The cropping ratio wasn't valid, that's why it was rejected for cropping.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
Printable View
The cropping ratio wasn't valid, that's why it was rejected for cropping.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1768267
Now that's just criminal! Do I have a good shot at an appeal? Tommy???
Def not John, its way to dark. The gray on those birds really is much lighter. I think you can save the shot fairly easily by adjusting the levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1773822
Rejected for similar photo in database.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 728&nseq=0
Photo taken two years ago.
So one can only have one shot of the same plane in the same airport arriving on/departing from the same runway?Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
They are both departures from 31L over HoBe, but definitly different situations. The new photo has a better bank, albeit a much cloudier background. I thought the double was same aircraft, same runway, same arrival/departure, same day. Guess I would be wrong as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
There are 41 shots of that regi in the database on JP.net, almost half of those shots are from Hobe and 14 are bank shots, hence the rejection for similar shot. The system doesn't flag your own photo per say as similar but looks at the regi and location. This one prob came up red since there are so many of this regi at JFK already.Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
We have three levels to detect similar shots which look like this when we screen.
Similars Reg Reg+Loc Reg+Loc+Date
Photos 0 0 0
Queue 0 0 0
Reject 0 0 0
The top field tells us what we have in the database, the second field tells us what's in the que, and the last field tells us if this was rejected before. The top field has two different colors that highlight, either yellow for caution or red for a high chance of a similar. We can then click on each of those fields and it will bring up the similar shots. The screener then can decide how similar the shot is.
Morale of the story stop uploading pictures of the regi from Hobe, LOLOL j/k j/k. Again simply because we have so many of this plane on file from HoBe doesn't mean any future shots would be rejected. However it does mean that a screener may consider the quality of the shot a bit more when adding it.
Tommy,Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Thanks for clearing that up. I have no problem with the rejection in that case.
It looks like you were having some autofocus issues in these shots...were you shooting through a window?Quote:
Originally Posted by hiss srq
Yeah, the tower glass which is just under one half inch thick except in the G4 shot, I was on the roof of the tower.
Almost all of my photos from last weekend got rejected...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1812376
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808697
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808696
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808694
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1808691
I know I could probably sharpen these a lot more, and I realized after I submitted that I should probably bump up the contrast significantly, but what's with the "Bad Quality" rejections? What does that even mean?
Adam, the smaller birds coming off of 22R (as well as 31L) won't fill anywhere close to a full frame even with a 400mm. The more you crop to fill the frame, the more resolution you lose. Combine that with a load of usm and subsequent added grain...
I've lost a few good shots due to the same thing.
Yeah, I'm liking my arrival shots much better than my takeoff shots...but I posted them here because I figured my editing could use some work as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1816686
I'm done with the 100-400. Every shot is getting rejected; about 80% of my 70-300 IS shots got accepted with relatively little post-processing.
Adam, I think that shot is easily fixable. Just bump the levels and lay on some usm. Patience grasshopper, it's a new lens and there's going to be some trial and error. I'm going through it too! Don't worry, we still love ya buddy! :borat:
Oh, I'd already resubmitted it by the time I posted that :) The levels and contrast were easy, and probably user error to start with...the sharpening, not so much, but I increased the Amount even more...Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
I'm just not used to doing so much work on my shots...these are a lot softer than my 70-300 IS shots...I had already done what I thought was extreme sharpening the first time I submitted it.
If they were taken from the extreme end of the zoom(350-400), the 100-400 is notorious for being soft.
But remember, that lens is a rental, not your own. Who knows how it was handled before you got it.
Oversharpened AND undersharpened/soft? WTF??
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1833073
Yes Kenny the front of the plane is over sharpened while the back half is very soft. Its a rather common rejection with shots like this. The lack of light on the tail end of the plane is the cause of the softness.Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
Oh ok. http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k2...addies2dd1.gif
Thanks for the clarification.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1837475
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1837470
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834306
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1834258
How on earth do you guys get anything accepted with that 100-400 lens? Every shot from both copies I've tried is getting rejected due to softness and too much contrast...
(I sharpened the absolute crap out of these. 200% with 2.0 radius was my default; the second one was even more aggressively sharpened.)
Adam, are you using curves? It looks like you are over-lightening the dark end, this often leads to the soft, hazy results you are showing here.
I'm doing all of my color correction in Camera Raw...setting the white balance, lowering the contrast (it defaults to +50 for some reason) and adjusting the exposure a bit if necessary...Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
Bad info in remarks for "Scarebus." LOL. Adam, the colors look a bit flat too. Do you bump the saturation at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
Yeah, the "Scarebus" one is easy to fix. I'm much more worried about the contrast and sharpness issues...this doesn't happen with my 70-300!Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
I bumped the saturation a little...like +8...
None of these rejections have anything to do with the lens at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
The first shot needs more contrast added, but an easy fix.
The second shot is simply to far away. She went straight out, unless you’re using a 600mm prime it’s going to look like crap. I didn't even bother with my Cathay shot from that day.
The CRJ shot...it’s a CRJ Adam, you can't shoot those at HoBe, they are simply too small and too high. The conditions have to be perfect to grab a decent shot of a CRJ at Hobe. Plus it’s a CRJ...when they fly over is a good time to go to the bathroom, ;)
The AA bird is an easy fix, a touch more sharpening and more contrast. Also the comment....I'd change it.
Again you can't blame the lens, that's an excuse. You can't expect to throw on a high quality lens and automatically get great results. Each lens works differently with each camera and you have to learn the len's "sweet spot." You learned your 70-300mm sweet spot and how it works and therefore you are getting the desired results. I'd bet if I threw on your 70-300 on my camera I'd curse the dam thing. Again nothing to do with the lens but I'd have to learn how it responds and what settings it performs best in.
My 100-400 works great in Shutter mode around 500 to 640th of a second with an F stop of F9/F10. Yet on my Rebel that wasn't the case. The 100-400 is a popular lens for a reason, if the quality of the lens was sub par Canon wouldn't be making it nor would we be buying it.
Photography takes time to learn and everytime you put a new lens on your body your learnng all over again.
Bad quality means there are multiple things wrong with the photo its not really worth trying to save.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1903612
Reason(s) For Rejection:
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
- Too much or too little contrast
Nick, the fuselage is a tad low in the frame and the undercarriage is a bit dark. If you have the original, it is an easy fix.
I do have the original, and am planning on re-editing and then uploading it again...Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
Hmm surprised that got rejected...I would have accepted it. It could use a bit less contrast but overall didn't warrant a rejection...imoQuote:
Originally Posted by ngreed
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1910943
Too much? or too little?
To little Mark. Add some and give it another go.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Thanks Tommy! I will!
After a long dry spell I've finally gotten a shot accepted on Airliners.Net again:
[airliners54293[/airliners