No Motive on this one...I am baffled.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3826433
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/1/2...1334878212.jpg
I thought JP loved air->ground shots??
Printable View
No Motive on this one...I am baffled.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3826433
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/2/1/2...1334878212.jpg
I thought JP loved air->ground shots??
Unfortunately, your plane's shadow is hurting the quality of the main subject...that's the reason for the Motive rejection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris V
Thanks for the response. As for using the horizontals for leveling, those buildings are skewed to the runway, so they wouldn't make for accurate guides. Even in my adjusted (accepted) photo, the building horizontals are still slanted. That being said, since it is now in the database, I have nothing more to add, as it will just bring about more stress :)Quote:
Originally Posted by alevik
You must have missed the part where I said I would have given it HQ.... that is not a rejection but a vote to accept. Don't let your predetermined notions get in the way of reading to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
Not sure where you get the not uploading to site as much. The daily uploads are higher than I can remember since I started screening a few years ago.
When I think of all the time I spent doin the nasty(something constructive) instead of wasting valuable life time trying to conform to their craziness(in the insane belief that somehow, having pictures on there will bring me some kind of recognition and somehow my life is now worth living).....it makes me smileQuote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
They should take a clue from the Roman Empire
I'm about ready to give up on A.Net, something like 0 for 30 in my recent uploads.
This one was rejected for quality, I have looked at it on 4 different screens and fail to see where the quality issue is.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawk...n/photostream/
Then the head screener gave me an ass of a response back that I need to be more judgemental of my pics. If I thought they were crap I wouldn't have uploaded them in the first place.
To be honest I would be happy to have my last shot be the all blacks I had accepted a while ago-
I do not mess with Anet, so I personally do not know exactly what they want, but WHAT is wrong with the quality of this pic? Everything looks pretty damn good in my eyes, what are they expecting!
Brandon, I think the image is terrific. However, for A.net, in my own opinion given my own experience, it looks to be a bit oversharpened in some areas and too contrasty and too dark on the belly/shadow areas.
The crop does not work for me either and I have been rejected for similar crops in the past so I stay away from them.
Regardless of the A.net metrics, I like the shot :-)
The problem is that the paint scheme is completely crummy. It should look more like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks7757
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...ThePlane-1.png
:tongue: Seriously though, I agree with Manny - oversharpened and the crop is a little weak. If the engine wasn't blocking so much fuselage, it might work.
Brandon, don't let rejections get you down. Your work is top notch, and if the screeners at Anet do not want your work, screw 'em!
You have your blog and your Flickr account, post 'em there. Between those two and linking the pics to this site, will get you plenty of views.
That All-Blacks shot is freakin phenominal man
Stick with Flickr, you'll get less heartburn
Well on my Mac's screen I notice some small round bumps on the landing gear doors and the tip of the nose, but I don't think that has anything to do with the overall quality. Asides that I am stumped. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawks7757
Two frustrating rejections, both appealed, both rejected again:
Color: "orange tint"
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...4_mg_9400a.jpg
No kidding there's an orange tint. Do they think I'm stupid or color blind and can't see the orange? In appeal, I explained that you will get an orange tint when you shoot at FRG in those conditions, towards that direction, and showed some examples of my previously accepted FRG shots, and it still got rejected.
Perhaps all of those were incorrectly screened?
And this one is borderline, but the generator/cart is only blocking half of one set of gear, and normally, that's allowed. I only appealed it after seeing a similar shot that was accepted, however that has 1 set of gear completely blocked, with the remaining two partially blocked. The appeal was rejected with "Clearly a motive obstruction rejection."
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...39_a1c1006.jpg
Quality, Over-sharpened
"Titles over sharpened"
EDIT: accepted on appeal. Some faith restored :biggrin:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...07_mg_9730.jpg
Cary, they only accepted because there was no orange tint to the Lufty shot. ;)
Seriously though, good shots, shame on them if they don't want them.
Thanks, John. I was actually concerned (as I am with most late PM shots now), that it would get rejected for yellow tint, since there is a tad (from it being late PM). The good thing is they accepted it...the bad thing is they promoted two photos over it, when it would have been second to only Sam Chui's shot. I guess I can't have it both accepted and get a fair shot at Top 5. That would be expecting too much :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
Cary, they rejected you because they know you terrorized the Andrews JSOH!
You know it :smile: Actually, the going joke is that they always reject me for yellow tint, because I'm yel....Asian :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...43img_7795.jpg
They rejected it because it's an unbalanced crop, but it's the unbalancing that makes it interesting! I may appeal.
Blurry!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867868
Blurry
Bad Quality
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867874
Heat Distortion
undersharpened(soft)
Blurry!
Horizon
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3867877
Undersharpened
Bad Color
Contrast
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3865399
Look at the regi on the first one, it is a bit blurry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta777LR
Second one seems hazed or the shutter wasn't fast enough. Look at the Star Alliance logo, it's messy.
For the third, look at the top of the plane. It's not straight, but jagged and soft.
Last one is just a weird contrast, and the quality is poor.
