http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1538844
Do you think there's anyway I could fix this one in Photoshop?
Printable View
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1538844
Do you think there's anyway I could fix this one in Photoshop?
That's a hard one, try about 25% more USM on it. Although the nose really is blurry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris102
To me, when you are discussing something and you don't have an answer, that's just wrong and doesn't help create clear lines of communication or understanding.
I like how you sidesteped that one. You see Nick, its not about the rejections persay but when I strive for clarity, often times its not found. And others hav ethe same problem. in fact, :
Just recently,. someone asked in an av photo thread in Anet about clarification and what did you post?
So am I that is why I am going to sit back and watch from far away
So what does that imply Nick? This is what it implies: You can't ask questions without getting flamed or some sort of negative reverb.
Nick, first, I know it is their site. But when they cannot communicate effectively, I question that. Second, I am not accusing them of anything malicious nor false. I've simply come to accept that.Quote:
As for benchmarks Mario it's their site. They can do whatever they want. If they want stringent standards it's fine. There are other sites to upload. Rather than embark on logic and accusing them of all sorts of stuff
Lastly, you really need to stop focusing on photos of my ass. I'm not a homophobe but you are beginning to scare me. All you do is bring up photos of my ass. Is there something wrong with you?
As I said, I will continue this in email. I respect Gary, nuff said. But I will prove you wrong.Quote:
As for your double why not try to email Gary Watt who is a head screener. His door is always open as far as I am concerned and I am sure he can give you an answer.
:mrgreen:
Actually Mario I did not sidestep anything. It's just that you don't want to hear the answer. Read my posts. Josh seemed to understand what I said so I would assume you can too.Quote:
I like how you sidesteped that one. You see Nick, its not about the rejections persay but when I strive for clarity, often times its not found. And others hav ethe same problem. in fact, :
Actually Mario if I ever turned homo I would not go for your scrawny ass. I was just using that as a way to explain why the screeners were not answering you. You have to remember they are human too and maybe did not appreciate your post about your ass rejection. Things like that stay with people. Remember you get more flies with honey than you do vinegar.Quote:
you really need to stop focusing on photos of my ass. I'm not a homophobe but you are beginning to scare me. All you do is bring up photos of my ass. Is there something wrong with you?
I hope you do, good luck.Quote:
As I said, I will continue this in email. I respect Gary, nuff said. But I will prove you wrong.
[img]http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThis****Again!.jpg[/img]
Soft?
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... d11ewr.jpg
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... c10ewr.jpg
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... d14320.jpg
They seem sharp to me. Anyone think they aren't sharp enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
Funny, I have been in that helicopter going on a glacier tour.
CN is 9070
Nice! Great experience. That was my first time in a helicopter. We were lucky and got sunshine that day. It was a strange to walk on ice and snow in the middle of the summer. I have photos of the glacier landing, but not sure if they're JP.net worthy.
Fresh glacier water is cold and tasty. :)
How'd you get to that trip? Mine was through my cruise's shore excursions.
By the way, thanks for the serial.
The screener :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia A340-600
They look OK to me, but then I can never tell - it always seems to be a crapshoot whether I'll get something rejected for soft or oversharpened, when they both look the same to me. :?
Gordon the FedEx needs some USM, the nose is a little soft. The CO looks ok maybe just needs a little more as well. Is your monitor calibrated?
Thanks Nick and Moose. I added some USM to all three shots and added them back to the queue.
They also rejected my Qatar and Malaysia for overexposed and my Qatar got the common rejection as well.
Malaysia: http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... wrland.jpg
For some reason I can't find the Qatar shot...
About my calibrated screen, Nick. When Matt Thaler was here he kept telling me that I should get it calibrated and we never got around to it.
Ok, well keep in mind you are not looking at the same pic the screener is. I would do that ASAPQuote:
bout my calibrated screen, Nick. When Matt Thaler was here he kept telling me that I should get it calibrated and we never got around to it.
Ok so I'm gonna give it another try, is this a better edit:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/mrdewr.jpg
Also thoughts on this one too please:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... N-RKH2.jpg
Thanks
Bill
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1559194
I appealed since auto-fill marked cargo and got this in response:
Since when?Quote:
Nope, auto-fill does not select any categories at all.
Since always, I got rejected for my Cargo 360 for the same reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia A340-600
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1560016
Argh!! So I have no idea what to do.
