Printable View
Hi Mike, as for the cropping/size ratio ones, try 1024 x 683. That would fix that issue. For the construction numbers go to http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... nquiry.asp . Type in the reg and the serial # is on their. Can't help with the backlighting though. I don't think its that bad, sun is on the nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by threeholerglory
Took me a while to find the heat distortion on this - but I'm a little unsure on the under exposed/dark - my screen is showing it well and it's just been calibrated....
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2348451
Here is another for heat distortion - am I looking at these wrong - yes - there is heat distortion on the ground, but I'm a little unsure on the aircraft - any ideas?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2349098
Perhaps the top edge of the fuse looks a bit wobbly? I would not call that extreme distortion by any means though.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Wow, I'm at 100% rejections with Anet this week. Here are just a few:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ao_mg_7725.jpg
Color, dark, common
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ao_mg_7985.jpg
Motive, grainy, oversharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ao_mg_7744.jpg
Quality, grainy, oversharpened
Welcome to the club...we've had jackets made. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Hahaha...I'd like to order 7 jackets please :D I completely don't understand the "motive" one on the JetBlue picture...I guess I needed a girl in a bikini in there instead or something :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Cary, its likely due to the tug blocking the nose gear. I've had a few shots rejected for similar situationsQuote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Thanks Bill. That's kind of silly considering some of the shots I've seen on there that should have definitely been rejected for motive, but at least now I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by njgtr82
I just had 10 rejections.... it looks like I need L glass to upload. sorry but I no longer will waste my time with jetphotos. I will now upload to my site only as I am not into working to throw hours of my work in the garbage.
Oy vey...2 more rejections...now from JP.
http://jetphotos.net/img/1/9/9/0/30328_1234751099.jpg
- Over Processed / Bad postprocessing (I only resized and sharpened)
- Oversharpen
http://jetphotos.net/img/2/2/5/5/11576_1234751552.jpg
- Blurry
- Oversharpen
I'm getting to that point with the big blue site. It's a shame, since I've gotten quite a few leads from there over the years. Shockingly, my acceptance rate for published photos (all subject matter) is much higher than my acceptance rate on the 2 aviation websites. And unfortunately, L glass doesn't help me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derf
The Qatar does look like it has a bit of blue-ish tint to me...but I don't understand the DL. I guess I can see where it's a tad bit blurry - but it seems to me to be within their guidelines easily.Quote:
I'm getting to that point with the big blue site. It's a shame, since I've gotten quite a few leads from there over the years. Shockingly, my acceptance rate for published photos (all subject matter) is much higher than my acceptance rate on the 2 aviation websites. And unfortunately, L glass doesn't help me.
I checked out your website too, Cary - nice stuff. I wish I could get published.
Yes, I agree the Qatar looks a little cold, but I used Daylight WB and exposed based on the gray. I guess I can try to change the temperature a little, but I think "color cast" might have been more appropriate than "Over Processed / Bad postprocessing" since I didn't alter the color/WB/exposure at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
Funny thing about the DL...it looked a little blurry when I checked on my Dell 19" 8-bit Ultrasharp LCD, but looks a lot sharper on both of my Dell 20" 8-bit Ultrasharp LCDs. The resolution on the LCDs are different (1600 vs. 1280), but I was surprised by how bad it looked on the 19 inch. Maybe that was part of the problem.
Thanks!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2367726
Heat distortion seems to really becoming a very hot (no pun intended) topic - I'm looking at the aircraft and maybe it's my eyes but I don't see a lot - I'm also a little confused with the "Obstructing Objects / foreground clutter"? Is that the little pylon??
I would definitely appeal that one Mark, maybe a little heat haze on the bottom of the fuselage right in front of the wing but its very, very minimal. I definitely don't see the blurry part and the Obstructing object/foreground clutter is bs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
I agree with Bill on that one. The only thing I see are some minor jaggies along the black stripe outline around the wing root. I sure don't see any foreground clutter or anything obstructing the aircraft.
Thanks Bill - I've appealed it - let's see what happens.
Hope you win it, I had to really look to find evidence of heat haze there, it isn't blurry, and there isn't any clutter that I would consider so anyways. Did you write back and ask why it was rejected more specifically? Maybe half the time they'll give you a pretty detailed answer.Quote:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2367726
Heat distortion seems to really becoming a very hot (no pun intended) topic - I'm looking at the aircraft and maybe it's my eyes but I don't see a lot - I'm also a little confused with the "Obstructing Objects / foreground clutter"? Is that the little pylon?
