Digitally Manipulated

[Renato]

OK,some people will think I complain about every reject(wich is so not true),but anyway only understanding my rejections I can improve my photos,right?Letīs go:

I agree with oversharpened,I see that....but digitally manipulated?!Of course,it looks like it was neat imaged but the last time I sended this same pic it was rejected for too much noise..so..

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=400828

Same thing.Ok,oversharpened,horizon unlevel and bad info are ok but digitally manipulated I really didnīt get it

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=400830

And one that is ..Maybe the screener didnīt understand that the part of the subject missing was my intention.

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=40084

Thanks

[LX-A343]

Sorry to say, Renato, but if you don't see the obvious, it would be better to start some other hobby. No offence meant!

Look again at your pics. You wrote yourself, that the first time it was rejected for too much noise. You tried to get rid of it with neat image, but you have overdone it. the pic looks awful!

neat image is ok to improve an already good picture. But if the original has too much grain or noise, it will be hard to get a decent result.

As for the last pic: you probably meant http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=400840 (wrong URL in your post).

It's bad cropped. This crop works better from another angle.

Gerardo

[G-DALE]

Renato,

1th shot - Digitally manipulated can mean that the photo doesn't look real enough... it's abit hard to explian. It looks like you've given it one hell of a battering with Neat Image Which kinda gives it a water painting effect I think. There is a better definition of this rejection in the upload gidelines page though.

2nd shot - The titles and registration are slightly 'jagged,' which is most likely the reason for oversharpened. If you've used Neat Image (which it looks like you have) then this is probably the reason for digitally manipulated. The aircraft looks like it's sloaping to the left, as do the floodlights in the background.

3rd shot - The aircraft has been cropped quite high into the top of the photo, which explains the reason of aircraft not in centre frame. I can see what you were going for by cropping behind the winglet to get the engines etc in the photo, but I think the long length of the front of the fuselage kinda spoils it. If I was you I'd try cropping just behind the titles or in the middle of engine number two, that should be OK then

These are just my thoughts, I could be wrong.

Dale

[Renato]

Sorry to say, Renato, but if you don't see the obvious, it would be better to start some other hobby. No offence meant!

I think this type of comment is not necessary..Iīm glad I donīt get offended this easy,but Iīm pretty sure somebody someday will and youīll lost a contributor to Jetphotos.net.Even beeing the worst photographer ever,it is never a good thing to lost a contributor...

Look again at your pics. You wrote yourself, that the first time it was rejected for too much noise. You tried to get rid of it with neat image, but you have overdone it. the pic looks awful!

neat image is ok to improve an already good picture. But if the original has too much grain or noise, it will be hard to get a decent result.

OK,understood that,only...I already had an accepted photo here at JP and you have no idea about how much neat image it was..I uploaded the wrong picture(I was testing Neat Image) and it was accepted anyway,even looking a LOT like water painting,like Dale said.And that happened three months ago..of course I reuploaded an improved version as soon as I could..

As for the last pic: you probably meant http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=400840 (wrong URL in your post).

It's bad cropped. This crop works better from another angle.

Weird,I did a copy-and-paste with this link..anyway,thanks for the correction.So I should crop as Dale said?But...isnīt this the exact same angle? http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=361006 The only change is that the Taromīs 737 was landing.....

Dale thank you too..about the third photo,all the other reasons I agree except for digitally manipulated..I used Helicon Noise Filter on this one and well...I filtered only 10% of the total noise of this one..

[G-DALE]

About the 737 landing shot... I'm quite suprised that photo didn't get rejected for "subject cut off/missing" to be honest, no offence

737's obviously have a fuselage which is alot shorter than an A340, so it doesn't really look like it's cropped back too far, when it actually is.

[LX-A343]

Sorry to say, Renato, but if you don't see the obvious, it would be better to start some other hobby. No offence meant!

I think this type of comment is not necessary..I

In this case it was. Again: it is very obvious, why the pic was rejected. You even wrote yourself ....

Of course,it looks like it was neat imaged

What else do you want us to write in your rejection mail?

Gerardo

[Renato]

In this case it was. Again: it is very obvious, why the pic was rejected.

This is not the point anymore but it's not worth it since it's an aviation forum and that's not what this is about..

What else do you want us to write in your rejection mail?

Just read my last post to understand why Iīve questioned this Digitally Manipulated rejection.

[Torin Wilson]

Ever heard the saying 'Less is More'?

Do les editing, and the results will be better. Back right off with the sharpening,and have heaps of tries with neat image to figure out the best way to get optimum results.

[Crazy764]

OK,understood that,only...I already had an accepted photo here at JP and you have no idea about how much neat image it was..I uploaded the wrong picture(I was testing Neat Image) and it was accepted anyway,even looking a LOT like water painting,like Dale said.And that happened three months ago..of course I reuploaded an improved version as soon as I could..

This has been said a billion times, but I'll say it again. Screeners are not machines. They are human. Humans are not always perfectly consistent. That's just impossible.

Now you admit that the rejected photo looks quite bad (too much neat-image). However, your justification is that an even worse photo had been accepted before. But do you really want this not-so-great photo to get accepted and represent you? Why not only select those photos that will be accepted for sure and upload?

[AC888YOW]

Ever heard the saying 'Less is More'?

Do les editing, and the results will be better. Back right off with the sharpening,and have heaps of tries with neat image to figure out the best way to get optimum results.

While I'm sure that tweaking Neatimage is a valid thing to do, I've never found the need to do any manual tweaking at all (using the philosophy less is more here).

I've only ever used the "Auto Profile" button on the Device Noise Profile tab, and it almost always performs great noise-removal without loss of detail.

In the event that it over-"Neatifies" the pic, I usually scrap the photo altogether believing that I did something during the editing that resulted in an overly-noisy pic to begin with ...
________
Interracial gay

[Renato]

Do less editing, and the results will be better.

OK,Iīll try that again...

Screeners are not machines. They are human. Humans are not always perfectly consistent. That's just impossible.

I know!I just thought that a photo like that wasnīt supposed to be accepted in any circunstance..I was wrong then.Sorry!

About Neat Image...I think Helicon Noise Filter is still better because you control(in percent) the amount of noise reduction..in Neat Image too,but Helicon is quicker to operate..

[Torin Wilson]

Ever heard the saying 'Less is More'?

Do les editing, and the results will be better. Back right off with the sharpening,and have heaps of tries with neat image to figure out the best way to get optimum results.

While I'm sure that tweaking Neatimage is a valid thing to do, I've never found the need to do any manual tweaking at all (using the philosophy less is more here).

I've only ever used the "Auto Profile" button on the Device Noise Profile tab, and it almost always performs great noise-removal without loss of detail.

In the event that it over-"Neatifies" the pic, I usually scrap the photo altogether believing that I did something during the editing that resulted in an overly-noisy pic to begin with ...

Auto-profile is ok, but if your photo has no lean spots, with no colour variation (eg grass, and no sky) then it precieves some of those elements are grain when they aren't. when you go to the next window, drag the mose over the image, and it makes a box where it shows what the out come will be, if its over or under done, you need to tweak the settings.

[indian airlines]

Even beeing the worst photographer ever,it is never a good thing to lost a contributor...

This is slightly off-topic. I think you are confusing "contributor" and "consumer". That sentence would work well with the word 'consumer' in it, but seeing as though this is an ENTIRELY free site so far, that sentence loses a lot of the weight it would otherwise have had behind it.

[seahawk]

I could only see the first 2 pics, but i agree with the screeners.

1. has seen too much (way too much) neatimage

2. is overexposed

[PIAA310]

Hello Renato,


Theres no reason to get mad at your rejections, Hell i have a lot of rejections...lol...Just try harder next time and edit a little bit better..

Also, i noticed this in the 2nd picture...