Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[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.

[wunaladreamin]

ouch

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

[wunaladreamin]

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.

[T-Bird76]

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.

[T-Bird76]

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.

[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.

[Greg_NY]

A centering issue:

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

Maybe move it up slightly?

[T-Bird76]

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.

[Greg_NY]

Thanks Tommy, perhaps I will redo it in portrait orientation.

[MarkLawrence]

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

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

[T-Bird76]

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.

[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

[NIKV69]

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.

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.

[eric8669]

Made another attempt with my Wunala Shot.

Got it brighter, now rejected for undersharpened.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1491222

[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