Tweet
Hello! Does this framing have a chance? I like the composition but the aircraft is not 100% centered
Attached Files
-
-
-
Hi,
I get really upset with this rejection
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11330443- Since "digital manipulation" is something really serious here, which can cause a ban or suspension (item 1.1.1 from the upload guidelines), I kindly would like to know: what did the screener see that led to this conclusion? I have 3 raw files from this take off sequence that I'm willing to send to a screener to verify that the image is actual, just provide me an email to do so. Even if the rejection isn't going to be reverted, I'll be pleased to show that I'm honest;
- About the "soft" it is perfectly fine for the site standards, looking just ok;
- Now about the "JPG artefacts", I don't see it and the file was saved in high quality, I only see some color noise in the sky.
Plus: It is not an usual/ordinary image, it's an airborne plane taking off at night!! Even with 2.8 lens, high ISO is needed, 16,000 to be precise in this case, and with it comes the noise, even in a full frame sensor. It's a very challeging photo to make and the result is stunning! Please, look at the image, it's nice!! I respectfully believe the screeners should take into account the difficulties to take a picture like that and be a little less rigorous, I say this to both this color noise in the sky (barely visible without equalizing) and the sharpness (what can led to more noise, that's why I apllied only the minimun necessary).
Thank you for your attention, best regards!Attached FilesComment
-
Soft/compressed maybe, but not really sure why manipulation. I can see the note the screener left, but it doesn't make sense to me. I'll contact them to see if it can be explained.Originally posted by llpilch View PostHi,
I get really upset with this rejection
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11330443- Since "digital manipulation" is something really serious here, which can cause a ban or suspension (item 1.1.1 from the upload guidelines), I kindly would like to know: what did the screener see that led to this conclusion? I have 3 raw files from this take off sequence that I'm willing to send to a screener to verify that the image is actual, just provide me an email to do so. Even if the rejection isn't going to be reverted, I'll be pleased to show that I'm honest;
- About the "soft" it is perfectly fine for the site standards, looking just ok;
- Now about the "JPG artefacts", I don't see it and the file was saved in high quality, I only see some color noise in the sky.
Plus: It is not an usual/ordinary image, it's an airborne plane taking off at night!! Even with 2.8 lens, high ISO is needed, 16,000 to be precise in this case, and with it comes the noise, even in a full frame sensor. It's a very challeging photo to make and the result is stunning! Please, look at the image, it's nice!! I respectfully believe the screeners should take into account the difficulties to take a picture like that and be a little less rigorous, I say this to both this color noise in the sky (barely visible without equalizing) and the sharpness (what can led to more noise, that's why I apllied only the minimun necessary).Comment
-
-
I talked with the screener. It seems it was a mistake on their part, so you can disregard that part of the rejection. Sorry for the confusion.Originally posted by llpilch View PostComment
-
Thank you! So, there aren't any notes on my account for digital manipulation, right?Originally posted by dlowwa View PostComment
-
-
Hi, do you think I have any chance appealing this photo? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11330450
In fact, the quality is not good enough due the high crop needed here (the focus didn't want to work when the airplane was closer
), but, as I said about that Latam B777 taking off at night, it's a challenging image with an awesome result with the glowing engines' core, something rare to see.
Again: maybe an image like this deserve a less rigorous screening, but I admint that this time the quality really is a bit low.Comment
-
Looks more like noise than compression, but also could be the after-effects of attempts at noise reduction.Originally posted by llpilch View PostHi, do you think I have any chance appealing this photo? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11330450
In fact, the quality is not good enough due the high crop needed here (the focus didn't want to work when the airplane was closer), but, as I said about that Latam B777 taking off at night, it's a challenging image with an awesome result with the glowing engines' core, something rare to see.
Again: maybe an image like this deserve a less rigorous screening, but I admint that this time the quality really is a bit low.Comment
-
Sure, added to the high crop which make the small defects more evident.Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
Is it worth appealing or the quality is indeed too low?Comment
-
-
Hi! About this rejection:
Yes, it is not the perfect sunny shot, but there is nothing here even close to what you consider a contrast motive to rejection on the upload guidelines. That grayish haze in the air is not here, no gaps and no peaks on the edges of the histogram either. The sky is clear but the contrast between the plane and the sky is not an issue at all, the plane is perfectly distinguishible.
This clear sky is due to the time of the day with sun too low but I checked "night shot", it is expected for this condition.
Sorry for discharge here, I love to send photos to JP, but it is so frustrating to get this rejections by contrast that simply don't fit in any of the reasons explainted on the guidelines. I asked for permission to enter the hangar, got late to work, only to keep the database up to date with this new reg (it's first flight) and to get a rejection very hard to agree with.
It doesn't look fair.
There are many topics here on the forum of people complaining about the "too much or too little contrast" rejection, I believe it's not only me getting problem with it. Seems like it's being rejected for nothing since the photo is fine without the issues of the guidelines. There is no reason to reject, but it is rejected.
Attached FilesComment
-
-
Background (sky) is brighter than the foreground (aircraft). Not much you can do to fix this.Originally posted by llpilch View PostHi! About this rejection:
Yes, it is not the perfect sunny shot, but there is nothing here even close to what you consider a contrast motive to rejection on the upload guidelines. That grayish haze in the air is not here, no gaps and no peaks on the edges of the histogram either. The sky is clear but the contrast between the plane and the sky is not an issue at all, the plane is perfectly distinguishible.
This clear sky is due to the time of the day with sun too low but I checked "night shot", it is expected for this condition.
Sorry for discharge here, I love to send photos to JP, but it is so frustrating to get this rejections by contrast that simply don't fit in any of the reasons explainted on the guidelines. I asked for permission to enter the hangar, got late to work, only to keep the database up to date with this new reg (it's first flight) and to get a rejection very hard to agree with.
It doesn't look fair.
There are many topics here on the forum of people complaining about the "too much or too little contrast" rejection, I believe it's not only me getting problem with it. Seems like it's being rejected for nothing since the photo is fine without the issues of the guidelines. There is no reason to reject, but it is rejected.Comment
-
Hi, I need a little help, please.
One of the following rejections were appealed a few days ago, but I don't remember which one, and I didn't receive any response e-mail until now. I want to appeal the other without appealing the same, I'm loosing the 14 days limit.
Do the crew have any way to check which one is already appealed, please?
I don't agree that a small obstruction like this on less than half wheel is an issue that must be rejected, it is pretty common this kind of small obstructions from the ground itself, from grass or other types of vegetation, not a problem...Comment
Comment