Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-25-2007, 10:46 PM
Mateo

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478114
Overexposed. The front is a little bright, but no worse than a lot of other shots in the database. I've got a couple other in the sequence that may prove more workable. Also soft, but that's still me getting a feel between my personal tolerance for sharpness and what the screeners want.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478110
Didn't know whether to submit with the whole rotor, or to cut off the front blade, and crop to the body. A little brighter and a little sharper on the edit, fine, whatever. Again, by the time I think something looks too altered for the brightness or too over-sharp, it's just getting started for them.
06-26-2007, 07:50 PM
wunaladreamin

ouch

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1476495
06-26-2007, 07:54 PM
wunaladreamin

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

Kenny you have some noise issues with the shot to, it might not get in on the second attempt. The screener probably just rejected for the comp/center reason since that stands out without checking off any other reason. What ISO were you using?

Sorry Tommy, was away from the computer for a few days. I was using ISO 250. I was also at max zoom on a 300mm and I know it gets a bit soft.
06-26-2007, 09:20 PM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mateo

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478114
Overexposed. The front is a little bright, but no worse than a lot of other shots in the database. I've got a couple other in the sequence that may prove more workable. Also soft, but that's still me getting a feel between my personal tolerance for sharpness and what the screeners want.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1478110
Didn't know whether to submit with the whole rotor, or to cut off the front blade, and crop to the body. A little brighter and a little sharper on the edit, fine, whatever. Again, by the time I think something looks too altered for the brightness or too over-sharp, it's just getting started for them.

Both def need a bit more USM, I'd give about 140 percent and the Helio I think you can increase the levels without doing any harm to the pic. Not sure why it was rejected though for composition, looks fine to me. I wouldn't have rejected it for that. I think you can save these two shots with a bit more work.
06-26-2007, 09:22 PM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by wunaladreamin

ouch

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1476495

To bad about this shot, the boggiest issue is its overexposed otherwise I think you could have had a real winner. The heat distortion is hardly noticeable if at all. As for the framing that would have been an easy fix. Can't fix an over espoused shot unless you shot it raw, to bad really.
06-26-2007, 09:27 PM
wunaladreamin

I was just happy seeing the damned thing. Still not bad for a shot taken a 40mph hanging out my bro's passenger side window.
06-27-2007, 06:39 PM
Greg_NY

A centering issue:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1483394

Maybe move it up slightly?
06-27-2007, 06:53 PM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg_NY

A centering issue:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1483394

Maybe move it up slightly?

No, there's way to much sky on the right and left, it needs to be cropped much tighter.
06-27-2007, 07:48 PM
Greg_NY

Thanks Tommy, perhaps I will redo it in portrait orientation.
06-28-2007, 10:03 AM
MarkLawrence

Hmmmm...backlit?? - maybe I don't understand the definition of backlit...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1484294
06-28-2007, 10:18 AM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkLawrence

Hmmmm...backlit?? - maybe I don't understand the definition of backlit...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1484294

Its really more top lit then backlit. We use the backlit rejection for shots like that although the light on that for the time of day really isn't that bad. You might be able to appeal that Mark.
06-28-2007, 10:30 AM
eric8669

I tried to get one of my Qantas shots up.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1483256
Dark / Underexposed

I guess it was just to dark. Any suggestions I do shoot .RAW.
thanks

Eric
06-28-2007, 11:55 AM
NIKV69

Quote:

I guess it was just to dark. Any suggestions I do shoot .RAW.
thanks

Looks like there wasn't enough light Eric. You can try to add some light in PS. Without seeing how the pic looks as shot it's hard to say. I don't like to make big changes in exposure or white balance in ACR. Give it a try though.

Quote:

Its really more top lit then backlit. We use the backlit rejection for shots like that although the light on that for the time of day really isn't that bad. You might be able to appeal that Mark

Kind of looks the sun was directly above the plane. With that fuselage not much to do. I think an appeal would not be successful.
07-03-2007, 10:38 AM
eric8669

Made another attempt with my Wunala Shot.

Got it brighter, now rejected for undersharpened.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1491222
07-06-2007, 08:04 AM
Greg_NY

Looks like I hit all the rejections...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1495494

I was wondering if anyone has any feedback on the "Part of aircraft cut off" rejection category. I understand what it means, but I have seen countless photos on jetphotos and the other site, where part of an aircraft has been cut off. (Such as the ends of the wings.) When is it OK to do? Is it a symmetry issue in this case?

Thanks
07-06-2007, 12:47 PM
lijk604

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg_NY

Looks like I hit all the rejections...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1495494

I was wondering if anyone has any feedback on the "Part of aircraft cut off" rejection category. I understand what it means, but I have seen countless photos on jetphotos and the other site, where part of an aircraft has been cut off. (Such as the ends of the wings.) When is it OK to do? Is it a symmetry issue in this case?

Thanks

I think the aircraft cut-off refers to the fact that your picture only has half of the #1 engine. If you submitted with either the whole engine in OR out of the picture that one would probably get cleared up. Am I right Tommy?
07-07-2007, 01:13 PM
Greg_NY

Quote:

Originally Posted by lijk604

I think the aircraft cut-off refers to the fact that your picture only has half of the #1 engine. If you submitted with either the whole engine in OR out of the picture that one would probably get cleared up. Am I right Tommy?

Thanks for the reply, I'll try some other shots without cutting off the engines etc...
07-08-2007, 11:11 AM
njgtr82

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1496752
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1496751
07-10-2007, 01:51 AM
nwafan20

Could someone please help me?

