FAIL!!! Screener says the tail is blurry. Oh well.
Printable View
FAIL!!! Screener says the tail is blurry. Oh well.
Luke, #1 and #2 are riddled with jaggies down their cheat stripes, a tell tale sign of over sharpning. You can see a bit of it in #3 as well in the brown/yellow area right of the wing, but it's not as bad as the first two.
Looks a little yellow and the contrast is a bit much.
Ok - the dark I can take care of - midday sun and I can work with that - but - the horizon unlevel - what is the reference point because I'm sure when I edited this originally, I used the edge of the taxiway behind as the line.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2059422
That's a tough one, Mark. It definitely looks like it needs some CW rotation to me - I think that road at the top really causes you problems. You might try using the left side of the wall on that overhanging canopy, it's fairly close to the center of the image, although it doesn't give you much to work with, at least in this resized image. I pulled it into PS, and just playing around, about 0.5 CW made it look much more appealing to me.
I'd use 595 as the reference line...it's significantly higher in the frame at the right side than the left side...it's tough to use any airport markings in this shot because so many of them are covered up (or clearly should not go straight across, like the near edge of the runway...)Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Regardless of what the screener said, I like this shot :)
Trouble is - 595 is not straight at that point - it's roller coaster.
It is a great shot Mark. When leveling, I find using a vertical point to reference against more fail safe. Try the corner of the hangar, or the fence posts. You'll see the difference.
Thanks for the tips everyone...it's been re-edited (with one other rejection that I got) and is back in the queue....
So this is on JP but apparantly I digitally manipulated it, its not centered, and its soft.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 1493jp.jpg
What is up with these digital manipulation things?!?
Okay...
Digital manip? Probably should have been bad crop. I can see white on the upper edge of your photo. As if you rotated the picture, and caught "dead space" in the crop.
Center: Yes its low in the frame.
Soft:The grey bottom is a bit on the soft side & the reggie is not "crisp"
Now, on my monitor, it also looks oversharpened where the grey baggage area meets up with the bottom of the aircraft (jaggies) and there is shadow jaggies just behind the exhaust. They also could have dinged you for overexposed as there is no detail in the tail it's so white you almost lose the horizontal stab.
I guess I just caught a JP screener sleeping...Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2069928
Explain? I get the contrast, but there are no categories to select for this, and i equalized it and i dont see any manipulation...
Did you select "Cargo Plane" under the "Aircraft-Specific Categories" section?
OooQuote:
Originally Posted by moose135
They said that my dust spot cloning has been "overzealous"... WHAT?!
This was rejected but this was not. I don't get it.
Kenny your rejection 'aint showing.
I won the appeal. That's why. :borat:
Rejected for level, which way does it need ccw?
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... axx264.jpg
go ccw about .05 The difference on my screen is 3 pixels.
It's blurry?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2100379
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2098804
...just some random pictures picked up along my trip...
Yeah, it's a bit fuzzy, especially in the nose area. You can also see it in the "747". They also do have you on the undersharp.
Woah you guys are experts! I just submitted this one to Airliners. I have no idea how to post process my pics, so this is straight out of the camera.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b...BlueN637JB.jpg
It was taken last summer by LGA rwy 4.
I imagine they will reject it as usual (how dare they? Its NYC's Hometown Airline!! lol). What do you all think? Any advise as to how I can make this one better?
Unfortunately the capture has some real lighting problems. Looks like Sun was directly above the aircraft so you get the harsh blown out result. One great fundamental is to have the sun low and behind you so the fuselage is hit equally. Helps with detail, contrast and the likeQuote:
Any advise as to how I can make this one better?
Time to try Kenny's noise reduction tip again....
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2117062
Thanks for the tip Nik!
Recent jp.net rejects (a few of these are a bit trivial IMHO):
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125369
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125384
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125392
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2125377
Big dust spot on the Virgin picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
For the first reject of Iceland air, I think you forgot to check the night shot catergory.
That is not a night shot...I have shot at that time and it's been considered daytime.
The Icelandair shot looks overprocessed to me, and looks like there halos above the port engine intake and starboard wing. Again with the Virgin shot, looks like you have halos around the starboard engines and maybe along the bottom of the fuselage. On the BA shot, the sky looks a little grainy to me - you don't sharpen the sky when you post-process, do you? The T-birds shot is a great composition, but yes, the light's in the wrong place.
Not too much I can do about this one...the lighting just isn't that great this time of year:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... _5284b.jpg
Any ideas of fixing this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2139136
This has been rejected twice for dust spots...I don't see them, can anyone help?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2139437
Thanks Kenny! I was getting crossed-eyed looking at that thing and couldn't find any.
Anytime!! :borat: