http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 06copy.jpg
Reject reason: soft oversharpened
How could that be? I understand oversharpened and I actually agree, but isn't it contradicting when you say soft and that it's oversharpened? :?
Printable View
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 06copy.jpg
Reject reason: soft oversharpened
How could that be? I understand oversharpened and I actually agree, but isn't it contradicting when you say soft and that it's oversharpened? :?
Haha! Welcome to the wacky world of ridiculous rejections. I've seen that exact one before.
While one could make themselves feel better by saying: "Well, maybe one part of the plane is blurred or soft and the rest is oversharpened" I think it's more likely that the Anet screeners are just indecisive and inconsisant. (gasp!)
Thanks for a quick respons Mel. I'm wondering now if these will ever be accepted, as of right now I'm confused on what a.net wants.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 112406.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 112406.jpg
When I check whether my pics got accepted or not I navigate myself to "Rejected Photos" section right away, it's like an empty hope. :(
Got a similar one from jp.net over the weekend. As Mel said, the photo was over-sharpened (although I have a hard time telling where the limit is on that) but one area was definitely soft.
It is frustrating when you get seemingly contradictory rejection reasons, but in my case when I took a closer look, the soft area was obvious. (Gotta stop processing at 1am!)
My favorite a.net rejection was on a Qantas 744 which was cropped to show just the forward fuselage, up to the wing root, shot from Burger King - this one here:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5716238
I have about 8 or 10 such shots on jp.net, but a.net rejected it for "parts of aircraft cut off".
Actually that is a very valid rejection. I've seen plenty of pictures that I've screened and rejected for the same reason. There are generally two reasons behind this kind of rejection. First when the camera focused the focus points only locked onto one part of the plane causing the other part to be soft. So when you go to edit the shot you over sharpen trying to compensate for the softer part of the plane and the other part is oversharpened. The other reason is selective sharpening; some people try to sharpen sections of the plane which stands out like a sore thumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellyrose
In this case the titles and the rose are oversharpend while the belly, nose, and tail are a bit soft for A.net standards and maybe JP.net as well. How did you sharpen the photo?
These are pretty good shots, there not over sharpened at all but A.net might say they are dark (belly) and soft. The best way to see what A.net wants is to look through similar shots and say, "does my shot look like that?" If it does then you stand a good chance of it getting in.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirbusA350XWB
Before I became a screener I often wondered what was up with the consistency when it comes to screening. The consistency falls into place when it comes to things like horizon, composition, color, information, and categories. However three people look at each photo and three people have different views on what they think. I've see pics that were rejected by the first screener for being soft but I've accepted it. Each situation deems a different way of looking at a pic. A pic taken in cloudy conditions is not going to be as sharp as one taken in sun, but that doesn't mean it’s still not a good pic.
First off, I'm not saying if the rejection is valid or if it isn't. I've see much softer shots on a.net and I really think what got me here is the oversharpening part.
I sharpen by selecting the inverse and simply using the sharpen option. That's how I got my first photo in, which was in fact rejected once for being oversharpened and once for being too soft.
This one got the boot too, but I also agree with the rejection reasons: soft commonWhen I was editing I used unsharpen mask, I didn't want to over do it on sharpening.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 112406.jpg
Dude calm down a bit... I'm not attacking you. I was addressing Mel's response saying that over and soft in the same pic is a valid rejection. I was trying to give some insight to how screening works.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirbusA350XWB
The last shot is pretty good; the screener was def being picky on the soft. IMO common or similar should only be used if you already uploaded a similar shot not if someone else did.
I got one rejected for Common, actually, it was my first ever upload, that kind of confused me since I didn't have any uploaded yet... How do the screeners check for common? Do they manually go and check your photos?
Yes and no. We are warned about same regi, date, and location in the screening screen. There we can check the "common" photo in the database and decided how common it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by nwafan20
Did I miss something? Where do you screen? a.net or jp ?Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Rafal
Actually Mel this not a great thing to say to someone who is trying to upload their photos to anet. First I feel the comment is false and second it just plants seeds in people's heads about the famous anet conspiracy theory. The screeners at anet are not only great photogs but also have a pretty keen eye when it comes to looking at pictures and giving us feedback on them. It is not only possible but routine to have pics that have part of the aircraft soft and others oversharpened. Sharpening is a critcial part of the post processing and one that takes a ton of trial and error and feedback. Rather than tell Jakub that the rejection reason is probably due to a screener that couldn't make up his mind I would advise him to post the pic in the av-photo forum and get a critique on it and how to fix it.Quote:
I think it's more likely that the Anet screeners are just indecisive and inconsisant. (gasp!)
Don't get confused with the "what anet wants" rather concentrate on the initial capture and editing. If you buy into the anet screener crap you are going to just grow more frustrated about something that doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by airbusa350xwb
On your Turkish shot the tail is soft. As for the oversharpening on the front part of the aircraft it looks ever so slight but then again it's not us who says what too much sharpening is.
