Thanks for the help Matt. I am going to give it a shot again tonight. I have the orig file still.
Printable View
Thanks for the help Matt. I am going to give it a shot again tonight. I have the orig file still.
Another crock of **** Airliners rejection.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 2-redo.jpg
Soft and quality my ass.
Actually, I would agree with both of themQuote:
Originally Posted by hiss srq
Ryan it looks like it could use a little more sharpening. Not sure why you got the bad quality rejection tho.
Bad quality is a BS reason to reject a picture like this. According to some Anet screeners, Anet uses this reason when they feel a picture is overall "ok" but doesn't meet with their standards and they can't pinpoint what exactly they should reject it for, sort of a contradiction IMO. A quality rejection should only be given to a picture that is really bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
It's clearly stated on anet that the rejection reason for bad quality is just that so what is the issue? It's their standards, not ours. I took at look Justin Idle's pic of the same aircraft in the same position, I am assuming they shot together but his looks a tad better and a little more sharp on this crappy work monitor. A better edit may be all it needs.Quote:
Bad quality is a BS reason to reject a picture like this. According to some Anet screeners, Anet uses this reason when they feel a picture is overall "ok" but doesn't meet with their standards and they can't pinpoint what exactly they should reject it for, sort of a contradiction IMO. A quality rejection should only be given to a picture that is really bad.
Dust spots?? :shock:
Please tell me they made a mistake? I hope I don't have a dust problem :shock:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1512508
try equalizing it in photoshop and then take a look at the pic... you'll know thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
This was the last thing I thought this shot might be rejected for
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... LN-RKH.jpg
What'd it get rejected for. The frame that says rejected for is gone.
Chris sorry to say all of those rejections reasons are spot on. You do have three large dust spots in the lower left of the picture. The conditions at the time just don't look as though you would have got very good results. The lack of light and the dark body of the helio just don't mix well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
I can see how frustrating uploading can be. I thought I had a knack for this. :| :|
This was rejected for soft.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... N17244.jpg
And this was rejected for soft and bad centering.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... UPmd11.jpg
Can you please yield some advice guys? I'm truly at a loss especially with the CO photo since I thought it might be a touch OVERSHARP.
advice?
They do seem a bit soft, but not too bad. Just a quick sharpening should be good.
It's a fine line Mario. I've gotten a number of rejections on photos I thought were oversharpened. Usually when I think it's good, I give it another pass of USM. I guess it's the difference in calibration between my eyes and the screeners. 8)Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrodie
What do they mean by dirty scan/CMOS dust spots?
I know there is one dust spot but what is a CMOS dust spot?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1515061