Printable View
This was rejected for undersharpened/soft. I'm assuming in the nose area. Anyway, I layered it out and applied another pass of USM to the nose and merged the image back down. I think it improved it a little, but it's borderline oversharpened now. It's just one of those shots...ugh!
Reject: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1578802
Resubmission: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=1579893
This was undersharpened/soft as well: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1578785. I applied another pass of USM for it.
Is it worthwhile appealing http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1578081 ? I didn't capture the heli close up intentionally to leave more of the background and pads in.
I disagree Jakub. Sure RAW is great to the point if you don't nail the exposure you can fix it, but I still think you should try and get the best possible capture. I mean Film SLRs had nearly none of the technology we have now in these DSLRs and you had to get the exposure and everything right the first time. If we just shoot away and edit the crap out of them then RAW turns into the "crutch" Mario spoke about. I use RAW because if I shoot something with the exposure slightly off I can fix it but mostly for WB and the certain color casts we encounter from time to time. You can also fix contrast issues etc. If I shoot something and the exposure is way off the file never makes it to ACR. Let's learn to use our cameras more and PS less. Someone once told me if you take more than 5 mins to edit a picture it ain't worth it. Unless of course your sensor is dirty. :mrgreen:Quote:
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?
I don't think I'd bother appealing. On opening the shot you're eye is all over the place and not really focused on anything. If you can I'd crop the shot much closer to the heli, you'd have a nice caputure with a great background then. The heli pads and all the landscape just don't lend anything to the shot, simply speakng there is to much going on with no subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by heeshung
Rejected for similar photo uploaded and underexposed. Blast!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1580760
Thanks guys for all the tips. I brought my meter down yesterday to around -3 and it seemed like there wasn't too much overexposed action going on in my LCD screen after that happened.
Please take a look and tell me what you think:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8182
Looks much better Gordon, tho the Star Alliance and some others didn't have the sun directly hitting the subject. What did you have your settings at? What were they at JFK that day?Quote:
Please take a look and tell me what you think:
Thanks Nick, when the Air Canada A340-300 took off the light was still slowly switching to the right side for that spot so I guess the light really didn't get great till around 3:00pm.
My settings from yesterday were:
Aperture: 6.3
ISO: 100
Exposure Comp: -0.3
And from the other day they were basically the same except the Exposure Comp was set to 0.
Hmm, ok. I have been trying to stay away from using any exp comp and getting good results. LAS had some harsh sun and I didn't need it. If you got the sun hitting the aircraft use F8 with a shutter of 800 and bump that ISO up a tad. With good conditions you should not get any grain. Also try to photograph the fusleage at angles where the sun is not as harsh hitting it. I know white fuselages are a pain but experiment a bit and check that histogram.Quote:
Aperture: 6.3
ISO: 100
Exposure Comp: -0.3
And from the other day they were basically the same except the Exposure Comp was set to 0.
Ugh, I hate technical rejections:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1585368 -Bad C/N, Ugh, I used the auto-fill, I would have no other way of finding out the C/N, why would JP.net reject it for information they don't have themselves???
bad post and overexposed:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1585366
Overexposed
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1585364
BTW, the C/N for EI-DRC is 35116/2081. I'd play with the levels a bit on your two last overexposed shots.
I thought that this one was pretty picky, even by a.net standards:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 1307_2.jpg
Rejected for centering and distance. I'll have to decide if I feel like re-editing. Supposed to be rainy today, maybe I'll have some time on my hands.
I agree with the distance. As for center it looks ok. There is some dead space bottom left. Maybe after you crop it tighter it will look better.Quote:
I thought that this one was pretty picky, even by a.net standards:
I'd say the total opposite. Distance is fine but the centering off, to much space infront of the nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Got a bunch rejected for "Over processed / Bad postprocessing". Can anyone enlighten me on what this means?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602970
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602974 (this one also got oversharpened, which I didn't see when I was processing)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602975
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1602978
I am on my bosses laptop so I can't equalize the pics but that rejection can usually mean going overboard with the spot healing brush. As for the ANA it has a ton of jaggies. Look at the fuselage right before the tail.
Yeah, as soon as I saw the ANA one on my work laptop, instead of my home PC, I noticed that it was way oversharpened. I'll have to double-check in Photoshop, but I didn't really do much with the healing brush in these, just removing dust spots, same as I've always done.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
I just equalized the ANA, looks ok except for a bit of a halo on top of the fuselage. The Supertanker looks worked to death though you can tell it has had a lot of work in PS. Email the screener and see what he says.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1609290
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Aircraft
Important safety tip - always confirm the "autofill" info (well, at least look at it...)
SX-DFB, which this is a picture of, is an Olympic A340
SX-SBF, which I entered in the form, was an Olympic 707
At least they both have 4 engines...http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/183529493-L.gif
Can someone help me on this one please - it got a Over Processed / Bad postprocessing and all I really did to this was some saturation, contrast and sharpening - it was shot in raw and I did very little on the raw input into PS - ideas anyone?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1610926
Well you obviously didn't overdo the clone stamp or healing brush because you got dust spots. One huge one right above the cockpit and a small one above the tail and I think I see a couple of small others.
Kind of perplexed myself on the overprocessed or bad processed rejection. Not on my regular monitor but you didn't overdo the dust spot work and I am not seeing any halos. Color and contrast seem ok. Not on my regular monitor but sharpening looks ok as well.
well...duh...I didn't even see the dust spots...re-work tomorrow then...
I shot that plane in Paris. What a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Rejected for being blurry.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 92307a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 92307a.jpg
Rejected for being Soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 92307a.jpg
Reject reason: contrast
http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/big/r ... _00141.jpg
Reject reason: contrast common
http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/rejec ... _00026.jpg
Reject reason: soft
http://dm.airliners.net/addphotos/rejec ... _00228.jpg
I expected that this one would not make it. I am going to retry it with a diffrent version though. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1619387
Ryan, the hue look sjust a tad funny on that one, BUT, the comments are classic. Keep 'em coming!
This rejection got me annoyed.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1620154 :evil:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1621570
And so my run with JP ends for now untill I que a bunch on Anet up.
I am not even going to bother telling you what it is with this one because I am not suprised or dissapointed. I tossed it in for the fun of it. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1633817
This one pissed me off though I see it. I just can't seem to fix it. Anyone want to take a jab at making it upload worthy?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1633805
Ryan, email me the full size pic if you want
I lost your email. PM it to me and I will shoot it off in a little bit Matt.
My first Anet upload in a long time, unfortunately rejected for grain:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 062607.jpg
These both got rejected for undersharpening:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651608
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1651605
Should I re-edit and try again? I can probably do a little more sharpening without introducing too much noise, and these aren't THAT soft...right?
What's funny is that I thought both of these were better than the one that got accepted :)
The Virgin America looks salvageable to me. Try sharpening in layers so that you can erase the jaggies if they start to appear around the titles and reg. The second one will be harder. It looks like it's a bit overexposed in the white part of the fuselage and I don't know that you will be able to recover the titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
Good luck!
Dan
I actually didn't figure out how to use layers for sharpening until after I submitted these, so I'll give that a try on the VA one.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmAlbany
I was kinda disappointed about how the Jet Airways one came out of the camera, but it was a significant event so I had to give it a shot :) I figured it would get rejected for overexposure.
Thanks for the feedback!
Also, how does one go about joining the nycaviation group on jetphotos?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
Both are noticeably soft, if you are using PS I'd select only the plane and sharpen the plane only.