Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Advice regarding photo rejection

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

  • Advice regarding photo rejection

    Morning all,

    I seem to be hit and miss with my photos being accepted lately. Most rejections are for 'Under sharpened' (Soft) while others are being accepted (even though the photo distance is the same, aircraft position is next to each other, settings on camera the same etc.). This photo was rejected today for the above (Under sharpened [soft]) and for Heat Distortion.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10424291

    This photo was taken at about 0900hrs, the temperature was 4c, the distance was the same, as was settings of other pictures that were accepted. Can someone point out to me, where its soft and where the heat distortion is please? At full resolution, the picture is quite clear and I have use DXO Photolab 5 Elite for my editing.

    Look forward to advice and comments, many thanks from a sunny Brisbane, Queensland.

  • #2
    Morning all again, another small whinge..

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10429245

    This picture was rejected for horizon unlevel, but it is level and for contrast, I thought it was correct?

    I have made comments to screeners before when uploading photos here in Australia. Living here for six years now (originally from England) the attention to detail and level of workmanship on roads and buildings is not...to be polite...not the best. Lampposts are wonky, fences are not level or even and some buildings that have aged shift (something to do with the soil if you believe that). This picture I have used the jack at the back of the Cessna as it should be plumb, and three lamp posts that are even. Is this just a mistake by a Screener?

    Many thanks and keep up the great work.

    David

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi, please read here carefully when you get the chance:

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

      I've combined and moved your threads, but in the future post any new questions about advice here please.

      1. A bit soft, but I don't see any heat haze. Should be easy to fix with a better edit.
      2. Needs a little CCW rotation (most of the verticals are leaning right). Contrast is a bit harsh, but would have been ok for me.

      Comment


      • #4
        First pic would be acceptable everywhere. Not even a bit soft.

        Second one looks a bit overprocessed and needs the rotation

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by andrelesenechal View Post
          First pic would be acceptable everywhere. Not even a bit soft.

          Second one looks a bit overprocessed and needs the rotation

          Everybody is getting senseless rejections.. we just have to 'deal with it' as someone advised me.
          Screeners are not robots. So IMHO it's absolutely normal that they make mistakes....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CARBONOX CN View Post

            Screeners are not robots. So IMHO it's absolutely normal that they make mistakes....
            Yes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Many thanks for your comments. The photo was accepted on appeal

              Comment


              • #8
                Morning all, Had a couple of rejections today, and I just need some help and advice so I can learn effectively and try and improve the quality of my images.

                1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10474044 This has been rejected for visible halo's, I just can't see them, if someone can point them out, that would be great. It also was rejected for horizon unlevel. The horizon is level, I have used the tail bar as that will be plumb as well as the tail chain on VH-FFJ behind. The aircraft is not sitting level; as its on grass. Would this be advisable for an appeal?

                2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10474131 This was rejected for Dark/Underexposed. This was in late afternoon light, I have increased the exposure when I uploaded it, I'm surprised it was rejected as it looked good. Worth an appeal?

                Look forward to any replies. After my dressing down with how I posted before and complained, I in know way want to offend or be a pain, just want to learn (and I hate putting in rejections!)

                Best regards

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not a screener, but for #1 there are halos visible around the background foliage, and even more around the red tails of the Dorniers. The check for dust tool makes them obvious, but are even visible without.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by thebigdog360 View Post
                    Not a screener, but for #1 there are halos visible around the background foliage, and even more around the red tails of the Dorniers. The check for dust tool makes them obvious, but are even visible without.
                    Thanks for the reply. I can't even see them lol. I see a slight white shading around the left red Dornier tail in the 'check dust feature' , but I never did anything to that part of the photo, just on the Beech. Strange

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X