-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Both are noticeably soft, if you are using PS I'd select only the plane and sharpen the plane only.
I gave that a shot on Virgin Amerca, by using the magic wand to select the plane, cutting it to a separate layer, and then Smart Sharpening that layer much more aggressively than I had previously. It made the plane sharp, but i kept getting a border around the plane when I merged the layers...is that not the right technique?
(I'm not tremendously interested in saving either pic, since I see at least one Virgin America every time I go out and Jet Airways was overexposed beyond help, but I'd like to get better at Photoshop...)
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
I sent a.net 10 photos, and all 10 got rejected. That's a personal best for me! I've noticed a common theme they like rejecting me for now..."Contrast", when a sky looks too dark blue. Also, when they think the first of my photos is deficient, it seems they like to carry it over to all of my photos. Here are some:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... _00342.jpg
contrast soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... _00385.jpg
soft
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 141new.jpg
personal grainy soft (I don't even know what "personal" means. It might be that there was a personal comment attached, but I never received the rejection e-mail from a.net, so I can't see it. Or, the screener personally hates me :D . Ironically, this exact photo - just a bigger size - was good enough to be published in Airways magazine, but wasn't good enough to post on the web. Go figure. *SIGH*)
I might try to refine my sharpening process a little, but no more a.net uploads from me for a while. Okay, my whining is over :borat:
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Didn't really expect this one to get in, but oh well.
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1655921
The only thing I don't understand is the cropping reason. Can anyone clarify that one?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy 28
Look at the bottom of the photo, you can see some white from where you cropped it.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
The nose is blurry along with the nose being soft i think.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
I gave that a shot on Virgin Amerca, by using the magic wand to select the plane, cutting it to a separate layer, and then Smart Sharpening that layer much more aggressively than I had previously. It made the plane sharp, but i kept getting a border around the plane when I merged the layers...is that not the right technique?
Why would you use layers? Use the magic wand to select the plane. Then deselect so your not sharpening sky. Expand by one pixel and use USM. Works perfectly. I really don't see the need to use layers.
Quote:
All rejected for being blurry or soft.
Could there be a problem with my lens or do I just need a new sharpening technique
Hmmm they are all soft. What is your sharpening technique? I have been doing some sharpening in ACR and then using USM in PS and it's working well. Don't get as many jaggies. If it isn't that you may want to send your lens in to Canon.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Air Canada A330-not centered
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... faj333.jpg
We tried Grodon, We tried... :wink:
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Had this one rejected for processing:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 1107_1.jpg
It also had a message from the screener that said: A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"N214WN_ALB_111107_1.jpg halos"
Any ideas on the halos? I've heard the term used before but I guess that I'm not familiar enough with what one looks like to be able to avoid it.
Thanks!
Dan
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Dan,
I'm looking on a monitor at work and it's tough to see, but it appears there is just the slightest halo around the right wingtip. Looks like a very pale white shadow if you will. Usually happens from over post-processing (too much sharpening, or if you are using Lightroom too much Clarity)
John
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Grr me and my not paying attention:
Cat wrong/missing (wing view)
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1680159
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1693412
I kinda figured this one would get rejected for either noise or soft, but it was close enough to try anyway. Is it worth re-submitting with more aggressive noise reduction? I don't have my heart set on getting this particular photo into the database, because USAir A319s are a dime a dozen at LGA, but I'd like to get SOMETHING accepted :)
The question is, how much does aperture size affect noise on small-sensor cameras (like mine)? When I started out, I was getting motion blur because my shutter speed was too slow, so I upped the shutter speed and decreased the aperture, and my later photos got noisy...
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Photoshop has a decent noise reduction filter (Filters->Noise->Reduce Noise... if I remember correctly), but it will significantly soften your image. I've had the best luck using Reduce Noise, then selecting the plane, copying it into a new layer, and doing an aggressive Smart Sharpen on the new layer. But "best luck" means I've gotten three accepted in 15 or so tries... :)
Your EXIF data says you were shooting at ISO 800...
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie.
To hell with these people. Time spent editing shots to get accepted to anet or jpnet is time wasted. From now on, I spot an edit for me...not for some website.
