Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New rejection reasons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New rejection reasons

    Heya all

    As part of the upgrade works, which are currently done to the screening page, we are also adjusting the rejection reasons. The changes will be introduced in the next few days or weeks. In order to let you all know in time, here's the new version of the upload guide.

    Important Note: new rejection reasons does not mean new standards! All we change is, how we let you know, why a photo has been rejected.

    What has changed?

    New rejection reasons:
    • Overprocessed: will be used instead of the "digital manipulation" which usually leads to misunderstandings.
    • Composition/centered: will be used for bad cropped and/or centered pics. This includes pics with too much dead space on one or more sides of the main subject, or for example showing a disturbing window frame on wing shots and when too much of the aircraft is shown for a close up.
    • File Error: will be used when the script encounters a technical problem with an uploaded file, instead of the actual "invalid file name".
    Changed rejection reasons
    • Categories/Genre: to point also out, that perhaps the genre is wrong.
    • CMOS dust / Scan: Combined CMOS dust and bad scan. I mean, it can only be one of them on a given photo
    • Too much noise/grain: again, combined both, noise and grain
    • Cropping: only used for pics with white borders caused by a bad cropping job. For photos with too much space, "composition/centered" will be used.
    • Digital Manipulation: will only be used for inacceptable altering of a photo.
    • Underexposed/Dark: Instead of having too different rejectrion reasons, we combined both into one.
    Rejection reasons not used anymore
    • Bad Angle: instead of this one, "compostion/centered" will be used.
    The rest of the rejection reasons are the same as before.

    We hope, these cahnges will make things a bit clearer in the future. If you have any questions, here's the forum for it.

    Kind regards
    Gerardo
    Last edited by gbasco; 2006-06-01, 21:36.
    My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez


  • #2
    Thanks to Gerardo for posting the new upload rejection changes.
    Thats was very well explanatory described.

    When you have an angle, shooting the aircraft from behind, you actually have the tail clearly but not the front section, would this also be rejected under Composition/centered ?

    Thank in advance.
    Inactive from May 1 2009.

    Comment


    • #3
      Do you mean that the front section would be soft or out of focus? This can be either a bad motive, if the shot per se is not appealing enough and/or soft or blurry (we still don't have "out of focus" as rejection reason), if the shot itself would be well composed, but the softness is regarded as killing factor. "Composition/Centered" would only be used, if the angle, at which you took the shot, was considered the only factor leaqding to the rejection.

      Perhaps it works better with an example. If you have any ....

      Now I'll hit "Post Quick Reply" and will read it again in a few minutes. If I then still understand, what I wrote ... better

      Gerardo
      Last edited by LX-A343; 2006-05-23, 14:26. Reason: I knew, I'd miss something ... :-)
      My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LX-A343
        Do you mean that the front section would be soft or out of focus? This can be either a bad motive, if the shot per se is not appealing enough and/or soft or blurry (we still don't have "out of focus" as rejection reason), if the shot itself would be well composed, but the softness is regarded as killing factor. "Composition/Centered" would only be used, if the angle, at which you took the shot, was considered the only factor leaqding to the rejection.

        Perhaps it works better with an example. If you have any ....
        No Sorry I dont quite mean out of focus, not bad motive either.
        If the image is focussed right, but you dont see the better section of it, but has nothing wrong with the rear end, Would this still be considered as bad angle ?
        A sample of the question is shown below . Thanks in advance.

        Click on this thumbnail
        to view the image.

        Inactive from May 1 2009.

        Comment


        • #5
          The photo you show there is more a badly composed photo, mainly due to the angle. So, I guess, it would be rejected for that reason, yep!

          Gerardo
          My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for the changes....seems it'll make things a bit more black and white
            Canon 20D & BG-E2 Grip
            EF 50mm 1.4 USM
            EF-S 18-55mm
            EF 28-135mm IS USM
            EF 70-200mm f4L
            EF 100-400L IS
            1.4X II Teleconverter
            Canon 420EX Speedlite
            Canon 430EX Speedlite
            Manfrotto Tripod and Monopod

            David Wilson | Through the Fence Photography



            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think underexposed can be the same thing as dark although an underexposure will obviously leave a dark result, however a photo can be dark and not technically underexposed b/c though it may be dark, no detail is lost. If no detail is lost, how is it underexposed?


              Comment


              • #8
                I think the photographer can figure out on his own which reason is the correct one.
                My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
                My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
                ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

                Comment


                • #9
                  Eric, our aim was to streamline the screening process a bit. In this case, you're absolutely right regarding dark and underexposure. Same can be said for grain and noise, which isn't the same. However, the final result is more or less the same and we really think, the photog can make the correct interpretation.

                  Gerardo
                  My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi.
                    got the first new screening mails today and it's a great improvement. At the bottom it says
                    If you wish to receive this email in text format, please go to your Member Profile to specify your preference
                    Where can I do this? Haven't found any possibility yet. Is it still under construction?
                    Thanks, Georg
                    ________
                    DaniDiva live
                    Last edited by DRS-Spotter; 2011-09-16, 06:50.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanx Gerardo...

                      I think this will clear up alot of issues...

                      Biggup!!!
                      Every landing you can walk away from, is a good one.

                      CANON EOS 20D + BG-E2 Grip
                      Tamron 18-200mm XR DiII + Hood + Kenko UV Filter
                      Canon EF 70-300 IS USM + Hood + Kenko UV Filter
                      2 Gig Sandisk ULTRA II C/F
                      2 x 2 Gig Sandisk Extreme III C/F


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Is it possible to maybe have the bad over/under contrast rejection as 2 seperate categories? Sometimes when I get rejections for this reason I'm not always sure which one it is. (maybe it's just me ) What does anyone else think?
                        Cheers

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DRS-Spotter
                          Hi.
                          got the first new screening mails today and it's a great improvement. At the bottom it says
                          If you wish to receive this email in text format, please go to your Member Profile to specify your preference
                          Where can I do this? Haven't found any possibility yet. Is it still under construction?
                          Thanks, Georg

                          The HTML option has been implemented.

                          CHeers,

                          Gabe

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I didn't receive any rejection/accepted emails for my latest batch.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X