llpilch - prescreening request

[llpilch]

Banding visible in the sky. May be compression rather than processing. Needs CW rotation.

Hi, asking for help with the same photo again

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10459184

First, thanks for the tip of the horizon, taking another look I had to agree with the unlevel, so I applied 0,3° CW, looks better!

Now about the vignetting, which wasn't even an issue on the first rejection: there is no vignette at all, dark corners are visible only in the upper part of the image, the lenses does vignette in all corners. The image was taken in the early moments of dawn at about 45 minutes before sunrise, the sun rises exactly in that part of the sky seen in the image (see planet Venus next to the tail), that part is more lit than the rest of the sky, it's natural, just a bit up this frame the sky was black.
It is an 4 seconds exposure image, the sky was very dark.

And then comes again the overprocessed/bad post processed. I'm assuming it is due to the banding again, which is way weaker than the first rejected upload and should not be a problem, but as I said: dawn, dark sky, a lot of orange tones in a fading to black sky, pollution and dust in the air from a big and dry-weather city close to the horizon, even in the raw file some banding is visible, imagine it after converting to a 8 bit JPG in sRGB color space! It is impossible this conditions will provide a smooth color transition...

I attached a print screen of the original RAW. In this image only the color profile and and lens correction were applied as my Lightroom is set to do it by default when importing the files.
Notice how the corners in the sky are dark even with the lens correction and the ground are not, how the pollution close to the horizon creates a strong and sharp division between the orange and the black, how the sky fades to darkness to the left, right, and up.

Plus, see how the image was cropped cutting off the corners, the most affected area by vignette

Sorry for the long text, thanks in advance for your attention and help.

[dlowwa]

Hi, please some help here:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392896

I can't see any sign of over processing or bad post processing, no halo at all, no noise reduction, looks normal.

About the horizon: there is no good reference, the horizon itself is not visble due to rugged terrain, but the photo looks ok. There's only a tower hard to be seen above the tail, and a pole under the tail, wich looks vertical. By the way, not reliable references since it is too much to the left of the frame, taken with a wide lens. More to the center there is some equipment with vertical lines which looks ok also. The plane doesn't seem to be "climbing or descending a hill"

Banding visible in the sky. May be compression rather than processing. Needs CW rotation.

[llpilch]

Hi, please some help here:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392896

I can't see any sign of over processing or bad post processing, no halo at all, no noise reduction, looks normal.

About the horizon: there is no good reference, the horizon itself is not visble due to rugged terrain, but the photo looks ok. There's only a tower hard to be seen above the tail, and a pole under the tail, wich looks vertical. By the way, not reliable references since it is too much to the left of the frame, taken with a wide lens. More to the center there is some equipment with vertical lines which looks ok also. The plane doesn't seem to be "climbing or descending a hill"

[llpilch]

We generally don't comment on rejections that have already been appealed.

The 737 was not...

[dlowwa]

Hello!

I would ask some help with this two rejections, please:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10253620

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10266224

What am I missing? (beyond the bizzjet category )

The 737 is totally fine for me, in the parts with more contrast there is including a white border, like under the entire fuselage, landing gears, horizontal stabilizer... The only problem with this photo is the conversion to .webp, done by the site, wich I have no control. It affected the title "Gol", the tail painting and the winglet, but looking the colors/lines that were not affected by the .webp conversion, where is soft?

The Legacy, as the 737, looks pretty good. The blue line on the fuselage length is a bit jagged specially on the nose, the cockpit windows, the small registration on the tail, the wings, specially the one that is lower in the frame, everything looks ok on the entire frame.

Both photos has the same appearence in sharpening that a lot of photos that I'm getting accepted, including from the same day, with the same equipment and edited togheter. Also both photos comply with the site standards, it's easy to find here photos wich are equal or even more soft than mine, and please, don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that those photos are bad and if they were accepted, my photos should too. I'm just saying that there is a standard here.

Sharpening vary from monitor to monitor and is a bit subjective, we can't be so rigid with it, there is some margin, a bit more soft is ok, as a bit more oversharpen, I do believe these 2 photos are totally inside this margin.

We generally don't comment on rejections that have already been appealed.

[llpilch]

Hello!

I would ask some help with this two rejections, please:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10253620

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10266224

What am I missing? (beyond the bizzjet category )

The 737 is totally fine for me, in the parts with more contrast there is including a white border, like under the entire fuselage, landing gears, horizontal stabilizer... The only problem with this photo is the conversion to .webp, done by the site, wich I have no control. It affected the title "Gol", the tail painting and the winglet, but looking the colors/lines that were not affected by the .webp conversion, where is soft?

The Legacy, as the 737, looks pretty good. The blue line on the fuselage length is a bit jagged specially on the nose, the cockpit windows, the small registration on the tail, the wings, specially the one that is lower in the frame, everything looks ok on the entire frame.

Both photos has the same appearence in sharpening that a lot of photos that I'm getting accepted, including from the same day, with the same equipment and edited togheter. Also both photos comply with the site standards, it's easy to find here photos wich are equal or even more soft than mine, and please, don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that those photos are bad and if they were accepted, my photos should too. I'm just saying that there is a standard here.

Sharpening vary from monitor to monitor and is a bit subjective, we can't be so rigid with it, there is some margin, a bit more soft is ok, as a bit more oversharpen, I do believe these 2 photos are totally inside this margin.

[dlowwa]

This plane is at a junkyard at my city, it's registration is PT-DEM, can the first photo (the green one) be accepted? Just upload the location as "Brazil - other location - name of the place"?

What about the second photo (yellow)? It was taken in 2012 and I don't remeber why I took the photo on the wrong side, so it's backlit. But there isn't any photo of this plane here, and today it is green, maybe this backlit photo of the plane being used as ad sign have a historical value, what do you think?

1. contrast quite harsh
2. backlit means unlikely to be accepted

[llpilch]

This plane is at a junkyard at my city, it's registration is PT-DEM, can the first photo (the green one) be accepted? Just upload the location as "Brazil - other location - name of the place"?

What about the second photo (yellow)? It was taken in 2012 and I don't remeber why I took the photo on the wrong side, so it's backlit. But there isn't any photo of this plane here, and today it is green, maybe this backlit photo of the plane being used as ad sign have a historical value, what do you think?

[dlowwa]

hey!

Wanted another opinion on this one

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10085068

The histogram is cool, the contrast between the plane and the background are also fine, the entire aircraft is perfectly distinguishable from the background, nice colors, nice contrast visually. The weather was not that bad, is was pretty clear in fact, is visible how there is plenty of light on the fuselage and a weak shadow on the ground.

This one is not related to the histogram, but to the overcast conditions. I don't think there is much more you can do here.

[llpilch]

hey!

Wanted another opinion on this one

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10085068

The histogram is cool, the contrast between the plane and the background are also fine, the entire aircraft is perfectly distinguishable from the background, nice colors, nice contrast visually. The weather was not that bad, is was pretty clear in fact, is visible how there is plenty of light on the fuselage and a weak shadow on the ground.

[llpilch]

Someone thought there was manipulation in the foreground. If this was not the case, and you are able to provide me the original raw file, I can fix this mistake for you.

I'll send you the RAW file. Thank you for your attention

[dlowwa]

That being quoted, it's obvious to say that digital manipulation of an image is something serious here.

By the other hand, it is not cool either to reject someone's photo by manipulation if it's not the case.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10012888

Please, can someone tell me where there is any sign of manipulation in this image? Where there is any sign of something removed or what was added to this image? Based in what am I being accused of digital manipulation?

Someone thought there was manipulation in the foreground. If this was not the case, and you are able to provide me the original raw file, I can fix this mistake for you.

[llpilch]

1 General Upload guideline


Please keep in mind that rarity of a photo will be taken into account by our screening team.


1.1 General Advice on uploads


1.1.1 Upload only unaltered images


Cloning anything in or out of a photo will mean that the photo will be rejected and you are running the risk of your upload privileges being withdrawn or limited for some time. Manipulating a photo is something we will never tolerate. We reserve ourselves the right to remove manipulated photos from the database. All that we allow to be cloned out are artefacts in the picture that look like sensor dust spots.


Any manipulation of a photo will not be tolerated and might result in a ban if repeated.

That being quoted, it's obvious to say that digital manipulation of an image is something serious here.

By the other hand, it is not cool either to reject someone's photo by manipulation if it's not the case.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10012888

Please, can someone tell me where there is any sign of manipulation in this image? Where there is any sign of something removed or what was added to this image? Based in what am I being accused of digital manipulation?

[dlowwa]

I understand.
Maybe the "i'm afraid" lets a door open for the subjectivity of the other screeners who might evaluate this if I upload?

Sorry for insist, it's not my intention to disregard your opinion, it's just like I've said, it's a nice place for the final rest of a retired plane, has its value. MAYBE in the future will be possible a picture from the other side with less obstruction, but until now it's not the case.

It seems like you were asking for someone to confirm your hope and would have uploaded it regardless, so please do whatever you wish.

[llpilch]

Too much obstruction, I'm afraid.

I understand.
Maybe the "i'm afraid" lets a door open for the subjectivity of the other screeners who might evaluate this if I upload?

Sorry for insist, it's not my intention to disregard your opinion, it's just like I've said, it's a nice place for the final rest of a retired plane, has its value. MAYBE in the future will be possible a picture from the other side with less obstruction, but until now it's not the case.