If you're shooting just to get photos on a.net or jp.net, you're wasting your time anyway. Shoot for yourself, and if you get photos accepted, all the better. That's what I do.
That said, checking the photos accepted to those sites can help you become a better photographer, and get more photos accepted. I may be unusual (well, I know I am, but that's another discussion) but I got my first upload to jp.net accepted. Since then, there have been lots of uploads, and lots of rejections along the way. For the longest time, I didn't upload to a.net because of some of the rejections I got, but I'm giving it a try again, with good results so far.
Looking at your photos, the JetBlue shot is overexposed - that's a common problem with those jets, I do it myself, and looking at the line between the white fuselage and blue belly, you can easily see the heat haze issue. Your Avianca 762 looks OK to me, but then I find I usually need a touch more USM for uploads then I think absolutely necessary. On the Allegiant shot, the heat distortion is clearly seen on the starboard wing (right side of photo). The Spirit shot looks pretty good to me, but again, I see a little heat distortion.
As I said, if you don't want to upload to jp.net or a.net, don't. Shoot for yourself. For me, this hobby isn't about uploads or hits, but about the people I've gotten to know and the things I've experienced along the way. But please, use the feedback from your rejections (or from posting here on NYCA) to help you become a better photographer. We all have something to learn!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
If you're shooting just to get photos on a.net or jp.net, you're wasting your time anyway. Shoot for yourself, and if you get photos accepted, all the better. That's what I do.
That said, checking the photos accepted to those sites can help you become a better photographer, and get more photos accepted. I may be unusual (well, I know I am, but that's another discussion) but I got my first upload to jp.net accepted. Since then, there have been lots of uploads, and lots of rejections along the way. For the longest time, I didn't upload to a.net because of some of the rejections I got, but I'm giving it a try again, with good results so far.
Looking at your photos, the JetBlue shot is overexposed - that's a common problem with those jets, I do it myself, and looking at the line between the white fuselage and blue belly, you can easily see the heat haze issue. Your Avianca 762 looks OK to me, but then I find I usually need a touch more USM for uploads then I think absolutely necessary. On the Allegiant shot, the heat distortion is clearly seen on the starboard wing (right side of photo). The Spirit shot looks pretty good to me, but again, I see a little heat distortion.
As I said, if you don't want to upload to jp.net or a.net, don't. Shoot for yourself. For me, this hobby isn't about uploads or hits, but about the people I've gotten to know and the things I've experienced along the way. But please, use the feedback from your rejections (or from posting here on NYCA) to help you become a better photographer. We all have something to learn!
Thanks for the critique Moose. I see the B6 errors, aswell as the Avianca and Allegiant. But as for the Spirit shot, I spend quite some time on it and even now from my perspective its a near perfect shot. I've seen alot worse (heat distortion) thats been accepted.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
For all you know Mark, I could be standing on the ground looking up at your plane in this picture with a shovel in my hand saying, "damn, I wish I were on that plane."
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
That was actually the flight to Seattle that I ranted about being about 4 hours late, sitting on JFK's tarmac with no APU, in the middle of August.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Well, those were the fires in Montana and I was out there all summer.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Ohh... I get it now. It makes your last post in this thread make a lot more sense.
Gee, now I wonder how it feels to be down there looking up at the plane.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1709313
I appealed and screener said aircraft is slightly too low in frame. Im sorry I told him but I have 60 odd photos most with the same amount of cropping and centring of aircraft, why have they all been accepted. I know people make mistakes and maybe Ive made one as well but when someone of power is questioned on the two sites it seems they never relent from their so called "superior" status. This is exactly why im at JP rather than ANET. Anyways ill try again with more shots.
Matt
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
I appealed and screener said aircraft is slightly too low in frame
I would have to agree. You have a bit of dead space above the aircraft.
Quote:
Im sorry I told him but I have 60 odd photos most with the same amount of cropping and centring of aircraft, why have they all been accepted
Why would you want to go down that path when a redo would probably get the pic accepted?
Quote:
I know people make mistakes and maybe Ive made one as well but when someone of power is questioned on the two sites it seems they never relent from their so called "superior" status. This is exactly why im at JP rather than ANET.