Bad quality - I'm looking for some guidance here guys - I had 4 rejected yesterday for bad quality - just looking for some pointers...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3870178
I'm guessing it has to do with the heat haze, and how it's affecting the edges of the wings. Not a ton you can do about heat haze, but I'd say if you want to try to do something, to selectively sharpen the wings less than the rest of the plane. It seems to be affecting/distorting the closer wing tip area the most. See how the leading edge slats and back edge in your photo are a little "wavy" compared to something like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/4/1/8...5962814_tb.jpg
If you can mask the wavy look a bit, you might be able to get it in.
Looks like all I got were a bunch of crappy shuttle photos - all rejected by A.net
Distance and Oversharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...e_009-1024.jpg
Grainy and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...e_005-1024.jpg
Grainy and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...e_001-1024.jpg
Grainy, Soft, and Dark
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...e_008-1024.jpg
Looks like the JP.net queue is running nearly 3 weeks, so it will be a while before I see if they reject them also.
Moose, the real reason they rejected the first show was because the site is Airliners dot net, not Cranes.net :tongue:
Second shot the sky is very grainy, looks like it was pushed too far in post.
Third, to me, looks like it needs contrast. I don't really see the grain, but definitely a lot of haze.
Fourth looks to suffer from heat haze, and you probably could brighten it up a bit.
Oh well, guess you'll just have to throw 'em all out. :cool:
Any tips on re-editing this one?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3871356
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3871356
jeremy in mn
Jeremy the sky under the aircraft is a tad grainy, and the right wingtip is slightly blurry. Although, I think that has to do with the exhaust from the #2 engine.
See if you can clean that sky up a little and appeal. If it were me, I'd be happy to have that shot in my collection.
Heat Distortion
soft
Bad Color
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3872785
The sky is sort of a weird green-blue. It's also VERY soft, look near the American Eagle title and the registration.
Sergio, did you disagree with the rejection? What was the outcome?
Think the first one is fixable. Little tighter crop, the cranes make the shot. The second one even with fixing the grain anet would shoot it down for motive with the people blocking the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Nick, Airliners.net is flexible with people blocking the main subject if it is motivated. In this case, I believe the motivation would be met as the folks are "part of the scene" akin to ramp workers in front of a jet engine while preparing to depart or similarQuote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
As for the cranes, I agree, so it would be hard to crop tighter and get the cranes in the shot as well. It is always a judgement call on the screener's part. I can tell you if it were me screening it, I would be torn between the value of the photo, the artistic nature, the fact that the database is a database to begin with and not really meant for artistic photos (been there myself :tongue:) etc. Tough call but one that could likely be made by Paul as he himself has a few shots which are in the same nature!
A.net decided to go on a Cary Liao-rejection party today, rejecting 2 of 2 shots for "green tint", and now 2 of 2 shots for "low in frame". I did the centering by eye and using LR's grids. I just measured the top of the photo to the top of the fuselage and the bottom of the fuselage to the bottom of the picture, and came up with:
1st photo: 246px to top, 248px to bottom
2nd photo: 259px to top, 258px to bottom
Again, I eyed these in LR, and came within +/- 1px of being dead-centered. If they are rejected again, undoubtedly the excuse will be that the top and bottom of the fuselage don't constitute how it should be centered, and that I should move it up a little. Yet, overlaying one of them with a photo that was only rejected for "green tint", the centering is virtually identical (sans the fact that one is a 777-200 vs 777-300). Also, the only time I've seen where the measurements from the top/bottom of the fuselage don't work is when a winglet or tail is sticking too far up, and the picture should be centered to what feels better in thumbnail view. Am I being completely ridiculous here? I can't even appeal yet, because of my two "green tint" photos I'm appealing (I'll get to those later, depending on what they have to say).
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...08_mg_0304.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...18_mg_0176.jpg
"Low in frame" super-imposed over my 777-300 that was acceptably centered:
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...lowinframe.jpg
This is A.net, you have to be closer than that, Cary!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Rejected - Bad Double... :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary
Ha! :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Amazing. Now my China Cargo, taken 30 minutes after my "green-tinted" Avianca shot, at the same WB and Tint, and had been (wrongly) deemed to be only off-centered, has been rejected on appeal: "Centering passable, but has a slight cyan tint". Also, literally having the centering off by ONE pixel is "passable"?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...08_mg_0304.jpg
I know you're gonna hate me for this, bud, but I notice it too :frown: and before you kill me, you know I am also on a good hardware calibrated Apple 30" Cinema Display and take color casts as serious as you do. I know you're upset but maybe you can be objective... take the night off and look at it tomorrow.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-WSWKF2F-L.jpg
Auto-Color and Auto-Tone in PSCS5.5, nothing more.
Cary, just try appeal to head screener. Me personal opinion is both photos are good to A.net.
Oh Manny, Manny, Manny....you know you can't just post one color cast relative to another one like that. (Also the Auto Color is far too red to my eye.) But I can play that game, too :tongue:
Better, left or right?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...79/colors1.jpg
Better, left or right?
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u...79/colors2.jpg
Unfortunately, I can't Enxian. This was initially rejected for only being "low in frame". After I politely informed them it was 1px from being centered on appeal, they rejected it for the cyan cast. So you can't appeal again.Quote:
Originally Posted by En11RVC