Try starting from scratch and doing it over agian.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart schechter
It looks like you pumped up the saturation on the red. The little triangle on the front looks un-natural, and then when you realize it's the same colour as the tail, the whole picture looks screwed-with (more than they want you to screw with it ;) )
Rejected again for jaggies
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... mrdewr.jpg
And soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... N-RKH2.jpg
I think they are being a bit picky with that rejection, it is no worse with jaggies than other shots they have accepted in the past week!Quote:
Originally Posted by njgtr82
I still see some in the shot. Did you redo the shot? Back off the sharpening a little I think your there. You got the original, post it. If the capture is good you may not need much USM at all.Quote:
Rejected again for jaggies
I don't know of anywhere to host the full size but heres the unedited at 1024Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1011/128 ... 23c7_b.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia A340-600
Since forever.
A whole world of rejects here... :(
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1571486
so this one is considered a special scheme huh? also I'm not sold on the contrast issue:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573455
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573395
From looking at the pics in the DB it seemed this plane operates both VIP and regular flights so I left it alone and comments on the framing please
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573389
Bill
Bill - your Kuwaiti 747 definitely looks too high in the frame. The Argentine 340 looks a little high as well, although not as much.
The rejection is correct, compare my shot of Lennon to yours. It's easy to see the contrast is way off. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1242311/L/Quote:
I'm not sold on the contrast issue:
Moose is right, too much dead space below the AC.Quote:
your Kuwaiti 747 definitely looks too high in the frame
All are prob fixable.
Try clicking up "Government operated" for 9K-ADE.
Bill, you might want to play around with metering modes on your camera. Center weight might do the trick.Quote:
Originally Posted by njgtr82
I don't know how it is with JP and it's selection menu for specials, but anet has only two options clearly explained. This aircraft is a special scheme, but it would be ticked off as normal on anet.Quote:
Originally Posted by njgtr82
Rejected for similar photo uploaded. Blast!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573509
I'm going through a dry spell it seems... :(
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574079
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574074
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574068
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1573143
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1570337
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1570333
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1570331
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1565914
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1565912
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564220
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564213
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564205
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564200
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564194
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1564192
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563935
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563933
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563929
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1563927
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1561971
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1561966
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1561953
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... ker742.jpg
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 77wjfk.jpg
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 333duz.jpg
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 752jfk.jpg
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejectio ... 763jfk.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...905_n265dh.jpg
* "image quality"
* "too much grain or digital noise"
* oversharpened
* soft
I really love how it gets both the oversharpened reason as well as the "soft" one, for which the rejection e-mail suggests extra sharpening is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia A340-600
Gordan its not a dry spell...Most of those photos have visable dust spots and were overexpoused. I think you need to take a step back and really look at you're camera settings and you're post processing. You've displayed fantastic shots in the rather recent past but these well....you know. Its great to get shots up on both JP.net and A.net but you just can't throw everything up and say "well I'll take a chance." From all my shots this past weekend I only uploaded three from JFK, not saying the others weren't uploadable but its about quality and not quantity.
[quote=T-Bird76]Quote:
Originally Posted by "Iberia A340-600":9eedd
Gordan its not a dry spell...Most of those photos have visable dust spots and were overexpoused. I think you need to take a step back and really look at you're camera settings and you're post processing. You've displayed fantastic shots in the rather recent past but these well....you know. Its great to get shots up on both JP.net and A.net but you just can't throw everything up and say "well I'll take a chance." From all my shots this past weekend I only uploaded three from JFK, not saying the others weren't uploadable but its about quality and not quantity.[/quote:9eedd]
A very good point Tommy. I've been having some exposure issues with my new camera and well yes I agree my shots have not been that great lately.
Gordon my eyes still hurt from looking at the supertanker! http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-.../maddance3.gifQuote:
Gordan its not a dry spell...Most of those photos have visable dust spots and were overexpoused
Let us check your settings. I mean I just got back from shooting in the highest, harshest light and my pics are fine. When you shoot do you check the histogram and see how your shots are coming out? Adjusting accordingly? I didn't even have to touch the exposure comp today just get the camera set where it needs to be. Trial and error while you shoot. Practice and experiment and you will start nailing the exposure.
That Evergreen shot also has editing issues, there is a red spot to the upper left. Tough on the eyes is the other thing.
There are very easy methods to avoid this, looking at a histogram and bumping up/down your exposure settings- as Nick wrote is one way. Also have strategies when you see an all white plane in good light conditions, figure out what you should do exposure wise. Consult your histogram thereafter. Also shooting in RAW guarantees, that if the photo is overexposed or underexposed, it could be fixed. This theory of "getting it right the first time" is complete baloney, you can't always be perfect. I rather shoot in RAW and readjust my photo, than to upload a photo that is blown out or underexposed and have it rejected. Why sweat over something when you can avoid it?
Swiss A330: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574861
- Dark / Underexposed = It was properly exposed but I made it a little too dark in Photoshop
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline = Auto-fill labeled it "Swissair" which I didn't fix :roll:
Evergreen Supertanker: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1574757
- Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered) = I guess it's a bit low in the frame, needs to be re-cropped