I did the auto-fill, shouldn't all options have been chosen?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1499455

- Categories wrong or missing
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Genre

I'm confused....
07-10-2007, 08:29 AM
moose135

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwafan20

Could someone please help me?

I did the auto-fill, shouldn't all options have been chosen?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1499455

- Categories wrong or missing
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Genre

I'm confused....

You need to select Civilian or Military, that is one thing that auto-fill doesn't do for you. It's easy to overlook.
07-10-2007, 12:17 PM
nwafan20

Quote:

Originally Posted by moose135

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwafan20

Could someone please help me?

I did the auto-fill, shouldn't all options have been chosen?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1499455

- Categories wrong or missing
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Genre

I'm confused....

You need to select Civilian or Military, that is one thing that auto-fill doesn't do for you. It's easy to overlook.

Ahh ok, thanks.
07-11-2007, 03:09 AM
nwafan20

I don't see the bad post processing, can someone point it out to me???

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500965
07-11-2007, 01:02 PM
nwafan20

Alright, I must be REALLY bad at this whole Military and formation thing in identifying what fields should be filled out... All rejected only for some sort of "bad info" or "categories wrong or missing"

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500980
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500974
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500977
07-11-2007, 01:07 PM
Derf

They are not P-51's but T-6 Texans'
07-11-2007, 01:12 PM
lijk604

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwafan20

Alright, I must be REALLY bad at this whole Military and formation thing in identifying what fields should be filled out... All rejected only for some sort of "bad info" or "categories wrong or missing"

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500980
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500974
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1500977

Did you check off Warbird or Vintage as well? (I can't remember the category name right now). That's a must too.
07-11-2007, 01:33 PM
moose135

Matt,

On your P-47, the missing serial number is 44-90447, from the FAA N-Number registry (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... nquiry.asp) Don't know what category you selected, but for war birds, with a civilian registration, you should select "Civilian" not "Military".

As Fred mentioned, the two formation shots are not P-51s as you indicated.
07-11-2007, 01:41 PM
nwafan20

I did select Civilian, but apparently they thought it was military??

My bad, not good with my military planes, and I either read the reg wrong or auto fill screwed up on it.

I will have to upload them later and double check with someone on IM on the categories or something... I hate getting photos rejected just because of wrong info.
07-12-2007, 02:04 PM
hiss srq

I expected Fed Ex to get rejected buttossed it up anyhow hopeing Tommy might let me slide lol.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503536

And I wanted this one up BAD! Oh well...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503534
07-12-2007, 04:01 PM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiss srq

I expected Fed Ex to get rejected buttossed it up anyhow hopeing Tommy might let me slide lol.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503536

And I wanted this one up BAD! Oh well...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1503534

I didn't screen those shots...and I wouldn't let them slide! lol Speed up you're shutter a bit the next time out.
07-12-2007, 11:49 PM
hiss srq

Another flipping catagories /blurry rejection. anyone want to take astab at this one ?http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504106

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504115

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504120
07-13-2007, 12:24 AM
moose135

Ryan, the NWA DC-9 is an easy one - based on the "9974" number, the registration/serial is N9338 / 47347. It's in the JP database here:http://www.jetphotos.net/census/listing.php?model=DC9 and there are a bunch of photos of it on JP.net
07-13-2007, 08:59 AM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Another flipping catagories /blurry rejection. anyone want to take astab at this one ?http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504106

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504115

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1504120

Ryan what are you using to edit your pictures? If its PS make sure your save settings are set to the maximum, otherwise you'll get those nasty artifacts. As for the regi just do what Moose said, but in the future try to take a "regi shot", not one you'll upload but one that will simpy get you the regi.
07-13-2007, 09:05 AM
hiss srq

I reuploaded the 9 on JP with correct information. If it gets accepted you guys will enjoy this picture trust me.
07-13-2007, 09:46 AM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiss srq

I reuploaded the 9 on JP with correct information. If it gets accepted you guys will enjoy this picture trust me.

What are you talking about? You only have one picture in the que right now the NWA DC-9.
07-13-2007, 09:53 AM
njgtr82

[quote=T-Bird76]

Quote:

Originally Posted by "hiss srq":327f9

I reuploaded the 9 on JP with correct information. If it gets accepted you guys will enjoy this picture trust me.

What are you talking about? You only have one picture in the que right now the NWA DC-9.[/quote:327f9]

Lol, I think he meant DC-9
07-13-2007, 10:09 AM
hiss srq

Tommy needs more coffee that is all. The 9 means DC-9 tommy.
07-13-2007, 01:22 PM
T-Bird76

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Tommy needs more coffee that is all. The 9 means DC-9 tommy.

Or someone who uses proper grammer! :twisted:
07-14-2007, 06:55 PM
MarkLawrence

Okay - I have a question on this one...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1505655

The building in front is level - but the runway and taxiway might not be...if I levle the taxiway, then the building will not be level - is this worth editing again of is it one that will never make it because something will not be level?
07-14-2007, 09:09 PM
nwafan20

Your not supposed to have everything in the picture level... It's just to have the photo taken at a true 90 degree angle to the ground, so level with the taxiway, the building was at an angle.
07-15-2007, 07:55 PM
hiss srq

Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1506334

The DC-9 got rejected again, compression. On my office computer which is glass screen I do not see it. I really wanted this one up though. I have a bunch of other shots that should be in que by the ned of the week though. We shall see.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 AM.