Why not post it in the pre-screening and I'm sure someone will be able to tell if it's right!
Printable View
Why not post it in the pre-screening and I'm sure someone will be able to tell if it's right!
Maybe I'll take the average of the two... :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
'shop out the light poles (oops, I didn't say that) :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_NY
Thing is, these got rejected for quality and compression, but that's only because they made me resize them, so when you blow them back up, of course they look jaggy:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... fdash8.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... faa767.jpg
I don't understand anet. They even said one of them was too grainy, but both were shot at ISO 100. Am I doing something wrong when resizing them? They don't want anything bigger than 1200 pixels, but that's significantly smaller than some of the 'medium' size photos in the database.
Any help or tips are appreciated, kind people. Thank you
Well the second one seems too dark, But the size limit with A.Net is 1600 but the picture needs to be suberb quality to be accepted at that size.
Best tip is do all of your coloring at the full size. Crop it, resize and then sharpen. Always do the sharpening very last. Hope that helps
I'm missing something or my laptop screen isn't showing me - where?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2972974
Mark-
At first glance it seems like the nose is a bit soft...particularly in the nose gear. The paint may throw off the blur alarm with the way it shines that it could be interpreted as soft. Just my thoughts
Here is another of those horizon things - I took the horizontal line on the building that is at the base of the control tower - it's attached to the control tower - but - I guess not - where would other take the line for the horizon??
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2991914
Last time I saw a tower like that, Mark, I was in Pisa :wink: I would run a vertical down the side of the tower and see how that looks.
Can someone help me rotating this one? I can't find what would be the horizon.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... esized.jpg
Also, this was rejected for being dirty behind the rotors, but I think it's the clouds that give that affect. I equalized the image, and there are no dust spots behind the rotors.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... esized.jpg
Tough one, but I would imagine that if you level the line between the concrete and asphalt, it will look right.
Bummer....thought I could sneak this in without the obstruction rejection...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3058606
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3079386
Really would've liked to have it in; any chance for appeal?
I wouldn't go the appeal route. How about using a smaller picture size? Looks like you tried for the whole enchillada regarding size.Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
What they get rejected for Cary? I didn't take a great look but the Tam looks a little high in the frame and the Etihad looks soft.
TAM was Color (with the note: needs some yellow in, see the reds. More contrast might help.)Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Etihad was Common and Contrast.
I always laugh when I get Color/Contrast rejections, as I almost always just do a standard RAW conversion with no PP besides sharpening and cropping. Meanwhile, I see lots of accepted shots of the same plane at the same location and time that have a wide range of color balance. Oh well, what can you do? :P I decided to increase the contrast a bit on the TAM, and just trashed the Etihad.
I hear ya, the TAM does look a tad cold. What do you set you WB for shooting? I use sunny but I bump its warmer and have got good results,
I'm almost always on daylight (clear sky). Sometimes daylight tends to give a greenish tint on my 1Dm3, but it's usually spot on with my 7D/40D (which I used for the TAM).Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
And good ol' A.Net gave typical rejection's-
Quote:
We have had to reject the following photos:
- t1281420448.8665c-46.jpg (Everts Air Cargo Curtiss C-46A Commando (CW-20B))
http://www.airliners...48.8665c-46.jpg
A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"poor crop"
Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality
Motive http://www.airliners...sons.php#motive
Contrast http://www.airliners...ns.php#contrast
The screener(s) included a personal message to you about these photo(s).
Please scroll down to read this message.
- f1281420271.8688n777ya.jpg (Bush Air Cargo Douglas R4D-6 Skytrain)
http://www.airliners....8688n777ya.jpg
Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality
Contrast http://www.airliners...ns.php#contrast
- x1281420129.779305-40908.jpg (USA - Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor)
http://www.airliners...79305-40908.jpg
A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"double in queue"
Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality
Blurry http://www.airliners...sons.php#blurry
Dark http://www.airliners...easons.php#dark
Double http://www.airliners...sons.php#double
The screener(s) included a personal message to you about these photo(s).
Please scroll down to read this message.
- i1281420039.829205-4090.jpg (USA - Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor)
http://www.airliners...829205-4090.jpg
Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality
Blurry http://www.airliners...sons.php#blurry
Dark http://www.airliners...easons.php#dark
Double http://www.airliners...sons.php#double
- b1281419922.492906-4112.jpg (USA - Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor)
http://www.airliners...492906-4112.jpg
Quality http://www.airliners...ons.php#quality
Soft http://www.airliners...easons.php#soft
I disagree with the douple. It's a freking Demo, it's not like the tail changes every pass or anything http://www.projectopensky.com/public...t/rolleyes.gif Also the Evert's one. Poor Crop? The point of the damn shot was to focus on the wing and front half of the aircraft. I think I am about ready to give up on A.Net and just stick with JP. I mean for the conditions I thought those were some damn good shots.