For the two in the queue, the Aerflot it looks pretty good. I don't think the Belly being dark is that big an issue. Anet gives you some latitude with that depending on the lighting you had for the shot. I just got this in the DB and it's similiar to your subject.
http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/1142090/L/
The LOT is nice too. Should have a good chance. I would say don't crop so tight give yourself a little room on the nose and tail. That's how Tommy used to crop until Art showed him how. :mrgreen:
Horrible attitude. Be a little more positive and ask advice of people in the anet forums. You can get some very good help there.Quote:
Originally Posted by airbusa350xwb
Honestly guys...I was trying to poke a little fun at a situation that everyone always takes to such an extreme. I guess it's hard to convey extreme sarcasm through a post (though I don't agree that screeners are 100% consistant....even on Jetphotos).
This will eventually boil down to the age-old arguement....it's inevidable. :-P
Well of course they are not consistent, they hired Tommy! lololQuote:
even on Jetphotos).
I wasn't sure if you were kidding or not Mel, I figured we be serious since Jakub was stressing and needed an intervention.
I'm not usually one to get involved in the (screening) arguments at all - so I thought it might be a bit more obvious that I was leaning toward the joking side ;)
Yikes, sorry Tommy for making it sound so malicious, but I really met no harm. Don't be angry! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
The following two shots are in the upload queue:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 112406.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 112406.jpg
I still can take them out and make corrections, so if anyone has any ideas on how to make them look better I'd be thankful to hear your comments.
Parts of them look a bit soft IMO (which isn't worth much), so I don't know how they will do.
For editing, did you follow a workflow or what?
None the less, nice shots man!
Nick thanks a lot for the words of wisdom and encouragement. I decided to pull my picks out of the queue and take another glance at them.
LOT: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 12406g.jpg
Two things here; the nose got an extra touch of sharpness with the "unsharpen mask" and the belly.
Aeroflot: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 12406g.jpg
I used the "unsharpen mask" for the belly, with just a slight correction.
Now I have to wait four/five days to get a decision. For those who want to donate an extra photo slot on a.net to me now is the chance. :mrgreen:
I was going to say that the nose of the Aeroflot looked a little soft but it looks better now. However I feel that with the extra unsharp masking on the belley on the LOT the pixel factor has gone up a bit and now makes the belley a little grainy.
All of the shots you submiteed are great, I love the Turkish!
I saw that coming, so once again out of the line and back in:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ ... 124062.jpg
Thanks for the "heads up" Gordon.
No problem Jakub. In addition don't start to micromanage either. You will drive yourself nuts. I would have left them in and see how the screening went and went from there. Good luck with the new uploads and let us know how it goes.
the lot looks overshapened (the S in Star for example) and soft (nose, Polish Airlines)
Watch the Aeroflot it looks like you have some jaggies near the edges of the wing. I think the LOT looks fine. The Star Alliance titles will always have some jaggies based on the thin font, yours looks good. I'd keep it as is.
I don't agree on that. some selective sharpening (ie erasing 50% of the sharpening) on the S should make it a lot betterQuote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
just got this one from JP
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1230412
Yeah, Matt, I can see that rejection, it's underexposed (use your histogram to judge exposure), the wheels are very much soft, along with the belly, and the AMERICAN is sharp along with the edges of the flaps, lots of jaggies there. Try some selective sharpening in photoshop.
That's a tuff one to correct, was this taken late in the day? If so you might want to bump your ISO up to 200 or even 400 and leave your F stop around 7 or 8. Try not to bring the F stop lower then 7 or the chances of the plane being soft will increase. Also check your pics for dust, you have a few dust spots on the photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by G-BOAD
i got a funny rejection reason yesterday...."jaggies" and "soft" at the same time....when i applied a simple sharpness correction to the entire image, not just random parts of it! lol....what crazy mofos
- Josh
LAX/IAD/ and soon JFK!
To comment on Matt's rejection my shots from September 9th also didn't do very great, as Mel pointed out to me the light was crap that day.
[quote=T-Bird76]That's a tuff one to correct, was this taken late in the day? If so you might want to bump your ISO up to 200 or even 400 and leave your F stop around 7 or 8. Try not to bring the F stop lower then 7 or the chances of the plane being soft will increase. Also check your pics for dust, you have a few dust spots on the photo.[/quote:754fe]Quote:
Originally Posted by G-BOAD":754fe]just got this one from JP
[url="http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1230412
i i understand it, just thought it was funny. also its a little hard to fix. this is what i get for pissing them off, lol, jk. :lol:
I got my LOT 763 rejected for "category", all agreed upon because I didn't tick off "special" as it was a Star Alliance scheme. In the e-mail I received it states:
This problem is usually easy to correct, and if this was the only
rejection reason for these images, we would certainly appreciate a
re-upload with the correct categories selected.
I left the photo as is and I didn't make an changes to it. I reuploaded the next day and I got it rejected today for "dirty". While uploading I left the screener a note saying that it was rejected for "category" before.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 240622.jpg
Try equalizing the photo and look for dust spots. The screener prob only rejected it the first time for Catergories and moved on without looking at the rest of the picture.
It does have a few dust spots on it.