Manny thanks alot man
Printable View
Manny thanks alot man
You're quite welcome sir... shoot me an E-mail if you want me to help further :-)
Got a unique vantage point for this one, the old observation deck in concourse C, but the horizon evaded me. Any suggestions? I tried to level to the tree line in the background.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/5/0...1324855054.jpg
Thanks
Jeremy
I'd try and take the horizontal or vertical on the hangar on the right of the shot - or maybe the vertical on the light poles - they all seem to lean to the left a little..
if anything, the lights on the right of frame are a hair CW not CCW. But, it is really close. Not sure what the screener used as a reference but the lights are OK to my eye. Perhaps the fuselage of the front-most bird is what was used? The A320 does sit a bit nose high in real life... it is not that horizontal to begin with :P
I would also say your exposure is a bit under as well... here is my take on it.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-wbFmXMw.jpg
I did rotate it CW a bit to the truck on the lower right...
Arghhhhhhhhh. I fail, maybe my monitor is not level :mad:
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/6/9/4...1324939496.jpg
What do you guys think, 0.3 CCW?
Here is my take on it
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6...537626eb_b.jpg
Sounds nutty but it could be, your original was way off. You using a notebook or desktop?Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Desktop.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Kaz, that edit looks great. Not sure what I was thinking with my original edit:confused:
May want to check how the monitor is sitting. It may look level to you but once someone else looks at it on a level monitor it's way off.
What happens when you take advice from fellow NYC members, but forget to delete the older pic...oops. :redface:
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/8/4/2...1326580248.jpg
Opps. Wait until you upload the same picture twice :rolleyes:
This one was frustrating. Originally rejected only for Level. I fixed the Level, and it got rejected for Centered (stating "High in frame - no motivation for off cneter"). I appealed, and got rejected for Centered and Level (again!). I put a centered vertical guide in the photo...sorry, but I don't see how it's not level, and I think the Centered is pretty minor for a reg with 5 photos in the database. There are other SXM photos in the DB, with partial buildings/no beach/no ground and high in frame planes.
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...9/redix8eh.jpg
:-( Maybe Pete can give you a better explanation but I believe it to be level and properly motivated for SXM. However, I may be wrong but, the motive is OK when it is the beach that shows with people ... Just the top of the hotels may not be enough motive for this composition. I say if you have enough pixels, place it dead smack in the center and it may be more acceptable? Just a thought.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-Rhd4Hx8.jpg
Cary, what happens when you try to use a horizontal line and level off the top of blue line in the background (as your horizon)? When processing did you use lens correction? I definitely have to agree with the jet being high in the frame. I'm sure Manny would have rejected it as well for other reasons!
Can't level based on the top of La Terrasse - it's angled to the perspective, and would tilt the whole picture too CW. The wall closest to the center line is parallel, and both ends bend inward. Didn't use lens correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee71
Mark, that building is actually at an angle to the shooting position so the roofline is NOT supposed to be level... but the verticals always are unless you are angled way up or way down
Got it!!! Thank you sir.
I suppose I could re-crop, but as you probably know - it's annoying when you spend time fixing the cited problem, only to have a new issue cited a week later :smile: More than likely, I won't bother re-uploading. Not a big fan of re-cropping out of the way I shot a scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
I hear you and understand... been there (am there) all the time :tongue:
Problem for me is that I manage in Lightroom but finish in Photoshop and when you have to start the process from scratch, it is a PITA. Not really but, you know... Editing should take no more than 12 minutes per image or thereabouts but sometimes with careful selective sharpening to get it just right and make it the best it can be, it can take some time. Having to re-edit means remembering the special edits which is harder.
Nick and Eric, don't bite your tongues, jump in here and comment :mad:
Gift the RAW file to me, I'll post the re-edit! hheheheheQuote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Wrong serial number, though I did the auto fill. :confused:
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/8/3/3...1326669338.jpg
Hmmm when you do auto fill it gives you the correct C/N # which is 35195. Is that what you had in there ?
Cary raised a good point. The level was an easy fix but if he framed it to show more of the top of the building and anet wants it centered it's his call. I run into a similar thing shooting the garage at LAS you want to have the aircraft a little higher sometimes when you get some good stuff underneath but it's a chore to get it in the DB. Working on one for the last few months how to fit everything in the frame and get it past the screeners. It is what it is.
Watch Auto-Fill it's not always accurate. Just google the tail # and the proper info will come up and just enter it yourself.Quote:
Wrong serial number, though I did the auto fill
Also.......on the Alaska 737, it looks like the nose and tail are very very close to the edge of the frame.
For some reason I got 48574 for its serial...:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roush6NY
Resubmitting with the correct number.
Yes I cropped it close because of the fact is how I straightened it brought the tail close to the tail area. :wink:
Grrrrr.
Shot this with the 17-40mm, did not get a good chance to square everything during the picture taking.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/0/4/2...1327368240.jpg
Not sure which way to go with this one.
I'd say slight CW, and use the left wall of the 4 windows facing the red truck as your vertical guide.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
How about this?
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...pfVCsNX-X3.jpg
Many rejections Grrrrr
United A319
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737846
JetBlue A320
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737848
AA 738
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737843
RAM 763
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737328
KLM 772
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3737327
Harsh contrast, dust spots above titles
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...95img_7935.jpg
Harsh contrast, Green tint
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...57_mg_7926.jpg
Top left dirty
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...97_mg_7923.jpg
Soft Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...83_mg_7920.jpg
Grainy
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...62img_7985.jpg
Low Contrast, soft and Grainy
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...17img_7955.jpg
Dirty blue sky, big dust spot
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...67img_7967.jpg
Dust spot and grainy
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...15img_7969.jpg
I hear ya Sergio but all of them seem pretty straightforward.
This one has me baffled...Bad Motive
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/9/6...1327454691.jpg
Uploaded as a terminal picture.
Any insight for the rejection? Too much road, no planes, no people. It was like0500, everybody but me was asleep.
Seems to be too much road. The first thing I see when I look at the picture is the road.
Doug
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2624sharko.jpg
rejected for grain...it had just rained and was still misting...really?
Sorry Mike, but it is not the rain.. Remember your images are screened at 500% and also equalized. If you do the same with your above image, you will see the heavy noise. Looks like an easy fix though... Lately also ANY blockage of any sort, even the slightest, will usually get rejected :-( So, give it another shot, and use the noise reduction wisely. Do you have Lightroom? IF not, do you have Imagenomic Noiseware Pro for Photoshop? If not, I'd be glad to denoise your final edit BEFORE resizing for you...
Cropping...yet I thought they were good crops.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3750073
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3748858
Its not your cropping that got you the rejections, its the size ratio and the 2nd I'm guessing you forgot to check off "cargo plane" once you were uploadingQuote:
Originally Posted by Kris V
Here is what you have to remember as far as the ratio when cropping:
Photos should be uploaded between 4:3 or 3:2 format. Those formats are typically used by almost all digital cameras, so that any changes to the format can only be achieved by deliberately cropping the photo differently. A photo outside these size ratios will be rejected using the rejection reason "Cropping / Photo edges".
To make it easier for you here are the typical sizes for both ratios.
4:3
800 x 600
1024 x 76
1280 x 960
1600 x 1200
3:2
800 x 533
1024 x 681
1200 x 800
1600 x 1067
Is the size ratios visible? I personally don't know what to look for within that. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roush6NY