Page 81 of 92 FirstFirst ... 317177787980818283848591 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,215 of 1369

Thread: Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

  1. #1201
    Senior Member moose135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    8,013
    They all look dark to me, and most look like they could use a little CW rotation.

  2. #1202
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by moose135 View Post
    They all look dark to me, and most look like they could use a little CW rotation.
    Its funny because only two had underexposure listed as a reason for rejection. A few listed CW as a reason, it was hard with few buildings to guide to and an uneven runway. They looked good to me in CS6. Everyone except for the two DL MD-90s listed over-sharpening as a problem.

  3. #1203
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    268

    Can't Believe these would be rejected!

    I just don't get this. Maybe one of you non-noobs could help. Here are the pics and reasons for rejection.
    Reason: Oversharpen

    Reason: Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline

    Reason: Oversharpen

    Reason: Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)

    Reason: Oversharpen

    Reason: Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots, Horizon unlevel

    That last one I really don't understand. I appealed the 2nd one because there was nothing wrong with the airline info I put (Untitled). Thoughts?? What should I do better? Thanks as always.

  4. #1204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Des Moines,Iowa
    Posts
    992
    The last photo I see a huge dust spot just to the left of the tail,and just a little CCW.

    Doug

  5. #1205
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    268
    Yes I saw that and a smaller one right over the cockpit area; I fixed both. I will try again. What about the other ones?? Also fixed the CCW.

  6. #1206
    Senior Member JDANDO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    KMSP, KANE
    Posts
    863
    The aircraft not centered reject seems valid, it looks a bit low to me. Oversharp is a bit hard for me to judge, what is your workflow? Are you cropping a lot and then sharpening a lot? Try to fill the frame, but leave enough room to level it up.
    Jeremy in Minnesota

    My pictures on jp.net

  7. #1207
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    268
    Yes the more I look at it, it seems a bit low. Its funny because A.net loves really sharp images, while jetphotos rejects for it. Here is my workflow:
    1. Level image (using the ruler tool)
    2. Crop (3x2 ratio)
    3. Adjust Levels
    4. Resize to 1024 pixels wide (Bicubic sharper)
    5. Duplicate backkground layer
    6. Use magic wand to select the sky, then select inverse
    7. Unsharp mask, 200% at .2 radius. As many times as I see necessary.
    8. Eraser for oversharp areas.
    9. Flatten.
    10. Duplicate again, then equalize.
    11. Clean up dust spots, then delete the copied layer.
    Finished. BTW, I always shoot raw so obviously I make those adjustments first.

  8. #1208
    Senior Member Chris102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    593
    I these two got rejected for "poor editing of sky" and "odd looking sky," respectively. Any thoughts?

    http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_5484_bcs.jpg

    http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21212_3557.jpg

  9. #1209
    Senior Member gonzalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris102 View Post
    I these two got rejected for "poor editing of sky" and "odd looking sky," respectively. Any thoughts?

    http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_5484_bcs.jpg

    http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...21212_3557.jpg
    Yeah, shows up pretty readily in EQ... and be careful, on the Thai, you can see you clearly did some extra doctoring on the Sky, perhaps even copy/paste or clone. You could get yourself banned :-(


    Manny Gonzalez
    Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
    BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS

  10. #1210
    Senior Member gonzalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by deltaA330 View Post
    Yes the more I look at it, it seems a bit low. Its funny because A.net loves really sharp images, while jetphotos rejects for it. Here is my workflow:
    1. Level image (using the ruler tool)
    2. Crop (3x2 ratio)
    3. Adjust Levels
    4. Resize to 1024 pixels wide (Bicubic sharper)
    5. Duplicate backkground layer
    6. Use magic wand to select the sky, then select inverse
    7. Unsharp mask, 200% at .2 radius. As many times as I see necessary.
    8. Eraser for oversharp areas.
    9. Flatten.
    10. Duplicate again, then equalize.
    11. Clean up dust spots, then delete the copied layer.
    Finished. BTW, I always shoot raw so obviously I make those adjustments first.
    Alex,

    The screening was spot on on all of them in my opinion. The sharpening is borderline neither here northere. Remember it will be a judgement call by the screener in the end so there isn;t a clear cut THIS IS IT sharp :-)

    As for your workflow, I'd change a few things.

    --ALWAYS try and make all your edits on the FULL SIZE image... the last thing you should do is sharpen and save
    --Make your workflow in order of MOST destructive to LEAST destructive step by step.
    + Spot Removal First
    + Denoise
    + Exposure/Contrast/Levels/Color Balance etc.
    + Resize
    + Sharpen
    + Save As... (Never "Save for Web...")

    --Sharpening will depend on each and every image... (to me at least. I use a brand new sharpen workflow for each image. Never same formula unless absolutely identical images within minutes of each other)
    --If shooting RAW, sharpening will be MUCH different than if shooting JPG
    --If editing JPGs, sharpening differs depending on the settings of your camera, the contrast levels in the scene, etc. etc.

    Good luck!
    Manny Gonzalez
    Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
    BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS

  11. #1211
    Senior Member Chris102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    593
    Thanks, Manny. I'll have to re-edit that seam--that was where I removed a dust spot. Do you think that's why it was rejected for poor editing?

  12. #1212
    Senior Member gonzalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris102 View Post
    Thanks, Manny. I'll have to re-edit that seam--that was where I removed a dust spot. Do you think that's why it was rejected for poor editing?
    That and the bad halo on the tail... I can see it even without equalizing :/
    Manny Gonzalez
    Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
    BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS

  13. #1213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    268
    This was rejected for "Blurry." I don't really see how it is blurry, do you guys think so? Is it worth an appeal?

  14. #1214
    Senior Member Cary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,984
    Quote Originally Posted by deltaA330 View Post
    This was rejected for "Blurry." I don't really see how it is blurry, do you guys think so? Is it worth an appeal?
    Alex, it looks to me as if the front of the plane has a little motion blur. It's most noticeable on the nose gear door number and on the red static port outlined boxes. The right side of the plane looks okay. When I go through my pics, for F9 A319s especially, I always like to check the static port boxes at 100% to see if they have crisp edges or are soft in any way. Here is one of my recent additions, where the outline was pretty sharp:
    AeroPX Aviation Photography - Website | Facebook
    AVP Talk (Aviation Photography Talk) - http://avptalk.com
    1/400 Diecast Aircraft Models - http://diecastwings.com

  15. #1215
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    268
    Thanks Cary! I just don't see how much blur could warrant a rejection. Anyways, it's fine because I got a shot of the same a/c taxiing accepted.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •