ROFL, Manny :tongue:
Printable View
ROFL, Manny :tongue:
Thanks for the help on the C-32, Cary. I'll be appealing it. The stripe doesn't look red in the larger image. I noticed the smaller images of the C-32 on A.net all have this same color thing going on.
Any thoughts on this one? It was rejected for needing a CCW adjustment, but it is already leveled by that orange/yellow line under the aircraft on the ground at the end of the pavement.
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...1at33447PM.png
It may be level based on the line, Chris, but looking at it on my monitor, it does look like it needs some CCW - it just "feels" like it is going downhill.
Thanks John!
Hey Chris, use the runway or whatever that is behind the aircraft :smile: Here is a quick edit using the guides Photoshop to help ... I used the measuring tape to lay down a line on that feature to help with accurate rotation.
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo.../i-vqFfjTm.jpg
@ manny we worked so hard on it :(,Wonder why it got rejected for Copy Right,Reject reason: size grainy soft info centered level category copyright
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ightii.jpg.jpg
Reject reason: quality size grainy soft overexposed contrast centered copyright Should i Delete The jet center in this one? i think i did Over Edit it But i wanted to see what The screeners would say,I dont know why Copyright is on there..:( Thanks for help Manny By the way
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ebsite.jpg.jpg
Like I said before, you can't have your own watermark in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Lucas
oh haha sorry i didn't see it if you told me before thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Cary
This one was rejected for being overexposed. I really don't think it is, so I may appeal this. Thoughts?
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...at122409PM.png
There is a clear spike in the levels at the right side of the histogram, and to my eye it also looks like it lacks contrast. Do you have an original, unedited version?
Hard to tell with a small image, but it does look a little bright on the fuselage forward/below the cockpit windows and again behind the cockpit over the door. The detail looks washed out there, but again, it could be the small image I'm looking at.
Any thoughts on this one? They rejected it because they said it needed CCW rotation, but I don't see it. It's leveled on the horizon.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_mpo_4758.jpg
It's probably worth appealing that one. The water tower sides are virtually square to the sides of the picture. I think they are letting the crooked windsock and other pole on the right, influence their judgment. If you appeal, note that those two are crooked in real life, and that the water tower is level. Architectural features/buildings (which need to be built level) always trump lightpoles/windsocks/etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
Thanks for your advice, Cary. I just appealed it and I'll keep you updated!
EDIT: Accepted! :cool:
Yeah. always nice when an appeal is accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
Need some guidance on this jp.net reject.
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/4/3...1345169341.jpg
here are the "similar" ones
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7423684&nseq=0
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7411091&nseq=1
Thanks,
I thought noses/tails were different that full-one shots?
Jeremy, typically same side same approach is considered similar enough (or not dissimilar enough) and you could agree that we see the same image technically in your close up. Although if the dates are different, technically it should be ok. What was the exact reason for rejection?
It was rejected for similar. It bugs me, since it typically does not give me the same image at the same airport note.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Any thoughts on this one? Rejected for "dark."
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...avp_4987_2.jpg
If it makes you feel any better, I just made the same mistake :) Although I thought mine were definitely dissimilar enough, it is same side and so it was rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDANDO
Oooh, yeah Chris. Looks very dark to me sorry. Here is what I think would be better to my taste anyway. Although harsh light to begin with... :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...-S2cSFg9-L.jpg
Thanks Manny! I'll brighten it up.
Just got a few rejections and thought I'd post them here to see if I have any chance at appealing.
Low contrast:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...69img_4791.jpg
Overexposed, soft: (someone else has a near-identical photo in the database of this aircraft, but that wasn't rejected for o/e):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...96img_4847.jpg
Contrast high, "nose soft contrast," "soft soft contrast:" (too much contrast? I guess they punish you for using a professional camera/lens):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...48img_4711.jpg
Soft (I don't really see it being soft--maybe someone here can point it out):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...45img_4780.jpg
Thanks as always!
I think they are all fixable. Remember that Airliner's sharp may not be your idea of sharp. It is a very very fine line between overdone and just a tad soft for their standards. So, yes, I tend to agree on all the above counts. I think they are all fixable. Just do exactly as they ask and you should be in on round two.
For the sharpening, on those that are soft, just another round of USM on the plane, or Smart Sharpen at very low amount and radius (say 30 at 0.3) will give you a crisper look. Pro cameras are EXACTLY the problem you;re having. Trust me, I get rejected A LOT!!!!! lol. Pro Cameras demand a higher level of attention as the files come out a bit more RAW.
Do you shoot RAW or JPGs? If you're processing from RAW, you will have much more trouble than from JPGs until you get the right mix of settings for A.net and JP.net output.
Once again, A.net sharp is NOT by any means your preferred sharpness. This is not a big deal but more a preference. However, one thing you must keep in mind is that certain parts of certain aircraft at certain angles and certain weather will render them LOOKING less contrasty or more and thereby enhancing or hampering apparent sharpness.
For example, the windows on the last one could you a bit more USM ... they look soft partly because of lack of contrast due to the WX conditions... etc. etc.
I also tend to sharpen wheels and windows a lot more than the rest of the plane and usually completely erase sharpened airframe edges or boundaries. I will also oversharpen very very small or low contrast edges.
The fact that another image is in the DB seemingly identical to yours will matter not much unfortunately. You are screened on your own merits alone, and only point out another accepted photo if there is a mistake of some kind other than editing :smile:
Thanks, Manny! I just got a chance to rework these tonight.
I've been getting a lot of rejections lately, too. All of mine are either for soft or contrast. Eventually I'll get the hang of the A.net required processing!
I shoot RAW. The worst part is having to edit them--they freeze up my computer and it takes forever just to edit a few!
Well, I decided to complain about a recent rejection finally, so we'll see how it goes...
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/367153/
Personally, I think you have a good reason to appeal Nick - both look very acceptable.
Thanks Anet...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...68img_3880.jpg
Is this a good fix?
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...g_3880anet.jpg
Looks better to me if it was a "dark" reject. Personally I like the first edit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris V
Got lit up on jp.net for this;
http://www.jetphotos.net/img/3/0/7/0...1346028070.jpg
overexposed
Rough week on jp.net....
Bad info in aircraft???
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962809
Zooming in on the plane it appears to say TBM850 above the wing, but the FAA website and Airport Data have as a 700. Perhaps I should not have believed the government.
Bad info in serial number?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962819
Perhaps a space at the front on the s/n?
Wrong categories?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962821
Appreciate some help on these.
Jeremy,
The whites on the fuselage are showing close or at 255 on my setup here at home... I would back out the contrast a bit and it should be ok.
The Socata is clearly a TBM700 from not just the Govt site :smile:
N1HS: Seems like you entered the serial with the regi... Serial goes into its own field :-)
Thanks Manny!
Not too surprised with the reject here, shooting from the Parkade and nothing is squared up. Horizons are my nemesis.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3966053
Any suggestions on which way it should rotate?
Looks like it needs to be rotated counterclockwise a little.
Doug
Thanks Doug, it is back in the queue with a tweak.
Anyone think I have an appeal here? It was rejected for being "washed out," but I don't think it's overexposed...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_mpo_4695.jpg
I wouldn't waste time appealing it... rather edit it again... bring down the exposure a bit and bump up the contrast a bit ... play with it a little and find the right combo. Findthe brightest while in the fuselage and measure it with the eye dropper to be no more than 240-250 level. Measure the blacks on the darkest part of the tire and see that it is close to zero level... perhaps 5 or so :-)
May look a bit more acceptable to the screeners.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...s-rsaair-1.jpg
Reject reason: editing halos soft overexposed editing personal
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...y-jmcair-1.jpg
Reject reason: editing halos overexposed editing personal...
Air Jamaica was approved on JP.net...guess its not to Airliners.net standards...
If you are using the shadow/highlight selection in photoshop it will do that. I try not to use that feature.
Akie, to me, the tops of both fuselages, and the vertical stabilizer on the South African are blown out. Much too overexposed.