Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Novice baffled by rejection reasons

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

  • Novice baffled by rejection reasons

    I am a novice trying to submit the attached photo, but the cryptic response for rejection by the reviewer gives me little useful guidance for improvement. A bit more specific information would be helpful.

    Reason(s) For Rejection:
    - Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
    - Dark / Underexposed
    - Cropping / Photo edges / Size Ratio
    - JPG compression artefacts [sic]

    OK, I can see that the plane may not be perfectly centered vertically in the photo, and that can be fixed by re-cropping.

    Can I fix the underexposure by applying the posted guidelines for using a histogram?

    What is the problem with the cropping and photo edges? I didn't crop any of the aircraft out of the photo. Is it cropped too close at the nose and tail? How do you determine the correct size ratio?

    Where are the JPG compression artifacts visible? Is it better to shoot in RAW format and then convert to JPG, or should the photo be submitted in RAW format to avoid any JPG compression? This photo was shot in JPG mode with a Canon 6D full-frame camera using a Canon lense, so I would think the resulting JPG is good quality.

    I suppose it is too much to ask to expect a few circles or annotations to point out problem issues. It would help if the reasons for rejection could be a bit more specific so we can learn from them.

    Any comments would be appreciated.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	N177RC_73_Cardinal_PAFA.jpg
Views:	440
Size:	579.9 KB
ID:	1092356

  • #2
    Originally posted by rcombellick View Post
    I am a novice trying to submit the attached photo, but the cryptic response for rejection by the reviewer gives me little useful guidance for improvement. A bit more specific information would be helpful.

    Reason(s) For Rejection:
    - Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
    - Dark / Underexposed
    - Cropping / Photo edges / Size Ratio
    - JPG compression artefacts [sic]

    OK, I can see that the plane may not be perfectly centered vertically in the photo, and that can be fixed by re-cropping.

    Can I fix the underexposure by applying the posted guidelines for using a histogram?

    What is the problem with the cropping and photo edges? I didn't crop any of the aircraft out of the photo. Is it cropped too close at the nose and tail? How do you determine the correct size ratio?

    Where are the JPG compression artifacts visible? Is it better to shoot in RAW format and then convert to JPG, or should the photo be submitted in RAW format to avoid any JPG compression? This photo was shot in JPG mode with a Canon 6D full-frame camera using a Canon lense, so I would think the resulting JPG is good quality.

    I suppose it is too much to ask to expect a few circles or annotations to point out problem issues. It would help if the reasons for rejection could be a bit more specific so we can learn from them.

    Any comments would be appreciated.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	N177RC_73_Cardinal_PAFA.jpg
Views:	440
Size:	579.9 KB
ID:	1092356
    First of all, the a/c is too low. I think only 3:2, 4:3, and 16:9 are correct ratios to be accepted. On my PS, the photo is 1280x680 and 588.48 KB, so it is why it was rejected as Cropping. But I am confused about artefacts too, because I think 588KB is ok.
    In my point, I think JPEG is ok for spotting airplanes, but RAW or RAW+JPEG is absolutely a better choice for spotting.

    Comment


    • #3
      The aircraft is low in frame, and this is easy to fix unless it's also very low in the original.
      My best guess as to how to fix the underexposure is just to bring up the shadows. Maybe something along the lines of the attached file. Click image for larger version

Name:	image_32758.jpg
Views:	423
Size:	655.4 KB
ID:	1092360
      The minimum acceptable size ratio is a 16:9. Yours is thinner. Anything between a 4:3 and 16:9--or their vertical equivalents--is acceptable.
      I can't really point out any compression artifacts, but from my experience, saving at anything other than maximum quality will introduce the artifacts and cause a rejection. Shooting in Jpeg is fine. Shooting raw is good. I know a lot of people who shoot RAW 100% of the time, but I only shoot raw if I have nice colors that I want to enhance and show off (a particularly colorful or special livery, sunset/sunrise, etc,) or some exposure matters with very bright highlights or very dark shadows (night, bright pavement in bright sunlight, etc). RAW files take up valuable space, so that's why I don't always use it. If you try to upload a raw file it will not work. Trust me. Generally, I do the entire edit in raw and save the photo as a Jpeg at the end.

      Hope it helps,
      Michael

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah I would just bring up exposure and whites to brighten the photo, avoid using shadows and highlights at all costs as they create ‘editing halos’ when editing for jp, blacks and whites are your key tools!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rcombellick View Post
          I am a novice trying to submit the attached photo, but the cryptic response for rejection by the reviewer gives me little useful guidance for improvement. A bit more specific information would be helpful.

          Reason(s) For Rejection:
          - Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered)
          - Dark / Underexposed
          - Cropping / Photo edges / Size Ratio
          - JPG compression artefacts [sic]

          OK, I can see that the plane may not be perfectly centered vertically in the photo, and that can be fixed by re-cropping.

          Can I fix the underexposure by applying the posted guidelines for using a histogram?

          What is the problem with the cropping and photo edges? I didn't crop any of the aircraft out of the photo. Is it cropped too close at the nose and tail? How do you determine the correct size ratio?

          Where are the JPG compression artifacts visible? Is it better to shoot in RAW format and then convert to JPG, or should the photo be submitted in RAW format to avoid any JPG compression? This photo was shot in JPG mode with a Canon 6D full-frame camera using a Canon lense, so I would think the resulting JPG is good quality.

          I suppose it is too much to ask to expect a few circles or annotations to point out problem issues. It would help if the reasons for rejection could be a bit more specific so we can learn from them.

          Any comments would be appreciated.
          Hi, firstly, well done for asking on the forums on how to improve your photos for acceptance. I understand you would like a more comprehensive explanation from the screeners about your rejections. Unfortunately we simply don't have the time and resource to be able to do this for everyone. We get 2,000-3,000 uploads a day currently with an overall rejection rate of about 40%, so you could imagine how much it would slow down the screening process. This is why we ask you to come here for advice, and indeed you can also ask for pre-screening before you submit your photos to the queue.
          I'll try and give you some clues now, although a link to your rejection would help also.

          1. Bad composition: The aircraft is too low in the frame. You ideally want the centre of the fuselage in the centre of the frame.
          2. Dark: Probably not helped by the dark vegetation in the background, but the overall exposure/brightness needs increasing. If you shot the photo raw then this is much easier to achieve, however with careful adjustment, results can be achieved directly on a jpg. The white on the bottom of the fuselage appears a little off to me, and could be brighter. You can use shadow/highlights but do so very carefully, as small adjustments using this feature can induce the dreaded editing halo around the aircraft, which will result in a processing rejection.
          3: Cropping/ratio:
          "Photos can be uploaded with an aspect ratio between 4:3 and 3:2, or at an aspect ratio of 16:9."

          Thefore a 1200px photo can be 1200x800-900 or 1200x675.

          4. JPG artefacts:

          I can't see anything from the photo you linked here which is why I was asking for the direct rejection link. However, you pretty much answered your own question. All photos must be submitted in JPG at the upload stage but it's up to you how you reach that point. There are 2 camps for RAW or not. I never used to shoot raw until I got one particular camera body which gave very noisy skies even at iso100. To solve this I learnt to shoot raw and process the results primarily using Adobe Camera Raw then proceeding to photoshop for final editing. I haven't looked back since. Shooting raw has saved me on a number of occasions when I've forgotten to change an exposure setting or simply the camera got it wrong. I was scared of the extra processing involved but it really doesn't add much more time. Also storage is a whole lot cheaper these days so I just have bigger memory cards. RAW is the digital negative without any in camera processing, so you are editing from scratch and can apply finer control on the image. Then at the end of the editing, save the image at the highest possible jpg quality your software allows. I set my level to 12 in photoshop (the highest). I don't use the "save for web" or anything. A tiny amount of compression happens in the upload process, so if your image is low quality to start with (say 200-300k) then it will get compressed more and more. These days I've gone back to edit some old photos shot primarily as a jpg and find myself so frustrated at the lack of control, and I know if I had shot them raw I might have been able to save the image.
          There are the people who then just shoot JPG, and having had a 6D I know it can produce very good jpgs straight in the camera. I know now it's more important if you do this to get the image right in the first place. Therefore concentrating more on your setting, such as your exposure. You can still edit these, but remember you are now editing on an already compressed image that the camera produced, since a jpg is a compressed image. So the more you edit, the further destruction you are doing to the image. Then save that compressed image again, you introduce more compression... you get my drift.

          I hope some of this info helps

          Regards, James

          Comment


          • #6
            Often, those JPEG artifacts are clearly visible when the image is "equalized". In the your queue or rejected images section you have all the tools the screeners have, including the "check for dust" function which is nothing else than the "equalize" function in picture editing software.
            Also, you will get a "JPEG artifacts" rejection when too much noise reduction is applied, even if you save the JPG at highest quality.
            As to proper exposure correction, I don't use "shadows/highlights" or "enhance contrast" or similar stuff, as these tend to produce those dreaded editing halos around edges. Usually, the curves tool has proven best for me. Looks complicated first, but once you've understood how it works, it's really easy and does exactly what you want it to do.

            The Upload Guidelines, especially the section that explains each possible rejection reason, are really useful, as is the self-screening tool once you've queued a picture.
            A great feature, you can have a few pictures pre-screened before uploading, following those rules: https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/a...ning-from-crew
            Good advice can be found here too: https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/a...ips-and-tricks

            Comment


            • #7
              Thank you all for your very helpful comments on my post. I can see that there are several adjustments I can make to the original photo to improve its chances of acceptance. I will likely resubmit for pre-screening in the next day or two and see what happens. Clearly from now on I will pay more attention to the camera settings, including taking photos like this in RAW format to reduce the effects of JPEG compression. -Rod

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rcombellick View Post
                Thank you all for your very helpful comments on my post. I can see that there are several adjustments I can make to the original photo to improve its chances of acceptance. I will likely resubmit for pre-screening in the next day or two and see what happens. Clearly from now on I will pay more attention to the camera settings, including taking photos like this in RAW format to reduce the effects of JPEG compression. -Rod
                Hi Rod, I'd like to add something here. JPEG is a compressed file format, which makes it small in size. This is why websites, including this one, use it. Shooting in RAW will not guarantee no issues with JPEG compression since you will have to save in JPEG sooner or later. Make sure to shoot in best quality JPEG that your camera allows (max resolution/file size) and save in best quality JPEG when you process.

                Regards,

                Alex

                Comment


                • #9
                  Got it Alex, thanks! I realized that after my edits I had not saved the image in the highest JPEG quality possible, so that's one obvious improvement I can make, among others. With my Canon 6D, I always do always shoot in the best JPEG quality available. -Rod

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I realize i'm not the best member on jetphotos, but i seems right to help you and write this comment. I confirm all comments from previous members. As JPG COMPRESSION ARTEFACTS, i've seen a lot of compression and you can(my opinion) easily notice it in correspondence eith the front landing gear and propeller. it would be easier to notice it with the link in the equalized section. however, to avoid ending up in JPG compression, try not to overdo it in increasing the sharpness in postproduction too, especially after resizing the photo. Let's say it would be useful to start from a high quality photo....i think it is your case ... i hope to have been useful

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Flavio, Thank you for your useful comments and pointing out where the compression is visible. I could easily see it when I zoomed in on the areas you mentioned. Already in my new edits starting with the original photo, the signs of compression are gone, or greatly reduced. -Rod

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X