Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Photo rejected for bad contrast and bad info with no further clarification. Tips?

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

  • Photo rejected for bad contrast and bad info with no further clarification. Tips?

    Hello, I’m new to airplane photography and recently tried uploading this photo of an Egyptian Airforce Commando MK.2 variant of the Westland Seaking helicopter.

    it was rejected for low sharpness, bad lighting, contrast and bad info. I re-uploaded it after (trying to) fix said issues )
    but was rejected for bad contrast and bad info. I wasn’t told what the bad info is despite asking, so was wondering if anyone can help with that — and what the issue with the contrast is. Is it fixable? This would be the first photo of this registration in the database and as far as I can tell the first photo of the commando variant.

    I was also wondering how to resize the image to 1280 pixels without losing too much detail. I’m currently using an online service.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Webp.net-resizeimage 3.jpg Views:	0 Size:	617.8 KB ID:	1105166

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Webp.net-resizeimage 2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	592.5 KB ID:	1105165

  • #2
    I’m a bit new to how this all works but I’ve just checked my email and found more info on my rejection. For the bad info it says “aircraft” and CN, I’ve been able to find the CN number online but am sure that this is a Westland Seaking aircraft. The commando variant is not listed on the jet photos database, could that be the reason why the aircraft is considered incorrect?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post
      Hello, I’m new to airplane photography and recently tried uploading this photo of an Egyptian Airforce Commando MK.2 variant of the Westland Seaking helicopter.

      it was rejected for low sharpness, bad lighting, contrast and bad info. I re-uploaded it after (trying to) fix said issues )
      but was rejected for bad contrast and bad info. I wasn’t told what the bad info is despite asking, so was wondering if anyone can help with that — and what the issue with the contrast is. Is it fixable? This would be the first photo of this registration in the database and as far as I can tell the first photo of the commando variant.
      Both images lack contrast, and the second is much too dark.

      Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post
      I’m a bit new to how this all works but I’ve just checked my email and found more info on my rejection. For the bad info it says “aircraft” and CN, I’ve been able to find the CN number online but am sure that this is a Westland Seaking aircraft. The commando variant is not listed on the jet photos database, could that be the reason why the aircraft is considered incorrect?
      As stated on the upload page, if the type is not available on the dropdown menu, please use the link to submit a request for the type to be added to the DB.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dlowwa View Post



        As stated on the upload page, if the type is not available on the dropdown menu, please use the link to submit a request for the type to be added to the DB.

        thanks and sorry again for asking what might seem like obvious questions, but the Commando Mk.2 in this case be a new model as part of the Sea King type right?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post


          thanks and sorry again for asking what might seem like obvious questions, but the Commando Mk.2 in this case be a new model as part of the Sea King type right?
          It appears to be so, yes but you'd get a more definite answer from the editors who will actually be adding the type - this is the photo processing forum.

          Comment


          • #6
            I’ve shared a few of the photos I like below and was wondering whether you think some of them can be added to the database and if so what changes need to be made. I know I’m supposed to get into details but I just want some broad guidelines at first and then hopefully I’ll be able to identify potential issues on my own. Very new to this as you can tell so please bear with me Click image for larger version

Name:	Webp.net-resizeimage 6.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	644.6 KB
ID:	1105247

            The helicopter would be the first photo of this aircraft on JP if it makes a difference. I’m also wondering if most people find the underside shots unappealing, I personally think it’s an interesting perspective that isn’t commonly seen.
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post
              I’ve shared a few of the photos I like below and was wondering whether you think some of them can be added to the database and if so what changes need to be made. I know I’m supposed to get into details but I just want some broad guidelines at first and then hopefully I’ll be able to identify potential issues on my own. Very new to this as you can tell so please bear with me

              The helicopter would be the first photo of this aircraft on JP if it makes a difference. I’m also wondering if most people find the underside shots unappealing, I personally think it’s an interesting perspective that isn’t commonly seen.
              1. soft, dark/contrast, backlit, overprocessed
              2. soft, contrast, backlit, noisy
              3. soft, backlit, noisy
              4. soft/blurry, dark/contrast, backlit, noisy
              5. soft,, contrast, color (yellow too strong)

              Only #5 could possibly be fixed with a better edit. The others have no chance, sorry.

              As for underside shots, yes they are generally considered unappealing by most (including me), but that doesn't necessarily mean they would be rejected for that. The problem with such shots is the light tends to be poor as that part of the aircraft is almost always in shadow.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yeah, makes sense about the lighting. Thanks for your help =)

                Is this better for #5?

                Click image for larger version

Name:	Webp.net-resizeimage 16.jpg
Views:	130
Size:	707.1 KB
ID:	1105293

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post
                  Yeah, makes sense about the lighting. Thanks for your help =)

                  Is this better for #5?

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Webp.net-resizeimage 16.jpg
Views:	130
Size:	707.1 KB
ID:	1105293
                  Still poor contrast and a bit soft/blurry, now with more noise. Not sure if it will end up being fixable.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Got my first photo accepted after editing taking your comments on my other photos into account! Thanks https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9983642


                    I have some more here for pre-screening:
                    1. Motive (runway of Cairo Intl) and if reflections from the window are an issue. Not editing related but I also seem to have lost the registration so would appreciate if someone with access can look it up for me, it’s MS887 Cairo>Douala on 9 October 2020.
                    2. Acceptable with potential tighter crop?
                    3. Horizon? The antenna and top of building are level, but it looks like it is tilted right.
                    4. Is this too soft and low contrast? I don’t think it can be sharpened further.
                    5. Acceptable? Would be the first photo of this registration.

                    I’m also wondering if it is allowed to blur the faces of people in a photo (eg. non consenting pilots) as a similar exception that allows license plates to be blurred or would such photos be rejected for image manipulation.

                    cheers
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post
                      Got my first photo accepted after editing taking your comments on my other photos into account! Thanks https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9983642


                      I have some more here for pre-screening:
                      1. Motive (runway of Cairo Intl) and if reflections from the window are an issue. Not editing related but I also seem to have lost the registration so would appreciate if someone with access can look it up for me, it’s MS887 Cairo>Douala on 9 October 2020.
                      2. Acceptable with potential tighter crop?
                      3. Horizon? The antenna and top of building are level, but it looks like it is tilted right.
                      4. Is this too soft and low contrast? I don’t think it can be sharpened further.
                      5. Acceptable? Would be the first photo of this registration.

                      I’m also wondering if it is allowed to blur the faces of people in a photo (eg. non consenting pilots) as a similar exception that allows license plates to be blurred or would such photos be rejected for image manipulation.

                      cheers
                      Will ask you one more time to please read here very carefully:

                      https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/a...ning-from-crew

                      Will answer your post this time, but if you continue to neglect our requests, any future posts may simply be ignored.

                      1. contrast, horizon, compression, window glare, cropping/ratio.
                      2. contrast, centering, overprocessed, dirty, too far, noisy
                      3. horizon, compression, window glare, noise
                      4-5. soft/blurry, noisy, compression

                      Most, if not all of these do not appear fixable.

                      Blurring faces is considered manipulation and not allowed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thank you. If you are referring to the 24 hour rule that’s my bad, it appears my time zone on here is set incorrectly so it shows my previous message as 23:07 (which is in gmt not gmt+2) so I thought I had sent it at 23 rather than 01. Sorry about that.

                        Do you know what could cause the compression on the last photo? It is taken with the same camera as all my other photos except the window views and edited the same way and it didn’t seem to be an issue before.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post
                          Do you know what could cause the compression on the last photo? It is taken with the same camera as all my other photos except the window views and edited the same way and it didn’t seem to be an issue before.
                          I'm going to guess this was a pretty significant crop, which makes any such issues much more obvious.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Need pre-screening advice on these, both new registrations. Thanks
                            Sharpness seems to be more of an issue after converting to 1280p, should I oversharpen photos at full size?
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ozymandias View Post
                              Need pre-screening advice on these, both new registrations. Thanks
                              Sharpness seems to be more of an issue after converting to 1280p, should I oversharpen photos at full size?
                              Sharpening doesn't seem to be an issue; dust spots and centering (too low) are, however.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X