-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirtrafficController
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta777LR
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.
Thanks Luke, You've been a big help
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Looking at your for rejections, Mark, here's what I see:
1 - Pilatus: It's an awkward crop. You probably want to include the entire nose gear, the entire gear/door on the left side of the frame, and if not the entire vertical stab, at least the full prop arc. I like what you were trying to do with the marshaller in the foreground, but I just get a feeling that the shot is very tight, and could have been better served if you cropped it wider (or zoomed out).
2 - Falcon 200: Does look a little soft to me, not much, but could benefit from a pass of USM.
3 - C-172: Looks like it was a cloudy day, right? I agree with the Dark rejection on this one. I don't know if you can brighten it enough without introducing too much noise.
4 - C-172 Takeoff: Again, I see what you were trying to do here, but as noted in the rejection, the horizon is not level - looks like it is leaning to the left. While I like your attempt at capturing some "local flavor" with the two guys in the foreground, I think that's a tough shot to get accepted. Nice work, and with a little more post processing, it will be a nice shot, but probably not for either of the big photo sites.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
1- Yeah, I was kinda, sorta expecting that.
2- I'll add a bit more sharpening, and see how it turns out.
3- Yeah, it was a cloudy day. I see exactly what you mean.
4- Yep, looks like one for the personal collection.
Thanks for the great tips, moose. I'll give 2 and 3 another go at post-processing and see how they come out.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Little late in chiming in, but here's my two cents:
Besides what airtrafficcontroller pointed out, I would also note that there is a visible line of noise that makes a small halo of grain and slight discoloration around both aircraft. If you don't do so already, I would recommend selecting out the sky and layering it separately by using the magic wand tool. After turning the sky into a layer, go to the background layer and work on the plane itself. I would run a USM on it, and then spot sharpen/soften. Then flatten the image when you're done with it. Doing this has been hugely helpful in taking care of those dang sharpen halos.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Can anyone offer some advice regarding the contrast? Also, I can't seem to see any dust spots, maybe my eyes aren't focusing correctly!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2406808
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellucciman
Bring the levels up and increase the contrast.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96...1237937783.jpg
Being kinda picky, IMO. There are also lots of tiny spots that I don't think necessarily qualify as dust spots that, in my most anal mood, I'd get rid of. But I had to look hard to find anything - which makes me wonder sometimes if I only see spots because I imagine I should... I'd also run some USM on it too.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Guys, thank you for the help! I'm going to make the changes and take another shot at upload. Stay tuned.....
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Can someone please help - what is classed as over processed/bad post-processing?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2419911
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Mark, if I'm seeing correctly, there is a slight halo by the tail which would explain the overprocessing/bad post rejection. The shot is also grainy and the nose is blurry. Sorry Mark, but it looks like one for the personal collection.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Thanks Kenny - I edited that on my work machine - and saw it on there today as well - I''ve got several more of that series - so I'll look at the others....
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
I definitely see the backlit rejections, Mark, it looks like you had high light, but on the other side of the aircraft. You see how bright the nose/fuselage top is compared to the sides of the aircraft.
The serial number is a bit trickier - according to the FAA database, the serial number is 001, but according to the JP.net Aircraft Census Database it is listed as 28-001. I guess they want that, rather than what the FAA shows...
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Yep, I see that too. That area is generally bad for taking pictures in the afternoon.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2432832
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2432873
Hmm...based on Jetphotos' own database, there are two Falcon 900's that look just like that. How can I tell them apart?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Mark, on the Lear, it looks a little low in the frame, which is probably what got you the "center" rejection, and the C/N is likely that "28-001" thing again. Not sure about the Falcon - I guess you could pick either one, unless you come up with a way of knowing which was at TEB this month. Looking at the accepted photos of those two, F-RAFP was photographed in Canada in March, so I guess you could make the argument... I wonder how the flight/ground crews tell them apart on the ramp?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Oops; I forgot I had another photo of 128LR in queue. Just wondering, if I can pick either of the two registrations, what's the 'Unknown' option there for?
