Thomas Harding - editing advice

[Alex - Spot-This !]

1) Soft / backlit
2) dark, soft and contrast not an appealing angle or light at all for a very common aircraft, not worth the effort
3) compression, soft contrast and that clutter in the front really isn't adding anything
4) soft, overproc, compression - Quality is simply not there on that one

Hope it helps

Alex

[Thomas Harding]

Hello, may I have these 4 pre-screened? This may be a stretch given the not so great lighting conditions and the significant noise removal that has been needed... nonetheless I was wondering if these types of photos could stand a chance post-editing? 3rd one is airport overview. Thanks.

[dlowwa]

Hello, I was wondering if I could have these two photos prescreened? Tried out doing an artistic (effects) photo with the strong, effectively black contrast on the plane, could still be too soft though? Thanks.

1. soft/blurry
2. soft/blurry, too far

[Thomas Harding]

Hello, I was wondering if I could have these two photos prescreened? Tried out doing an artistic (effects) photo with the strong, effectively black contrast on the plane, could still be too soft though? Thanks.

[dlowwa]

Hello, may I have these 3 pre-screened? 3rd one is a planespotting location, not sure if having no runway visible is allowed. Maybe also a bit too blurry in the foreground? Also wondering if the other two are still too soft/dark? Thanks.

1-2. dark/contrast, borderline soft/noisy
3. motive works for me, though usually should have part of airport visible. quite soft/heat hazed though

[Thomas Harding]

Hello, may I have these 3 pre-screened? 3rd one is a planespotting location, not sure if having no runway visible is allowed. Maybe also a bit too blurry in the foreground? Also wondering if the other two are still too soft/dark? Thanks.

[dlowwa]

Any worth of an appeal? I feel this is very incorrect this time especially the overprocessing rejection given the editing was the exact same. If possible could you point out where they have seen overprocessing/softness if there is a specific spot? Thanks.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12020891

Don't really see the overprocessing, but it is very soft. If the appeal came to me I would add dark and noisy so final result would be: Rejected - soft, dark, noisy.

[Thomas Harding]

Any worth of an appeal? I feel this is very incorrect this time especially the overprocessing rejection given the editing was the exact same. If possible could you point out where they have seen overprocessing/softness if there is a specific spot? Thanks.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12020891

[dlowwa]

Hello, are either of these worth rejecting? They don't seem soft or dark, but I might just not be able to judge it. Thanks

First should have been rejected for soft as well.

[Thomas Harding]

Hello, are either of these worth rejecting? They don't seem soft or dark, but I might just not be able to judge it. Thanks

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12016493

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12016449

[dlowwa]

Hello, is it worth appealing this?

No.

[Thomas Harding]

Hello, is it worth appealing this? Thanks.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11988084

[dlowwa]

Do you reckon that lowering to 1600 px

Or less.

[Thomas Harding]

1. soft/blurry/heat hazed, dark
2. soft

Do you reckon that lowering to 1600 px will hide these imperfections, at least the soft/blurry/heat hazed part?

[dlowwa]

Hello, may I have these 2 pre-screened, Thanks. Both are 1920 px and wondering if they are up to standards or need to drop to 1600 maybe.

1. soft/blurry/heat hazed, dark
2. soft