Another one bites the dust... I really thought this one would get me in to A.net :-(
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/S...90_ocj8c-O.jpg
However, another unlikely entry did make it... I'd love to read the minds of the screeners some titmes :-)
Printable View
Another one bites the dust... I really thought this one would get me in to A.net :-(
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/S...90_ocj8c-O.jpg
However, another unlikely entry did make it... I'd love to read the minds of the screeners some titmes :-)
What was the reason?
Sorry Brandon, didn;t see this until now :-( ... well, they said, NOT CENTERED, GRAINY... but I did not think that sshadow noise would be that big of a deal. I think that was with the D2Xs which is noisier in the shadows, even at ISO 100 ... I think they are taking your pics and zooming in to about 400% to look for details not vvisible at 100% zoom. So you live and learn :-) Now I denoise to the point of plastic.
As for the centering, well, I clearly wanted to show the wingtips. I am not sure about this ever because I feel that if I crop to center the frame, I will get rejected for clipping the wing. No worries, I have a new crop / cleaned version to submit in my next oportunity. Trying to get at least two in so I can have a larger queue. :biggrin:
Reasons: Too Much Oversharpened dark contrast personal
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1109..._sNQsJ-O-0.jpg
The contrast did bother me but oversharpened? hmmm... the other entry did make it through though ;-)
I was a little uncertain of this - I didn't think it was dark - comments??
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...a-11272010.jpg
Mark, it's happened to me. I think the problem is that they look at not just the top of the plane in this pic which is properly exposed but the rest of it looks like, well dull? Is that a good way to put it?
Here, I did a few edits to my taste. Let me know if you like them... if so, I'd be glad to do them for you on your original RAW file and then submit back to you for cropping, metadata whatever and re-submit ... :-)
All I did was tweak the curves a bit to move the histogram more to the middle. Then I played with the overall saturation and specifically boosted the yellows (no, Grass is NOT green) to boost the color of the grass which looked a bit pale (heck, it may look like that in real life, but we want our images to pop!) In a real edit I would also mask the whites out to not contaminate them with the saturation tweaks.
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1118..._SqRrE-O-0.jpg
Your original is at the bottom
Wow Manny - quite a difference - I'll have a look at the editing and see if I can follow what you did! Thanks a lot!!!
I re-submitted the image of the Cathy Cargo above that was rejected and it got approved. I also cleaned it up a bit
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/1825559.jpg
Ok - I tried editing it a little more based on Manny's ideas - does this work Manny? Or is it now overexposed?
http://www.tavustheman.com/images/N772LA-03.jpg
Mark much better... definitely less dull :-) It does not look overexposed to me. I say give it another whirl ;-)
Reason was "Centered" ??? I mean, yeah, I know... that was the whole reason. I figured it was a strong candidate because it was well exposed, it popped and it was sharp! I really have a problem with the centered rejections :mad:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...c1274_edit.jpg
Reason for this rejection was
Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots
Can someone help me "spot" the dust? I can't see it at all :-(
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1120292961_VxUmS-O.jpg
Open up the image in photoshop and duplicate layer then Equalize. if there are are dust spots you will see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Hey Eic, I know.. .you actually do not need to duplicate it to do so.. .:-) besides I do it a different way to get it which is histogram compression... in any case, that's what I meant, there is nothing I can see... oh well
Rejected for color, appealed, rejected for color again :-( They claim a yellow overcast? I know the back of a lot of these United planes are dirty and oily, but is there an overcast?
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/S...46_TMxG8-O.jpg
Just try pushing the color balance from yellow to blue a few steps, or make your WB a little colder if you're shooting RAW.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3251245I am surprised this got rejected for sharpness. Where is it not sharp?
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/4/2/4...1291469424.jpg
Any insight?
Well, the point was I didn't think it had an overcast of any kind.. I always shoot RAW and even when I get it wrong in camera, I usually WB off white surfaces or gray ones and well, in this case, you can test it.. .the whites on my end look white... looked at them in four separate calibrated monitors, including an old Trinitron CRT at work LOL. So ou think / actually see a yellow overcast?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Whats more, this is part of the SAME SET as the Virgin Atlantic that got accepted and SAME WB same exact because I copied it even LOL... oh well. I am not sweating it too much :-)
thanks for your input Cary.
Do you have a larger version of it online we can take a look at? hard to tell at this size.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
A little bitter about these 2, Dark for the only reason :rolleyes:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/...ccf88629_o.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/...8cf892c9_o.jpg
I see a tiny bit of yellow cast on my Spyder3Elite-calibrated monitor, but it could just be from the time of day. I've had my issues with A.net over color, but I stopped pursuing it, and instead just change the color to make them happy. The worst is when you see a bunch of other accepted photos that have color anomalies that are most likely due to severe post-processing, and photos from different photographers that are of the same scene, but have completely different color intents (and not just because of Nikon/Canon differences). I never change color/saturation for my airplane photos, other than occasionally doing an Auto Contrast or slight Curves adjust.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Same here same here. I think it may be (just maybe) that the one I copied from had the yellows boosted to increase the saturation of the fall grass (which is more yellow than green actualy) BUT, I am puzzled because that SET did not include anything more than 31R arrivals... not much grass there LOL... I use Color Munki lately on my Apple Cinema 30" which is my current new monitor. I actually find it a slightly warm hue to my eyes... I have an HP 30" panel next to it UNCALIBRATED which is slightly cooler and I usually show FULL SCREEN version on left screen and editing controls on Apple Cinema (Lightroom preset) and compare the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
I will pay more attention but I would like to know what A.NET usues as a mechanical gauge as opposed to subjective analysis as two monitors, even CALIBRATED could look slightly different. I think also maybe my Apple monitor missing brightness contrast controls lacks the brightness I may need to better judge ..
Like you, I HATE messing with HUE and saturation controls and mostly relying on White Balance corrections in RAW module and a slight saturation boost using camera centric VIVID or LANDSCAPE presets...
Guess I have a lot to learn. I am so puzzled by this United 757 because two planes earlier the Virgin 747 was processed identically and I had been copying the settings as the exposures, daylight, time etc. were so close/similar ...
Thanks for your expertise and advice as always.
Brandon, the do look dark to me here :-( slightly... try Shadow/Highlight to see a difference... however that's dangerous as it can show up quickly on an Equalize (shows as a halo) and I think A.NET does a zoom to 400% to spot grain, JPEG compression etc and then a Equalize to spot dust, halos etc. as a default action during screening and will reject immediately without further scrutiny ... just too much volume for them to be more relaxed...
Rejected for "Blocked Main Gear" and once again, "Yellow Cast" lol. The yellow cast I am thinking I know what's causing it... but the blocked main gear was absolutely on purpose! lol. Are there no shots that play a bit like this in the database?
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/S...62_5iuVK-O.jpg
Sorry, if you want a "creative" shot, you need to do something really "out there", like a photograph of a shadow on a field, or cows maybe...Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Here they are again as I attempted to visually remove YELLOW casting... but I fear while the United Whites are whiter, there now seems to be a blue cast. And the Southwest looks too red.
REJECT
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/S...46_TMxG8-O.jpg
CORRECTED
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1133015638_hytcF-L.jpg
REJECT
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/S...62_5iuVK-O.jpg
CORRECTED
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1133015822_kNf5a-L.jpg
Here are some quick edits I came up with. For the United shot, I simply used the eyedropper to set the white balance against the white part of the a/c. For the Southwest shot, it looks blatantly oversaturated, to the point that grain came out, especially noticeable in the darker areas of the fuselage. I toned the saturation down for that one, and gave it a pass of Noise Ninja.
http://horriblephotography.com/album...yreject1-2.jpg
http://horriblephotography.com/album...yreject2-2.jpg
Thanks for all your hep guys and for our valuable advice!!
They are borderline if they were of a little more of rare airframe they may have a shot on appeal but Manny's advice may get them in.Quote:
Brandon, the do look dark to me here
Manny what you set your WB too? I set mine to sunny and warm it just a little maybe -2 at most and I never get any color issues with anet.Quote:
Same here same here. I think it may be (just maybe) that the one I copied from had the yellows boosted to increase the saturation of the fall grass (which is more yellow than green actualy) BUT, I am puzzled because that SET did not include anything more than 31R arrivals... not much grass there LOL... I use Color Munki lately on my Apple Cinema 30" which is my current new monitor. I actually find it a slightly warm hue to my eyes... I have an HP 30" panel next to it UNCALIBRATED which is slightly cooler and I usually show FULL SCREEN version on left screen and editing controls on Apple Cinema (Lightroom preset) and compare the two
Guys, I must say I feel totally stupid. I now know why my recent postings were rejected. OMG what a horror... yes, I see it now... wanna know what the problem was? This is embarrassing. I have my ICC profiles set to expire every month.. and I had deleted the old one meaning to install a fresh calibration and must not have done it because today being exactly one month later, I recalibrated and the calibration is usually SLIGHTLY off as expected. This time it was WAAAAY off and it told me I was in trouble! I can;t believe I edited so many photos with the wrong profile (NO PROFILE) installed :-(
Anyhow, thanks again for the help. No wonder my edits on my MacBook Pro came out correctly as opposed to the originals on my main PC. UGH I feel like an ass.
Nick, I usually preset my WB using a white or gray patch somewhere near the shooting location. In the absence of that I usually pick SUNNY for daylight full sun, cloudy for overcast and shade for open shade. What I really want to do is use my Color Checker Passport LOL but I can't find a way to hold it up against a 747 flying past Panera :-) I tried using it from holding it in front of me and apparently the WB at the landing altitude is a lot different than at ground level.
