Seriously? I see what you were trying to do. I think you just got a super picky screener.
Printable View
Seriously? I see what you were trying to do. I think you just got a super picky screener.
This is even better than Cary's "dead space".......this one they said was digitally manipulated
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3435835
Needless to say I have appealed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1840
Did they send a personal message saying what was manipulated?
Not at all! THats what bugs me. They reject it cause they think it was manipulated, but don't bother to tell me why they think that. In my appeal I stated that the only adjustments made to the photo where adjustments made in post processing that are outlined in the guides in there help section. Nothing more, nothing less. And I did ask them in the appeal if they could give me a brief explanation of why they believe it was manipulated. We'll see what they say.
Cary, did you submit this as a particular aircraft, or as a ramp/terminal shot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Another one for digital manipulation.....again with no explanation.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3435848
Weird, keep us posted Steve.
Steve, that's easy. Everyone clearly knows that an A319 does not have wings and yours clearly has wings... so nice try bud!
Seriously though it looks a bit underexposed... other than that, digital manipulation?
I think I found it... Steve, did you cut corners and erase your logo? :tongue:
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/i-4T...4TRjXvx-XL.jpg
Yeah. I felt like an a@@ after i got an answer to my appeal. It finally hit me that i remembered erasing my logo from the photo. How do i get rid of my logo from a photo?
You do not... you simply RE-EDIT it and do not apply the logo to it before sending to the DB ;-)
Thanks Manny. Thats what I figured, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't a way to go about doing it.
5 rejections on Anet
Soft
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...07img_1681.jpg
Weak contrast
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...07img_1681.jpg
Soft underwings and gears.. Can anyone see where that is?
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...54img_8698.jpg
Grainy
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...05img_2712.jpg
Oversharpened
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/2...34img_8371.jpg
Can anyone help me out with these issues?
Sergio, the screening was spot on on all of them unfortunately... been there MANY times to know that :frown:
So, I have possible solutions for all of them if you're willing to give me a try :cool: If so, please contact me off-line and I ask for the originals (RAW hopefully, otherwise at least original JPGs) and I will edit to my taste and hopefully A.net standards. No promises of course, but at least we can get to a better starting point. I see the issues on all the above ... I think all may be salvageable... it is ALWAYS a learning experience so I appreciate the opportunity.
Thank you sir...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3451459
I don't see how much sharper I can go :confused: Any ideas ?
Kaz,
The original, I am betting, is a bit soft or even OOF :-) if you look at the SIZE of the jaggies, is a dead giveaway of the processing involved. So it looks like the OOF or blur was overcompensated for in post.
Or, the ORIGINAL crop you started with was less than 3000px which I use as my guide to properly reduce to 1200 pix wide final... if your crop is less than 3000 pix, you will not get a good result in my opinion... but given the new 16-18MP sensors, you may have enough left... just an observation :-)
Thanks as always Manny, I will look into the original and see :)
Horizon level.. I dont see how its not leveled... help?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3475159
The vertical lines on the building look like they are leaning just slightly to the right. A touch of CCW rotation would help.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3502489
Do you think this one is worth an appeal? Besides submitting an appeal, what do I say. "I think the contrast is just fine!" or what?
In all fairness Jeremy - I think they might be right on here - the usual blueish tint of the Air Canada scheme is showing more as a grey in this on my monitor - I think a re-edit with more work on the color levels might help - just my opinion....
I also agree. It does seem to lack contrast, and does look greyish.
Heads up on who ever took this same shot on the 10th at JFK and has it in Queue on JPnet
When I submitted this photo 2 weeks ago and did the auto fill, it came up as "Untitled" which there already was 3 photos as that in the database, and a whole bunch of course with the older "Maxjet" scheme, last week someone got approved with the plain white scheme as Maxjet as well, which is NOT.
I got rejected today, saying the airline info is wrong and its Swift Air, and they went back and switched all others to Swift as well. My appeal results were: screeners can\'t change any info, you will have to reupload. Sorry.
So if you guys have it in there still waiting to get screened, change it to Swift !
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/3/0/9...1310528903.jpg
Makes little sense since it has no titles. Both should be accepted.
Any insight on what an acceptable crop would have been?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3518219http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3518219
Thanks,
Jeremy
I would crop till right behind the wheels and you will be good
A rough day on the jp.net queue. This one bit it for horizon. I leveled it to the white line on the runway beneath the plane.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3527171http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/9/7...1311735792.jpg
The trees in the background do not provide any assistance in finding the true horizon. Is it worth an appeal or just rotate it 0.3 degree and resubmit?
Jeremy - I'd use the lamppost behind the plane as a vertical and see that that brings - it certainly does need a little bit of CW...
Use the post/tower in the background to level it off. Light poles are normally all over the place, while towers and buildings should be level (for obvious reasons). It just needs very minor CW rotation. You might also want to add the note "leveled using tower in back", as they might just look at the crooked light post on the far right.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Here is one I had rejected recently. Reject reason: quality size grainy soft level
http://myaviation.net/?pid=02019729
I got two rejections today that I have never gotten before - the reasons included a personal comment stating "terrible light" for both of them. I've gotten rejected for many things, but this one gave me a chuckle.