I did get a reply - they think there is part of the fence in the shot - I did shoot it through a fence - but I don't see a fence strand - that's ok - I'll go back and select another one - rare being a the Hyundai corporate jet....
I didn't see any fence in there - but I didn't run an equalizer on it either. I do see what appears to be a dust spot though.
I see it now, its not very obvious with a quick look. Look at the discoloration on the left side of the pic, its a dark tint on the grass and nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
Huh...I definitely didn't see that either at first - and actually just spent the better part of 5 minutes scoping it out. I do see it, and I think with an equalizer run it would be more obvious. Am I crazy or is there a dust spot in the top left corner?
Since we've been discussing it so much, I did save and equalize it, and you can see the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
Yes on both parts :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
Alright, I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy - top left, about 2 inches over and 1 down:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96...1235697172.jpg
Well damn - I missed that too...ok...so it was a failure...LOL...already looking at which one to edit next....
Amazing what you don't notice sometimes. I can't believe some of the stuff I miss sometimes.
On the first and third shots, the sky is very noisy. Did you deselect the sky when sharpening? Almost looks like they were dark and you bumped the exposure too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
On the second one, the AA MD-83, the landing gear is behind the side of the overpass - that's always going to be a killer. It's an interesting shot, but unfortunately you can't cut off parts like that - maybe if you caught him a second earlier, before the gear go out of sight.
On the last shot (you have the Pegasus shot listed twice) the white fuselage is blown out with no detail. White aircraft can be difficult to expose properly, especially with a dark background - you may want to dial in a little (1/3 stop) of underexposure, that may give you enough leeway to play with when processing without overexposing the fuselage.
Thanks for the tips on the rejects Moose - the reject reasons came as no surprise to me.
I've run Neat Image on both of the Rainier photos but to no avail - I can't seem to clean them up to save my life.
The Pegasus was one of two I threw into the queue and one made it. I agree though, it's completely blown out. I'll try adjusting the exposure in RAW.
You nailed it right on the head. And yes, I did deselect the sky when I sharpened it up. Like I said though, it doesn't seem to matter what I do. I ran neat image; I've selected out the sky, layered it and Gaussian blurred/despeckled/normal blur/noise reduction you name it; I've blur out some of the grain on the a/c itself and been as careful as possible with the sharpening. Those shots, which I like a lot, have been driving me up a wall to edit.Quote:
On the first and third shots, the sky is very noisy. Did you deselect the sky when sharpening? Almost looks like they were dark and you bumped the exposure too much.
Accepted on a.net, rejected on jp.net. Jp.net is right though...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2382932
eeehhh...I tried.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2385511
Can someone help me with this please....
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2388998
Dark/Underexposed? last time I submitted this shot it was overexposed
Categories missing? I selected Military - is cargo missing on this - I'm not too sure?
Bad Info: Registration - came directly from the USMC search engine that Moose provided - that one beats me a little - last time I submitted it, I didn't get the registration bad info.
Ideas?
Regarding overexposed/underexposed: I think you are a victim of relatively high sun angle combined with a high wing aircraft. The parts that have the sun glare are over exposed and the parts under the wing are under exposed. Not much that you can do about that :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Mark, did you type the registration in manually on that C-130? The only thing I see is that Navy/Marine Bureau numbers are a straight 6 digit number, without a dash like USAF serials. It should be simply "163591" as the registration. Picky I know, but it makes a difference in the database - when you search JP.net for the reg without a dash, you find two other, old shots of this aircraft.
Darn - you are right John - I did - I need to work on it and re-submit....does it need to show Cargo in the categories??
Yes, you should check "Cargo" on the category - sometimes that is pre-selected, but not always.
For both of the pictures, you obviously need to put more Unharp mask and maybe raise the levels too if you can to brighten up the aircraft.. For the DL MD80, you need to resize the photo to a 3:2 or 4:3 size ratio (800x600, 1200X800, etc.) When you equalize the image, I see a big dust spot above the tail of the MD80 and one to the right of the tail cone. For the DL 737, there are dust spots above and below of the fuselage, two above the tail, and one all the way to the right. Use the clone stamp tool or healing brush to get rid of the dust spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta777LR