All I can say is I am very bitter with A.Net right now on the rejection of this shot. They rejected it for Red and Contrast flat which is crap. I have no control over the red light as that is what the pilot had on when I took this shot and also kinda makes this shot more epic. I attempted to appeal but the head screener was just as much of an idiot as the original. And trust me this is the nice version of me holding back how I really feel on this-
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/...1410494e_b.jpg
Apparently the natrually existing effects of a light in a cockpit are too low for Anet standards.. what is the site trying to do... be in home and gardens or show people airplanes
Brandon, I have been there many times with far less challenging decisions: SUNSET SHOTS. Do we balance for daylight and correct shade of golden on white bodies or do we balance for a white body? I have lost and won on both counts. I have been rejected for improper WB with both full gold white body under sunset lighting and also rejected for WB for white body under sunset lighting. I have been less sensitive lately given that I have about 1,000,000 shots still to submit LOL.
Your image does sort of have an overall RED GLOW that is why they likely rejected. Perhaps a slightly less glowing red overall will get accepted. I tried below two different versions of yours by simply playing with the levels.
Your Original
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1136093280_dZTTS-L.jpg
Compressed Red Chanel
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1136093255_h74U4-L.jpg
Further compressed REED channel and boosted midtones under BLUE and GREEN channels
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1136093278_zAYVo-L.jpg
The original file may have a lot more latitude. Also feel free to try the PHOTO filters under PSCS and try hints of blue and see what happens.
Also, for controlled shots like these, you may want to add one of these
http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pub...0V6BHV--3aPNtG
and see if it looks any different calibrated to it and not.
Good work Manny! Brandon insulting the screeners won't go far in your future with uploading there. As far as they go Gary and Mick are far from idiots and in fact know what they are looking at. I liked the Red in the shot myself but it was flat. Rather than spew the insults you may have a shot at getting the pic in by listening to Manny and stopping the negative energy.
Brandon, you can also MASK the red light from the edits I made to make [it] stay red rather than the bluish it turned when I messed with the channels :-)
Nikv I will glady have that conversation in pm if you like as I do not want to go see another thread down the tubes for arguing but I respectfully disagree with your post. The site has flaws and that is a reason I prefer sites like Airplane-pictures.net that appreciate stuff like creativity and what not. If I was to get banned from A.Net I would lose no sleep over it as it would just confirm what I already feel and believe about the site. Although thank you for the compliment on the shot.
Thanks Manny as I know you mean well by attempting to fix it but I personally prefer the original and it will just be another loss for A.Net.
Also had 5 rejected for soft today, I would wish that the screeners would actually tell you where the photo is "soft" at, cause there is no way it is the whole photo. I mean when it comes to AS and QX planes I can only sharpen so much before the parallel running lines down the fuselage start getting distorted. May Nicv since you seem to know people over there and work with them you could maybe suggest that. I do mean that in a respectful way.
Brandon, no sweat man... it was just another option :-) Anyway I know how you feel ... there are lots of times I wonder about sharpening and even color itself. It is SOOO subjective. I spent about a half hour the other day at HoBe while waiting for 31L departures bored to death, I decided to play around with WB... OMG, I could NOT GET certain colors right no matter what I tried LOL. I used one of the US Parks Dept. signs that are painted a special shade of Teal with two different light/dark tones. I would not get what my eyes saw... no matter what I did.
I too have had soft and oversharpened shots where I wouldn;t know how far to go one way or another. The lack of explanation comes from TIME... they have thousands of entries and not enough time.
Do you have responsibility for managing people at your job? I do and I have to sometimes look through Resumes... I can tell you that A LOT go in the garbage sight unseen for such subtleties as wrong font... I never even look to see if the candidate is strong... it is unfair and it is the way it is... there is simply no time!
Well, I really hope you do not stay off A.net and continue to contribute your fine images... I have been blown away by some of your stuff. And try and enjoy the ones that HAVE and DO get accepted :-)
Merry Christmas
Arguing is fine and in fact productive but you went past that into disrespecting and insulting the screeners which now will be counter productive. Instead of feeling like your being attacked (your not) you should listen to some advice that is being given to you as way to help. Everyone here has been through the "anet is flawed" "Anet does not want creative shots" stuff. If you continue to let this be the mindset your just going to drive yourself nuts. The way you speak it's hard to get an idea of what you are looking for but to still upload to anet a different approach will yield better results. I have seen it work trust me, just as I have seen people poison themselves by alienating themselves with the screeners and not looking at their pictures objectively as you are doing now.Quote:
Nikv I will glady have that conversation in pm if you like as I do not want to go see another thread down the tubes for arguing but I respectfully disagree with your post. The site has flaws and that is a reason I prefer sites like Airplane-pictures.net that appreciate stuff like creativity and what not. If I was to get banned from A.Net I would lose no sleep over it as it would just confirm what I already feel and believe about the site. Although thank you for the compliment on the shot
The pics you have posted are indeed top notch but some of the quality is not anet standards. This is not a conspiracy. It's just fact. As stated your cockpit shot had a quality issue. Flat and color. Yet can be fixed. Manny has you on your way and your efforts would pay of big time. Now one could just upload it to airplanepicures and keep cursing anet but long term that will not yield the results your looking for. Your choice.
I am not sure but I can't see any JPG artifacts. If they are there, they must be minor :-( Oh well.. I appealed. Let's see what happens.
http://manny.smugmug.com/Airplanes/S...39_RE9UH-O.jpg