I'll just keep them for my personal collection.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2381_jp.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...mg_2453_jp.jpg
Greg, I am there all the time ... meaning the rejections, not SXM (I wish) and it comes down to the screener and the tolerance for certain motives etc. In these two cases, I think if you carefully re-editthem, you will get the results you wanted ... but the second one (the 757) is certainly a bit over on the other side (the sun) and the fact that the plane was already over the fence does not help your case any. The 737 at least is over the beach/water which reflects a lot of light to the underbelly. This one has much more re-edit potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_NY
I have a string of rejections lately that made me take a break... Notice how I am not posting nearly as many from a.net. That is because my ratio has dropped a bit. But all it takes is one of yours with over 1K hits to make you feel better :-)
Hey Mark. That one is pretty soft, either out of focus or heat haze or a bit of both. The size rejection relates to the fact it is not a standard ratio (3:2 or 4:3) - the crop is quite a bit wider than it is tall. The quality rejection os often added when we think that there is a low probability of the shot being salvageable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mgwsy
Pete
Hi Greg. As Manny has noted already, the light is really harsh from the top and a bit from the back, making the top of the fuselage blown out with the sides dark. It is poor lighting for photography at midday generally - for people, planes or most subjects. In this case as well, SXM shots are common and the aircraft themselves are not rare. I generally leave the cameras in the bag at midday - and I shoot mostly in the first three and last three hours of the day unless the aircraft is a special visitor or rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_NY
Pete
David, looks reasonably sharpened to me. What was the outcome of your appeal? I say post it in the photography feedback forum and see if the screener or one of the screeners can point you in the right direction. It used to be that sometimes a soft/oversharpened rejection would result in confusion and I later found out that it was given when an otherwise blurry or too soft shot was over-sharpened to compensate. I believe the new rules are the screeners will try to reasonably explain the rejection reasons better but, could this be the case here? I notice the top of the fuselage has a bit of jaggies starting to creep in (fuselages being round should be somewhat smooth and soft atthe very edge since it is an infinite fade to the bg (this is my opinion and observation, not a rule :tongue: )
I have learned that A.net sharp is a bit higher than I am comfortable with for my taste so I adjust accordingly. With that being said, I felt your image could withstand another round or even two... here is what I came up with... I say put them both in layers in PS and turn off/on repeatedly and see if you like it or not...
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-ZkXZHqg.jpg
I wasn't careful with masking so, from the original, you will get far better results of course...
Cheers!
Seems either heat hazed or out of focus to me. 1280 wide doesn't help that situation either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahemody
Here's the deal:
Canon 1DM4
Canon 300mm f/2.8L
Cropped dimensions of 4332 × 2888
"Experimental" above passenger door and the Rolls logo on the engine are clearly legible.
Very slight heat haze at full size on the bottom of the nacelles.
I've sharpened until the jaggies start to concern me.
I've printed this at 20 x 30 a number of times and it's still sharp all around.
If this isn't good enough for Anet, I don't know what they need. I don't want to start another Anet rant, but the inconsistency in screening is mind boggling. The one photo that got accepted from my last set I almost didn't submit because I know the tail is soft - quite soft. And I refuse to sharpen my photos to the point of gross jaggies, which is not uncommon to see in Anet photos.
Starting with 4000 pixel photo, the difference between 1024 and 1280 is negligible. At least quality wise. Do the screeners have something against photos above 1024?
Is sharpness/softness purely subjective? Or is there a qualitative way to assess softness?
Just giving my opinion.
It is very clearly soft to me, I would have spent only seconds on that image before rejecting it for soft (I did not screen it). Looking at other images from airliners.net taken from the same perspective they are sharper and crisper. You are seeing jaggies because (in my opinion) you are trying to sharpen a soft image - I see this all the time where images are still soft but also oversharpened. I admit, many people don't understand how an image can be soft *and* oversharpened, but trust me, I've seen plenty. In your case I haven't seen the original so basing my evaluation off the edited image. Your image isn't horribly soft - but to me it is soft. *edit - I notice a fellow screener chimed in on the photography forum post. Similar opinion to mine.
I'm not here to defend airliners.net. I get rejections too and they p*ss me off. Why would I upload a photo if it was rejectable, and as a screener I should know it is? I guess I'm just too close to my own images and don't judge them as subjectively as others. I had about 1000 images on anet before I started as a screener, and I'm just about to top 2000. I haven't changed my editing techniques over the years but I have upgraded my gear from the D70s to now D3s over the years, and I see a difference from my earlier images. Sure there will be inconsistencies - there are 20 or so screeners and there is no way everyone of us will interpret every image the same way. You should try it some time - I screen 500 to 1000 images a week, sometimes up to 2000 or 3000. After awhile (I've been at it for over 2 years) you get a good feel for the large cross section of quality and subjects that get uploaded.
Screeners have nothing against larger images just because they are larger. Larger images do show flaws much more clearly. I often see an image on my camera that looks good on the small screen, only to see it is soft or out of focus in the larger screen. Same effect with image size - that's why thumbnails look good when the full size doesn't. I actually do a happy dance when I get a batch of images with some at 1600 wide in good quality. Unfortunately, I would say there are less than 10 uploaders (again, in my opinion) who can upload consistently quality images at that size. Their best attribute? They don't try to upload every image at 1600 - only the ones that can support the larger size.
I see you have excellent camera gear. I do too. And I have been to that spot at KBFI several times. Unfortunately even the best gear can't always get perfect focus or overcome atmospheric effects. I've seen some great images taken with entry level gear, and some horrible images taken with pro gear.
Again - not trying to change your mind about anet or whether your image is soft or not, just providing more context to my previous answer.
Thought I had the horizon squared away on this one. Any help on what it needs?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3582571
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/2/9/1...1316056192.jpg