Well if you mean the screeners are powerful you have to remember they are volunteering their time to judge thousands of photos. Are they out to get you? No, as your own story shows JP uses the same appeal function as anet. You were given an expanation. It's a system that works. I don't see the difference between the two sites. Remember screeners are human and are bound to make a decision that is not consistent from time to time. Doesn't mean they are trying to act superior in any way. A differerent approach may yield better results.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Well if you mean the screeners are powerful you have to remember they are volunteering their time to judge thousands of photos. Are they out to get you? No, as your own story shows JP uses the same appeal function as anet. You were given an expanation. It's a system that works. I don't see the difference between the two sites. Remember screeners are human and are bound to make a decision that is not consistent from time to time. Doesn't mean they are trying to act superior in any way. A differerent approach may yield better results.
Well said. Maybe I went a bit overboard, but I just think that when its an individual uploader challenging the system in some circumstances where there told its my way or the highway basically. Theres some threads about this on airliners.net which I dont particularly want to divulge within here but it seems to be on the rise. All I was alluding to was that I find JP a much more friendlier environment that ANET due to what can be defined by Tom Alfano's editorial on this very site about his 1000 photo. As he said its not all about the photos and the hits which I feel is what characterizes anet uploaders (me included) but im off topic, just trying to justify what I wrote in my initial post. Im not trying to initiate JP vs ANET war, please dont mistake it for that.
All in all probs was right decision by screeners but im just alluding to what I perceive to be a lack of power to challenge the system on a particular photo or avenue and obviously everyone has freedom of opinion to think otherwise to what im suggesting!
All the best,
Matt
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
but I just think that when its an individual uploader challenging the system in some circumstances where there told its my way or the highway basically
Well I don't think they are trying to say that, remember they are hosting your pics for free and giving you a copyright so having standards for their queue is par for the course.
Quote:
Theres some threads about this on airliners.net which I dont particularly want to divulge within here but it seems to be on the rise. All I was alluding to was that I find JP a much more friendlier environment that ANET due to what can be defined by Tom Alfano's editorial on this very site about his 1000 photo. As he said its not all about the photos and the hits which I feel is what characterizes anet uploaders (me included) but im off topic, just trying to justify what I wrote in my initial post. Im not trying to initiate JP vs ANET war, please dont mistake it for that
Well if you let yourself get involved in this nonsense your going to drive yourself crazy. If you find JP freindler then upload there, too each their own. I have had nothing but good experiences with everyone I have met on anet and they have been more than helpful with advice and suggestions. Screeners on both sites are the same as you. Some guy who treks out to the airport with camera in hand. They are not some hierarchy. It boils down to a good capture and edit. Don't complicate it.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Matt just to give you and inside most of the shots that are appealled on JP.net are accepted. The appeal system favors the photog a great deal, trust me on this. As screeners we had a discussion about it in our crew forum some screeners didn't find it fair that admins were over turning their rejections but in the end its the admins decission on an appeal. Trust me though the appeal system is very fair. Don't get to caught up in a rejection. The shot in question is a good shot you just need to bring it up a hair or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qantas_787
Quote:
Well if you mean the screeners are powerful you have to remember they are volunteering their time to judge thousands of photos. Are they out to get you? No, as your own story shows JP uses the same appeal function as anet. You were given an expanation. It's a system that works. I don't see the difference between the two sites. Remember screeners are human and are bound to make a decision that is not consistent from time to time. Doesn't mean they are trying to act superior in any way. A differerent approach may yield better results.
Well said. Maybe I went a bit overboard, but I just think that when its an individual uploader challenging the system in some circumstances where there told its my way or the highway basically. Theres some threads about this on airliners.net which I dont particularly want to divulge within here but it seems to be on the rise. All I was alluding to was that I find JP a much more friendlier environment that ANET due to what can be defined by Tom Alfano's editorial on this very site about his 1000 photo. As he said its not all about the photos and the hits which I feel is what characterizes anet uploaders (me included) but im off topic, just trying to justify what I wrote in my initial post. Im not trying to initiate JP vs ANET war, please dont mistake it for that.
All in all probs was right decision by screeners but im just alluding to what I perceive to be a lack of power to challenge the system on a particular photo or avenue and obviously everyone has freedom of opinion to think otherwise to what im suggesting!
All the best,
Matt
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Thanks alot Tommy,
I understand the appeal system is effective in the majority of cases and of course you guys do the best you can to keep it fair and balanced (fox :lol: ). But yeah I understand it know, wasnt seeing it before so I appreciate the explanation.
Keep up the good work.
Kind Regards,
Matt
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722784
Bad motive and wrong categories. Not sure what I missed in the categories.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
These all got rejected for being blurry:
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722266
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722270
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=1722272
What gives! The Jazz one could probably stand a bit more sharpening, and the USAir Express was a bit underexposed, but are these really blurry? Is this worth an appeal?
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
They all seem a bit soft around the nose, but I think they all suffer from excess grain.
Personal collection for all three.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
I'd agree with the noise but the blurry part I don't agree with. Soft perhaps but not blurry. We have couple new screeners who I think are confusing the two. Adam what ISO were you using? Overall I don't think they are bad shots at all and if you still have the orginals I think you might be able to correct the softness.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
They all seem a bit soft around the nose, but I think they all suffer from excess grain.
Personal collection for all three.
(Every pic I take is primarily for the personal collection. But it doesn't hurt to get a few on JP or A.net, and the feedback I get from rejections will help me become a better photographer. Or so I hope. :) )
Excess grain...that brings up an interesting question. When I used Equalize to find (and remove) my dust spots, I noticed that it made the sky EXTREMELY noisy...is that a good way to tell that I need to do some noise reduction on the original? Or is that always going to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
I'd agree with the noise but the blurry part I don't agree with. Soft perhaps but not blurry. We have couple new screeners who I think are confusing the two. Adam what ISO were you using? Overall I don't think they are bad shots at all and if you still have the orginals I think you might be able to correct the softness.
"Soft/Undersharpened" rejections wouldn't have surprised me at all...Maybe I'll try these with some more aggressive sharpening. I'm still working on sharpening techniques.
I believe these were all shot at ISO 200. Should I drop down to 100? I started out there, but I was having trouble keeping the shutter speed where I wanted it because the sun kept going behind a cloud.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam613
Quote:
Originally Posted by lijk604
They all seem a bit soft around the nose, but I think they all suffer from excess grain.
Personal collection for all three.
(Every pic I take is primarily for the personal collection. But it doesn't hurt to get a few on JP or A.net, and the feedback I get from rejections will help me become a better photographer. Or so I hope. :) )
Excess grain...that brings up an interesting question. When I used Equalize to find (and remove) my dust spots, I noticed that it made the sky EXTREMELY noisy...is that a good way to tell that I need to do some noise reduction on the original? Or is that always going to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
I'd agree with the noise but the blurry part I don't agree with. Soft perhaps but not blurry. We have couple new screeners who I think are confusing the two. Adam what ISO were you using? Overall I don't think they are bad shots at all and if you still have the orginals I think you might be able to correct the softness.
"Soft/Undersharpened" rejections wouldn't have surprised me at all...Maybe I'll try these with some more aggressive sharpening. I'm still working on sharpening techniques.
I believe these were all shot at ISO 200. Should I drop down to 100? I started out there, but I was having trouble keeping the shutter speed where I wanted it because the sun kept going behind a cloud.
Yes keep it at ISO 100 and when the sun goes behind a cloud put your camera down, no sense in shooting it. Sun behind coulds do nothing for the shot and often times will make the pictures very soft. I know its a pain but something we have to put up with.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
They went all out on my shot.
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1727107
I personally didn't think it was that bad.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie.
I'm not sure the cropping is that bad, but the color does have serious issues. It looks like you were toplit; the clouds are completely washed out, and the plane suffers as a result. I had the same problem when I tried to spot at FLL. What I've learned is that a partly cloudy background can make for an interesting shot (I actually prefer a few clouds), but you really really need the sun behind you or it becomes impossible to get a good exposure.
-
Re: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!
Adam- I didn't really have much to work with...The sun was already down.