Anyone think any are worth an appeal?
Claimed to be "too high".
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3129828
Is it really too high? Seems right smack dab in the middle to me.
Yes Mark it does appear too high in the frame. Best bet it to get the window-line as close to centered as possible. Nice shot though.Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
Thanks, and will do.
Here are two more rejected for Bad Info: Location. I'm a little puzzled how they could determine whether it was at JFK or not; I doubt it's a mistake in mouse-clicking as both of these were rejected for the same reason.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3129169
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3129172
Appealed.
I have no idea; agree with the appeals.
This is becoming a bit of a mission for me - this has been rejected 4 times - each time I have followed the same work flow with saturation, etc - and the last time it was rejected for unlevel horizon - so I find the horizon, and then it gets rejected for this....anything think they can help with this one...please?????
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3135171
The vert stabalizer looks oversharpened as well. Honestly those lime green planes are rough to work with. Especially in high light. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...6852368&nseq=8 I was amazed they ever took that one.
It looks a bit oversaturated. The color also has a greenish tinge; it looks like you shot it through a window. Hopefully you don't mind; here's my edit:
http://horriblephotography.com/albums/Misc/kulula.jpg
Wow Mark - that is a good edit - yes - it was shot through a window unfortunately - Cape Town no longer has it's open deck - if you can give me an idea what you did to get that - I'll try it on the original!! Thanks!!
I actually just auto-adjusted color in Photoshop, and then toned down the saturation by about -20.
This is the second rejection in two weeks that I just don't understand for the life of me:
Motive (clipped the wingtip by a few pixels frame left) / soft:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...23dpp_3319.jpg or viewed here: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/...5dc811c2_o.jpg
And this one for soft:
http://generalaviationphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=292
Pretty straightfoward. The Fedex needs a little more USM and some selective sharpening. Did the screener leave a personal message about the crop? Seems that is an easy fix. Second as well little more USMQuote:
I just don't understand for the life of me
I guess I just disagree with it being soft - to me they seem pretty sharp. I also tend to think that a.net would rather see jaggies than a possible soft line but that's just me.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3149871
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3149823
I'm tempted to appeal the second one.
second one is nice.
They don't need much more. The Fedex's titles need sharpening and overall a little more also remember their monitors may not be the same calibaration and your not looking at the same picture. It's always better to go too much then too little I have found. Anet is picky on the sharpness it is what it is.Quote:
I guess I just disagree with it being soft - to me they seem pretty sharp. I also tend to think that a.net would rather see jaggies than a possible soft line but that's just me.
What is the cropping reject for? What does photo edges mean? I don't see any borders and that shot can be reworked to get in.Quote:
I'm tempted to appeal the second one.
I'm having a problem seeing where it's blurry....can someone help?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3160103
Hello,
It is my first post to Airliners.net and while I expected to be rejected (well, just because I feel they just reject all first posts no matter what) I was surprised at some of the observations, not to mention that I had to wait 8 days ;-):
Reject reason: Your photo is of insufficient quality to upload at such a large size - please aim for a finished size of 1024 next time; low in frame quality soft dark centered personal
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...se_mag8498.jpg
original upload size here
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...se_mag8498.jpg
-Personal: maybe
-Low in frame: yeah well, crop ratio would suffer if not cropped this way
-Dark: perhaps
-soft: Really? I mean, on my end it looks properly sharp, at least the bird itself.
-Not enough quality for size: Hmmm, oh well, I guess we'll disagree.
What do you all think? :-)
Thanks... try try again!
Manny, if I remember, "Personal" usually means the screener included a personal message in the rejection, check the e-mail you received. It is low in the frame - you cut off the marshaller's feet, but left a lot of empty space above the helicopter. Dark - maybe, would have to check the histogram. And there really isn't any reason to upload at larger than 1024px, and it helps with the quality unless your original is spot on.
Thanks Moose... I agree about the cropped feet and the empty space above sure... I guess the one I can't get over is the sharpness/quality one LOL. I can tell you it is sharp (you may be able to tell yourself, maybe I am smoking) in any case, I will surely not give up of course :-)
Thanks for your advise !
Centered rejection... why? Clearly the elevators are the reason I centered it that way lol. Also rejected for Grainy. is it really that grainy? Oh well, this is my 5th rejection. I'll NEVER get in hahahahaha. I have seen much worse entries than this one. Also this was a particularly rare entry as there are none like it in the database
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...dsc_2937-2.jpg