Moose its an odd crop, it just looks unfinshed.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Printable View
Moose its an odd crop, it just looks unfinshed.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Well...I thought I'd try LOL
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2763012
Maybe someone can help me out here
1 Digital Manipulation, what do they mean by this?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762282
2 Undersharpened
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2762269
3 again undersharpened, also contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2745342
What am I doing wrong with the sharpening, how much USM should be best or contrast??
4 im not familiar about this, but this one was over processed, what do they mean?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2752960
#1 - halos visible around the wings will get you the D/M rejection. Maybe too aggressive on sharpening or highlight/shadow tool?Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta777LR
#2 - with the exception of the nosewheel the whole forward half of the aircraft looks flat.
#3 - again the underside of the aircraft looks flat. If you tried to lighten the underside up you may have overdone it a bit, and it almost looks hazy to me. Combine that with the sharp edge at the top of the aircraft to the sky and I think that's where the contrast issue comes in. It's not consistant.
#4 - The sky looks all mottled and grainy. The white seems to be a bit overexposed as well, surprised they didn't mention that.
As for USM settings, there is no absolute number, it will differ depending on light conditions, type of lens, etc. Just watch out for jaggies, but make sure things appear clear. Haziness will lead to flat (undersharpened) images.
And yet I had this accepted last year - I guess it depends on the screener...Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/9/5/7...1365759_tb.jpg
Not really, I can see a difference in the two crops the one already in the DB is much better. In fact I bet if you cropped in a little tighter you would get this in. Just getting rid of some of the dead space makes it look a bit more clean and pleasing to the eye.Quote:
I guess it depends on the screener...
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-...1257475206.jpg
The VS, you can see the oversharpening in the titles, especially in the "No way BA/AA" decal.
The EK, again in the titles, reg, and tail decal.
The OZ, again in the titles, forward decal, and the back of the tail.
The AA, in the titles, tail decal, and cheat lines.
Sharpen in layers like I showed you. Then before you merge the layers run your eraser tool at varying opacities over the oversharp areas to make everything ok. Then merge.
Sergio they are a little. I mean the first two seem ok but the second two are a little too sharp. I would just stick with USM and ease off a little.
Can anyone see where or how this is soft?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2808559
Just about everywhere Serge.
1. Is soft, especially on the tail. Some selective sharpening will fix it.
2. Is soft everywhere, and I'm guessing you didn't check "biz jet"
3. Look at your histogram, and the cheat lines are pretty jagged.
4. Just muck that one and reprocess the original file. Pay close attention to your histogram bro.
Looks like a lack of light and the lower F stop was a factor here. Next time I'd leave the F stop at F8 or F9 and bump up the ISO which it appears you did. You probably could save it by doing another pass of USM in Photoshop as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
Was hoping this might have been bright enough to make it..
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2847199
Mark that one is an easy fix. You certainly have enough room to bring up the levels. Email the original to me if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Thanks Tom - my external is at work - I'll do that over the next day or so! Appreciated!Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Don't really get this one - the info is correct...and there's nothing incorrect about the comment:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2873966
Update: Apparently adding .com to NYCAviation was the problem :? . Back to the bottom of the pile it goes... :|
- Too much or too little contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2878220
Screener's Comments: Needs some serious histogram adjustment.
- Dark / Underexposed
- Too much or too little contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2878245
I'm trying to adjust the levels just on the aircraft but the magic wand keeps on selecting the fence once I click select inverse. Any ideas?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2887360
Use the magic wand to click the sky, then inverse. Don't worry about the fence it's not the subject of the photo.
Reason(s) For Rejection:
- Dark / Underexposed
- Bad motive
http://jetphotos.net/img/1/1/7/0/75568_1266817071.jpg
a. The foreground is dark but the subject is well lit, as planned.
b. That's about as good a motive you're going to get for that terminal. Do they just not like terminal shots?
I'm in love with that image.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirtrafficController
Are they just really, really, really fussy?
Yeah, after you magic wand, switch to the rectangular marquis tool, hold "shift" to add the fence to the initial selection. That way, when you inverse, you've got only the bird selected.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirtrafficController
Jetphotos isn't very fussy, but things have to be edited right. For this one, it's all in the histogram. An easy fix for Luke.Quote:
Originally Posted by aeropup
I got a couple-
N706AS-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2904953
N506AS-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2904882
N747EX-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2903613
N787BA-
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2903572
I am like 0 for 20 on jetphoto's
Thats why I like this site-
www.airlinefan.com
They are more fair and practical. I get about 40% of my entry in there.
Just curious is this photo blurry to anyone else?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2907119
Right by the APU exhaust is where it's most noticeable.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2916625
Are they talking about just under the cockpit window???
I see it along the whole fuselage. more easily noticed front of fuselageQuote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Thanks Nick - darn monitor calibration..didn't see it at first...
And not even a rare WWII bird can get me in :(
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2920394
Also they say the reg is wrong but it doesn't come up with the L in it. W/out it it does though.
Brandon, that looks too low in the frame, and it definitely needs some CCW rotation.
N7079G is a valid registration in the FAA database. NL7079G is a carryover of an interim registration scheme where the L indicated military aircraft modified for limited civil use. Officially that was phased out in the early 1950s, but you still see many war birds carrying it. That may be part of the reason you got that rejection - it says "Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline,Registration" so they may want the NL7079G as that is what is shown on the tail. I don't see any other photos in the DB, so I can't compare, but some of my war bird shots include the prefix after the N, since that is what is painted on the aircraft, even though that is not their official "FAA" registration. Your "Airline" designation is also wrong. It is a privately owned aircraft, it is not currently owned/operated by the US Navy. War birds should not be listed under the service they once flew with, but rather their current owner.
Thanks for the help Moose!
Would appreciate some help on this.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2942938
This is the second time this photo has been rejected and I am not sure which way to rotate it. I originally did it 5 degrees CCW.
Thanks!
Might be wrong Isaac - but - did you try the line on the top of the hangar door to the right of the Hawk??
Probably the verticals on the light poles that got you the rejection. They all appear to be leaning to the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_NY
Do you use photoshop? It's an easy fix.
Thanks for the suggestions. I will try again.
In the first submission, I did line up the light poles to be vertical, but that got rejected.
Thanks
That's a tough photo, Isaac - the light poles look like they lean to the right, but the hangar doors on the right side look like they lean to the left.