By the way, thank you, I really appreciate all the help.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
I just suggested picking one in case that was the reason for the rejection, however, I see it said "Registration, Genre" on the rejection. Did you select Military or Civilian? I think it should be Military in this case, but that doesn't always pre-load, especially when you don't have a registration on the auto-fill.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Hmm, now that I think back, I don't recall selecting that genre, so that's probably why.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3402/...c5096e23_o.jpg
reason for rejection is "too much grain"....while i can definitely see it in the LCD screens, it was unavoidable and i feel minimized. any thoughts?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
You could blur the grain out of grainy areas if you're careful. If not, run it through neatimage (or send me the file and I'll run it through for ya).
I don't think the grain is that noticeable by any means. I'd consider appealing.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
You could blur the grain out of grainy areas if you're careful. If not, run it through neatimage (or send me the file and I'll run it through for ya).
I don't think the grain is that noticeable by any means. I'd consider appealing.
I advise strongly against using Neat Image...it ruins a lot of pics and it's results generally can be scene and turn into a rejection for over processing.
I'm surprised that shot was rejected to begin with. I would have accepted it, you might want to appeal it.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
it ruins a lot of pics and it's results generally can be scene and turn into a rejection for over processing
If you're not careful with how much you run on it, and then edit it very carefully back through after processing, I'd agree.
But if used well in combination with other tricks it can work. That being said, I prefer to blur it out of the image myself. Though we've both noted that in his photo it isn't really needed anyways!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
This same shot was rejected from a.net for blurry: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 133&nseq=1
And this was rejected as a double, same shot as the first: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/...5b67af.jpg?v=0 sorry for not giving the actual links - I'm too tired.
Either way, this was after they both were rejected for being incorrectly labeled as a priority for being a greenie - despite two other shots of the same a/c from the same morning uploaded and accepted as priority. The screeners agreed to resolve the issue. Both ended up rejected
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Help with a rejection.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2456013
Over processed/ Bad post processing.
Any Help. Thanks.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Eric, there are halo's all around the plane, not to mention a dust spot near the tail.
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/754/347981240398395.jpg
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
I'm interested in opinions here - too much or too little?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2468609
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
i could see how someone could say little contrast, especially when looking at the tail and empenage. the tail code and star-and-bars is hard to make out. then again... that's the point of painting the airplanes like that...
aside from that it looks fine to me, just wish you slowed the shutter to blur the props. i don't really like shots when the rotors or props are frozen in time.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2493023
Don't know if I should appeal. The horizon is actually level; my vantage makes the tower look crooked.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2492989
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Mark, I think on that tower shot, you really need to have it straight, especially since that is your only reference point in the shot, you don't really see any of the horizon. The same with the ORBIS shot - I think you should give it some CCW rotation, to have the verticals on the equipment rack at the rear closer to true vertical. To me, both look awkward rotated the way they are.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Should I bother re-uploading the tower shot? Is the "Bad Composition" referring to the fact that the tower's not in the middle?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
I didn't even notice the composition rejection - yeah, I guess it's because the tower is off-centered, although I think it makes a better picture that way. I don't know if it would get accepted either, but do you have a shot from the same spot with the full tower and the horizon below the sunset? That might make a cool shot.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525530
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525506
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2525527
"Screener's Comments: Sky is overexposed. There is detail there that can be recovered."
I think #1 and #3 can use some more tweaking. I don't know if any degree of sharpening can help #2.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
One you can save, just bring down the levels a bit, easy fix. Two is def blurry, can't save it. Three I don't think is all that bad..might want to appeal it.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Thanks.
I'm going to get to #1 when I get a chance, and #3 made the appeal.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Rejected for: contrast/personal
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...05dpp_0213.jpg
Rejected for: grain...???
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...66dpp_0209.jpg
Rejected for: grain & contrast....???
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...08dpp_0177.jpg
At first glance I just don't understand these rejections - especially the grain ones. Anyone have any thoughts?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
jerslice the cactus aircraft is a nice pic and what do they mean by grain?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
I'm working with a new laptop/monitor combination, and I guess I am missing something on the setup - I see heat distortion on the runway behind, but can someone point out the heat distortion on the plane please?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2552032
