Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[Nathan McGrew]

I did a couple of different levels of sharpening to see what looked best in the saved JPEG. That one was the most sharpened. This one is middle of the road.

http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/.../IMG_8784b.jpg

[seahawks7757]

Looks better center wise but now the sky looks weird and over sharpened.

[gonzalu]

Nathan, if you care, I'd love to get a crack at the original and see what I can do with it for you :-) You should be able to get it accepted as it is a fine image. I am betting the rejection(s) are strictly re: processing, not the image If you wish, my e-mail is manny (at) manny (dot) org

[nssd70]

I've been geting alot of Dark rejections lately,and I was hoping to get some help on what I need to do to fix the problem,other than waiting for a sunny day!

Doug

[gonzalu]

Hi Doug,

I think that had this been on Jet Photos, it may have made it... it is not that much off. That being said, it is a bit on the dull side and that is because the histogram has bit of missing data towards the highlights end of the house.



Now, we can easily correct this by re-distributing the data so that the current highest level data moves a bit further to the right thereby gaining a bit of amplification and ultimately the image becomes brighter.



However for my taste, it is still a bit dull because of the lack of contrast due to the poor weather... I like using Curves better than Levels. Curves lets you act on different parts of the image independently. Levels works on ALL data evenly (unless you're working on individual channels, and even there, it is a global type of adjustment)

Here is what curves I would apply to enhance not only the highlights and midtones, but also cut back the shadow areas and increase overall contrast.

You may ask yourself, why not just use the easy contrast control? Well, you can not select the mid point and how much to shadow and how much to highlight... Contrast is an even split, equally opposing :-)



Given more time, you could do some selective layer masking and control your different areas differently ... for example, the UPS trucks in the BG are now a bit too dark for my taste ... so I would correct that on a separate layer and mask it to blend in naturally

Hope you like my attempt :-)

[nssd70]

Thanks Manny,I'll give it a shot. I was only using the contrast,and it wasn't working.

Doug

[gonzalu]

I usually measure the whites on the TOP of the plane, or the most exposed part to the sun or the clouds on a cloudy day, and if the level is not at least 245-250, I keep cranking

However, if it is over 255 in RAW, or 100% in Lightroom (I don't know why they measure it differently, but I digress) WITHOUT any compensation, it is likely blown beyond repair. Especially if it is a JPG.

Setting the Black Point and White Point will usually yield a remarkably contrasty image, but yet it can help show you the POTENTIAL for the image... I use that trick sometimes to see how far I can go with the other control. Rarely does setting the points yield an acceptable image for screeners at the top two DBs. Artistically it can be a dynamic image.

[TallDutch]

Accepted on A.net
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans...lle/1879257/L/

rejected on JP..

[moose135]

Same thing happened to me recently, Joop. If anything, I would have expected it to be the other way around. What was the reason for the JP rejection?

[Cary]

Same thing happened to me recently, Joop. If anything, I would have expected it to be the other way around. What was the reason for the JP rejection?

I would venture to guess that it's the left side of the photo looking soft/blurry - maybe just from the edge of the lens. I've had a few JP.net rejects that were first accepted on A.net, too. In one case, it was completely justified because A.net missed a faint speck of sensor dust, that JP.net caught.

[TallDutch]

I would venture to guess that it's the left side of the photo looking soft/blurry - maybe just from the edge of the lens. I've had a few JP.net rejects that were first accepted on A.net, too. In one case, it was completely justified because A.net missed a faint speck of sensor dust, that JP.net caught.

Indeed it was rejected because of blur. but what annoys me is that initially it was rejected because I didn't tick the category 'warbird/vintage' as the cockpit is in a museum.
Now, after reuploading they come with 'blurry'. I've had it a zillion times that after the second or maybe the third upload of the same pic (including adjustments of course) they end up with different reasons for rejections each time.
And of course, the vintage category I should havbe selected but I had initial rejections for unlevel, 2nd time blurry and 3rd time overexposed..

[NIKV69]

Indeed it was rejected because of blur. but what annoys me is that initially it was rejected because I didn't tick the category 'warbird/vintage' as the cockpit is in a museum.
Now, after reuploading they come with 'blurry'. I've had it a zillion times that after the second or maybe the third upload of the same pic (including adjustments of course) they end up with different reasons for rejections each time.
And of course, the vintage category I should havbe selected but I had initial rejections for unlevel, 2nd time blurry and 3rd time overexposed..

It is not done with pissing people off in mind. Remember how many pictures these guys are screening. They always check info first and go from there. If info is wrong and warrants a reject they cease screening at that point.

[moose135]

It is not done with pissing people off in mind. Remember how many pictures these guys are screening. They always check info first and go from there. If info is wrong and warrants a reject they cease screening at that point.

True, but how much time would be saved if they fully screened the photo, rather than a quick rejection, followed by several more runs through the queue? If I get an "info" rejection, and realize I forgot to check a box when uploading, I'm not going to take another look at the photo, I'm going to simply resubmit it unchanged, save for the correct info. Then, a week and a half later I get a "level" rejection, so I fix the 0.02 degrees that it is off and resubmit again, only to get a rejection for a dust spot you can't see when you look at the photo....and so on, and so on....

[NIKV69]

If I get an "info" rejection, and realize I forgot to check a box when uploading, I'm not going to take another look at the photo, I'm going to simply resubmit it unchanged, save for the correct info. Then, a week and a half later I get a "level" rejection, so I fix the 0.02 degrees that it is off and resubmit again, only to get a rejection for a dust spot you can't see when you look at the photo....and so on, and so on....

John let's be real here. If you (not saying you but in general) are submitting pics that are not level and are dirty with sensor dust your problems are way more than how anet handles it info rejections. Fact is most info rejections are of pics that are fine otherwise and only need to be resubmitted with proper category. Let us not tie in shots that have major flaws too. Is the system used now a pain in the rear end? Sure but I think anet does it to save the 3-4 minutes to go on to another photo which over the long haul saves a bunch of time in the screening process. One can make arguments that the screener could fix the category or that when we resubmit a pic with just info reject it gets priority but it seems this is the way they will always do it and one should prescreen and edit more aggressively.

[Cary]

Don't really get this one...got rejected for "centered" with personal note "high in frame":

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...04_mg_3380.jpg

I appealed, saying the fuselage at the center was almost equidistant (360px to top, 362px to bottom), and the head screener rejected it again, saying "You are ignoring the winglet and fon, it is high".

I've never had a photo where the winglet was a factor in centering, even when it looks higher than the tail, and other people have centered using the fuselage and been accepted (all accepted in the past 2 months):






Any suggestions on how much lower I should put the plane? I don't think the winglet down to MLG would work, as the fuselage would be really low in the frame.

EDIT: I just overlaid my photo with the last example, and the fuselage and tail almost match up, with the only difference being that my wing is actually *lower* in the frame as the accepted photo, mainly because of the difference in angle: