Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[Nathan McGrew]

Hi guys, joined this forum after getting multiple rejections from that other website. Thought I'd share.

All images shot using a Canon XSi and a Sigma 150-500 OS.

340mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 400
Reject reason: quality soft contrast editing.
I admit it's a bit noisy around the wings, but that's all I can see wrong with it. Won't appeal, but might re-edit a little more carefully.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ers747-8f2.jpg

164mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200
Reject reason: distance
I see nothing wrong with this one at all. Might appeal, but I'm getting tired of being rejected.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...swedgetail.jpg

370mm, F/11, 1/200, ISO 200
Reject reason: quality. And a personal note, "Heat haze kills quality".
I appealed because the heat haze from a fighter jet is kind of the point. Especially in this shot! Got this from the head screener.
Reject reason: quality bad personal centered soft
Whatever.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...37img_9001.jpg

500mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 200
Reject reason: heat haze kills quality quality
What heat haze? I decided to not appeal this one because it's fairly clear that it's pretty soft.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r....7946final.jpg

[Cary]

Welcome, Nathan!

There is quite a bit of artifacting in the first picture, which is mostly apparent around the landing gear. What quality are you saving your JPG as? If you re-edit, I'd suggest resizing to smaller photo dimensions, and sharpening a tad more.

The second picture is nice. Distance just means to crop more closely.

Third picture is a tiny bit soft (try a little more sharpening). I suspect their problem with the heat haze is how it's distorting the intakes and wings a bit. If you get a different screener the next time around, they might take it...who knows.

Fourth picture is slightly soft/out of focus and possibly unsalvageable. It don't think it's necessarily the heat haze that's causing it, though.

Don't get discouraged by the rejections...A.net is pretty picky, and sometimes a little inconsistent depending on who screens your photo. For any of the reject reasons you don't understand, just go to A.net's guide and you should be able to figure out how to fix the problem (if it's fixable): http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php Good luck!

Hi guys, joined this forum after getting multiple rejections from that other website. Thought I'd share.

All images shot using a Canon XSi and a Sigma 150-500 OS.

340mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 400
Reject reason: quality soft contrast editing.
I admit it's a bit noisy around the wings, but that's all I can see wrong with it. Won't appeal, but might re-edit a little more carefully.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ers747-8f2.jpg

164mm, F/8, 1/400, ISO 200
Reject reason: distance
I see nothing wrong with this one at all. Might appeal, but I'm getting tired of being rejected.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...swedgetail.jpg

370mm, F/11, 1/200, ISO 200
Reject reason: quality. And a personal note, "Heat haze kills quality".
I appealed because the heat haze from a fighter jet is kind of the point. Especially in this shot! Got this from the head screener.
Reject reason: quality bad personal centered soft
Whatever.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...37img_9001.jpg

500mm, F/8, 1/800, ISO 200
Reject reason: heat haze kills quality quality
What heat haze? I decided to not appeal this one because it's fairly clear that it's pretty soft.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r....7946final.jpg

[Joe]

Hello Guys,
I uploaded my first shot to Airliners.net and of course it got rejected. Here is a ink to the shot:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...eogden4969.jpg

Reasons for rejection were grainy and soft. They also said my registration info was incorrect plus the fact that I put Quonset instead of Westfield.

I'll try again another day.
Joe

[gonzalu]

Joe, NICE SHOT... I must have been a few feet away from you ;-) I got about 100 shots just like it from that show last year.

OK, so unfortunately, this is a private regi. The military markings are fake (well, sort of) it is in private ownership and the real regi is "N2011V" .. as for the airport, it should have been Barnes/Westfield (KBAF), NOT Quonset Point which is actually in Rhode Island... what were you thinking

The image looks sharp on first glance but if you look closely, it is a bit soft by A.net standards and they are SUPER HIGH... don;t worry, with a little tweak to your workflow, she should be able to make it in as it is a great shot.

[wunaladreamin]

Adding to what Manny has already pointed out, when sharpening, use your select tools and only sharpen the plane! The effort taken in that alone will spare you from the extra noise generated throughout the whole frame. Also, sharpen in layers. That way you can erase and smooth out any jaggies created. It is a cracking shot Joe, and with a retweeking, is sure to make it in.

[gonzalu]

Good point Kenny... DO NOT SHARPEN THE WHOLE IMAGE ever is my rule. However, some technical knowledge of how sharpening algorithms work, can lead to better technical results. For example, when you USM, there is no need for masking. All other sharpening tools may be brute force but not un-sharp mask.

While I would definitely do it on a separate layer, I do not mask the sky for instance. USM has a slider called a Threshold... this is the mask portion of the name. It allows you to control what areas of the image get sharpening calculated and which do not. The larger the mask, the greater the area calculated in finding contrast differences to "sharpen" against. Skies are seldom devoid of sensor induced noise. NO MATTER how clean the sensor or how low the ISO, you;re bound to find noise. But if it's very low noise, the contrast differences between those pixels is so minute, the simplest mask will completely exclude them from the calculation ... in most cases you can even leave your threshold at zero and it would not affect the sky in any considerable manner.

I always show people how to zoom in to the maximum zoom level while adjusting the settings and watching how one step up or down changes the effect in the preview. As I like to say "It is Therapeutic"

[Joe]

Thanks for the tips guys, I will try to play with it again when I get the chance. Also, thanks for the info on the regi, as for the airport, I did several air shows last year and realized after I sent it in that I had the wrong airport.

[JDANDO]

Hey guys;

Any clue what level could be on this shot? It apparently is not what I thought it was :(



thanks

[adscram14]

Try leveling on the parking garage in the background.
Edit: or whatever that brick structure may be lol.

[gonzalu]

Jeremy, it could probably use .02 degrees more but here it is with 1.15deg CCW rotation

[JDANDO]

Thanks Manny. That does look better.

[Nathan McGrew]

Passed first screen.

Rejected second screen.

Reason: Low in frame, dark.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...4wedgetail.jpg

[Nathan McGrew]

I centered it and brightened it. What do you think?

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/...edgetail-2.jpg

Also started from scratch and used a different white balance color tone. Not sure I'm in love with it.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/.../IMG_8784c.jpg

[RomNYC]

I can see the low in frame with my novice eyes, try to fix this slightly (if you can, I don't know how the original is). Dark, hmm, maybe I guess.

It should be a fixable shot as it looks stunning to me, no matter what!

[RomNYC]

Love that second "from scratch" edit! But feels a little oversharpened to me (look at the titles).