and inspect the channels. You'd be surprised how the noise looks :)

We have grown to rely on WB calibration in camera which simply boosts the gain on a particular channel causing more noise. Shame, but, that's our reality these days.

If I have enough time, I usually shoot on Daylight WB or at 5500K manually set with a filter on the lens if needed. Or over the lights :P Most sensors are tuned to 5500K anyway. Anything other than that, you are only introducing noise into the data...

Cary

2013-06-22, 10:52 PM

Even if you re-save a JPG at 100% Quality, it will continue to lose data... it is ALWAYS lossy generation to generation.

Oh, I know...I hate when lossy formats are saved more than once :P

Aviation.High.Guy

2013-08-02, 11:36 AM

Can someone tell me what the term "personal" means in the rejection comments from an Anet screener?
It stated: "More contrast needed. soft contrast personal"

Kiffy

2013-08-02, 12:51 PM

Can someone tell me what the term "personal" means in the rejection comments from an Anet screener?
It stated: "More contrast needed. soft contrast personal"
It's their strange way of saying they sent you a personal message, e.g. "more contrast needed".

moose135

2013-08-02, 10:12 PM

Can someone tell me what the term "personal" means in the rejection comments from an Anet screener?
It stated: "More contrast needed. soft contrast personal"
It means they just don't like you very much...
:tongue:

Aviation.High.Guy

2013-08-03, 08:20 AM

It means they just don't like you very much...
:tongue:

It's like they're saying your work sucks, but don't take it "personally".

deltaA330

2013-08-07, 01:32 PM

Been a while since I uploaded- guess I'm a bit rusty. These are some shots from some time ago, but the a.net ones are recent.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4292859
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4292857
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4292856
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4292853
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4292847
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4292845
Reason: dark- http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130807_i1374872143.1419b-2428-2.jpg
Reasons- dirty- http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20130807_v1374871766.5629n20904.jpg

Let me know what you guys think.

Roush6NY

2013-08-07, 01:42 PM

As far as the JP, I have to agree with their decisions :(

deltaA330

2013-08-07, 04:12 PM

What about a.net?

wunaladreamin

2013-08-08, 08:58 PM

Agree with a.net as well. Look at what your histogram tells you and use the histogram to correct the levels BY INDIVIDUAL COLOR CHANNELS. That will fix your exposure and contrast issues. I do wonder is there was snow on the ground when you took some of those from ORD. The under carriages are just way too lit up to be just a lack of contrast, that or you went bonkers with curves. I don't agree with the dirty reject, but I would have nixed it for contrast and noise.

deltaA330

2013-08-08, 09:58 PM

Yes those were with snowy ground below

wunaladreamin

2013-08-08, 10:11 PM

Then I'd revisit the photos, edit them to correct the histogram and reupload, leaving a note to the screeners in the comment box stating there was snow.

JDANDO

2013-08-10, 10:42 AM

Seems that a lot of my terminal pictures get rejected for "motive".

The fabulously underwhelming Mercedita airport in Puerto Rico. This picture does not do it justice, this shows the good side of this under-funded, under utilized airport.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4295513

Delta777LR

2013-12-01, 10:46 AM

how on earth would this considered backlit??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4405723

gonzalu

2013-12-01, 10:51 AM

Sergio, it is front lit... but the tail is dark... my usual gauge is if your tail has no light on it, then the sun is on the other side... :/

JDANDO

2013-12-01, 11:14 AM

how on earth would this considered backlit??

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4405723

Maybe they were just piling on :mad:

It is "nose lit" to me. Tweak the exposure, perhaps a little fill light and she might make it in.

gonzalu

2013-12-01, 11:36 AM

Maybe they were just piling on :mad:

It is "nose lit" to me. Tweak the exposure, perhaps a little fill light and she might make it in.

I personally would not be proud of that shot, no harm meant. I think one has to be a ruthless personal editor. I would not have tried to even keep that shot for my personal library :tongue: But I have learned to be a better editor and self critic over the years. I would keep one image for RECORD but that would be it.

Salvaging images should be left for when you capture the first and last ever landing of the Space Shuttle for example :smile:

(My opinion, not the rule of course)

Kris V

2014-01-08, 07:22 AM

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=v1388546337.4891img_0962ane t.jpg
This was rejected for Quality, blurry, grain, and soft... :confused:

lijk604

2014-01-08, 10:02 AM

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=v1388546337.4891img_0962ane t.jpg
This was rejected for Quality, blurry, grain, and soft... :confused:

It's backlit too....HOWEVER, I love this shot! At dusk, with the last rays of light in the background, sweet!

Kris V

2014-01-08, 05:17 PM

It's backlit too....HOWEVER, I love this shot! At dusk, with the last rays of light in the background, sweet!

I am surprised they didn't mention that either, and if it wasn't a classic I wouldn't even have even bothered to upload it.
Do you think if I were to sharpen and maybe re-size it they would accept it then?

lijk604

2014-01-08, 08:27 PM

I am surprised they didn't mention that either, and if it wasn't a classic I wouldn't even have even bothered to upload it.
Do you think if I were to sharpen and maybe re-size it they would accept it then?

Honestly, they would then reject it for backlit. Again, don't get me wrong, I love the shot, it is the ridiculous standards those sites have.
They don't see the picture for it's true beauty, they only want the cookie cutter shots.