Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

[gonzalu]

Any thoughts on this one? Rejected for "dark."

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...avp_4987_2.jpg

Oooh, yeah Chris. Looks very dark to me sorry. Here is what I think would be better to my taste anyway. Although harsh light to begin with... :-)

[Chris102]

Thanks Manny! I'll brighten it up.

[Chris102]

Just got a few rejections and thought I'd post them here to see if I have any chance at appealing.

Low contrast:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...69img_4791.jpg

Overexposed, soft: (someone else has a near-identical photo in the database of this aircraft, but that wasn't rejected for o/e):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...96img_4847.jpg

Contrast high, "nose soft contrast," "soft soft contrast:" (too much contrast? I guess they punish you for using a professional camera/lens):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...48img_4711.jpg

Soft (I don't really see it being soft--maybe someone here can point it out):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...45img_4780.jpg


Thanks as always!

[gonzalu]

I think they are all fixable. Remember that Airliner's sharp may not be your idea of sharp. It is a very very fine line between overdone and just a tad soft for their standards. So, yes, I tend to agree on all the above counts. I think they are all fixable. Just do exactly as they ask and you should be in on round two.

For the sharpening, on those that are soft, just another round of USM on the plane, or Smart Sharpen at very low amount and radius (say 30 at 0.3) will give you a crisper look. Pro cameras are EXACTLY the problem you;re having. Trust me, I get rejected A LOT!!!!! lol. Pro Cameras demand a higher level of attention as the files come out a bit more RAW.

Do you shoot RAW or JPGs? If you're processing from RAW, you will have much more trouble than from JPGs until you get the right mix of settings for A.net and JP.net output.

Once again, A.net sharp is NOT by any means your preferred sharpness. This is not a big deal but more a preference. However, one thing you must keep in mind is that certain parts of certain aircraft at certain angles and certain weather will render them LOOKING less contrasty or more and thereby enhancing or hampering apparent sharpness.

For example, the windows on the last one could you a bit more USM ... they look soft partly because of lack of contrast due to the WX conditions... etc. etc.

I also tend to sharpen wheels and windows a lot more than the rest of the plane and usually completely erase sharpened airframe edges or boundaries. I will also oversharpen very very small or low contrast edges.

The fact that another image is in the DB seemingly identical to yours will matter not much unfortunately. You are screened on your own merits alone, and only point out another accepted photo if there is a mistake of some kind other than editing

[Chris102]

Thanks, Manny! I just got a chance to rework these tonight.

I've been getting a lot of rejections lately, too. All of mine are either for soft or contrast. Eventually I'll get the hang of the A.net required processing!

I shoot RAW. The worst part is having to edit them--they freeze up my computer and it takes forever just to edit a few!

[NickPeterman]

Well, I decided to complain about a recent rejection finally, so we'll see how it goes...


http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/367153/

[MarkLawrence]

Personally, I think you have a good reason to appeal Nick - both look very acceptable.

[Kris V]

Thanks Anet...


Is this a good fix?

[JDANDO]

Thanks Anet...


Is this a good fix?

Looks better to me if it was a "dark" reject. Personally I like the first edit.

Got lit up on jp.net for this;




overexposed

[JDANDO]

Rough week on jp.net....

Bad info in aircraft???
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962809
Zooming in on the plane it appears to say TBM850 above the wing, but the FAA website and Airport Data have as a 700. Perhaps I should not have believed the government.

Bad info in serial number?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962819
Perhaps a space at the front on the s/n?

Wrong categories?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3962821

Appreciate some help on these.

[gonzalu]

Jeremy,

The whites on the fuselage are showing close or at 255 on my setup here at home... I would back out the contrast a bit and it should be ok.

The Socata is clearly a TBM700 from not just the Govt site

N1HS: Seems like you entered the serial with the regi... Serial goes into its own field :-)

[JDANDO]

Thanks Manny!

Not too surprised with the reject here, shooting from the Parkade and nothing is squared up. Horizons are my nemesis.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3966053

Any suggestions on which way it should rotate?

[nssd70]

Looks like it needs to be rotated counterclockwise a little.

Doug

[JDANDO]

Thanks Doug, it is back in the queue with a tweak.

[Chris102]

Anyone think I have an appeal here? It was rejected for being "washed out," but I don't think it's overexposed...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_mpo_4695.jpg