Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you!

[Bart Bandy]

The quest to understand "Blurry"

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3593264

Blurry seems to be my biggest challenge. The background is an intentional mess, but I don't see it on the aircraft. Titles and tail seem OK to me. What am I missing?

Thanks

[coke]

Got this one rejected:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3593049

Where is the heat distortion affecting? And is it too much contrast? Or too little?

Thanks

[biggerben]

Hey

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3595093

Unlevel horizon is clear. But could one of you screeners look up what categories I actually ticked? More than two weeks after I uploaded it, this is something I really can't remember and I don't want to make the same mistake twice! I'm assuming no categories are correct?

Thanks
-Ben

[Brenden S]

Air France B744, the nose is blurry, I can see it.
United CRJ add some contrast it seams, but try auto contrast and then fade it about 50% and see how it comes up
The B747SP maybe bizjet was not ticked?

[biggerben]

The B747SP maybe bizjet was not ticked?

I doubt it needs to be. Of the 177 photos in the database, only 77 are categorised as bizjet

[biggerben]

Blurry seems to be my biggest challenge.

Friendly tip: 630mm (including crop factor) and 1/160s very difficult to pull off. If it is not possible to get closer, try at a higher ISO or a larger aperture (that is a lower number after the f/).

Gereral rule of thumb: 1/(focal length in mm) seconds should be possible without image stabiliser.

Hope that helps
-Ben

[JunkieIT]

Pier:

Middle fuselage ist soft. One touch of USM should fix it.

Ok, thank you.

[coke]

So after the consent of the pre-screening forum, I am slightly disappointed over the reasons for this rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3597679

So maybe it's a little dark, and maybe it's a little undersharpened but...not centered?

I am considering appealing this, but please if the crew could help me edit the photo accordingly.

thanks

Jerry

[ErezS]

Regarding unreasonable rejection

Hi,
I'm sorry to write here again, but I must ask the following rejection:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3595978
When I received this rejection (On friday morning) I sent immediately appeal, and I wrote the following quote:
Hi,
which one is the similar?
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?ids=552683,7188983,6143269,6146788,6344197,6352738,6384478,6393547,6401424,7174656,7194087,7202095,7205102
In my humble opinion, none of these pictures can not answer the question above.
Please, don't be reject it without a real reason, and should not cause me wrong unjustified.
Thanking you in advance,
Erez.


Apparently (I think) it was difficult to decide on this appeal, that just now (after about 33 hrs) I received the following reply:
Your appeal for photo id 3595978 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> You have another photo of this heliport already.
>> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3595978

The reason I think about the difficulty to decide, is due about another appeal that I sent after this appeal, and I received a reply very fast!
So it seems very logical to me that it was difficulty to decide on this appeal.

I'm sorry to say about the above answer: it's completely unreasonable.
The previous photo was taken in the heliport (in the ground level) and shows only some of helicopters ( http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6393547 ) while the rejected photo was taken from a height place in parking 3, and shows as you see some of business jets.
Therefore, it does not make sense that it can be considered as "similar".

I have no doubt that some of you are very strict with me compared to other photographers, especially on this issue of "similar".
I see clearly from time to time on JP that you accept photos from other photographers, and these photos are very similar, and however with me you are very strict on this issue, and I cannot understand why.

Have a good weekend,
With best regards & respect to all of you,
Erez.

PS
Maybe do you agree with me now, so there is nothing to answer me?
Anyway, I'm waiting and hope for answers about the above issue.
Thanks in advance.

[ErwinS]

So after the consent of the pre-screening forum, I am slightly disappointed over the reasons for this rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3597679

So maybe it's a little dark, and maybe it's a little undersharpened but...not centered?

I am considering appealing this, but please if the crew could help me edit the photo accordingly.

thanks

Jerry

Jerry she is indeed a bit to high in the frame. Some lowering, USM and brightening should do the trick.

[ErwinS]

I doubt it needs to be. Of the 177 photos in the database, only 77 are categorised as bizjet

That is then a fault in our dbase, she is a bizjet. Will send in a correction for that.

[coke]

Jerry she is indeed a bit to high in the frame. Some lowering, USM and brightening should do the trick.

Thanks Erwin, but even if I am including a scene of the ground? That doesn't count either?

[wrth]

Just to improve the quality of my photo editing please, can you explain me, on the picture, the defects?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3596361

Thank you.

[ErezS]

Hello all,

I'm really confused ... and not know whether to laugh or cry about the following situation...
Although I have not received any answer about the previous issue taht I wrote a few days ago (http://forums.jetphotos.net/showpost...postcount=4434) maybe because you're know that I'm right,
and here is another new issue!


This morning I received the following rejection:

REJECTED PHOTOS=1
RejectID: 3601620	Time in queue: 16 days 11 hours 20 minutes
	Airline Swiss International Air Lines Aircraft Airbus A340-313X Registration HB-JMH
	Rejection Reason(s): - Horizon unlevel Appeal this photo
	Screener's Comments: needs cw

As you can see, there is a comment: needs cw


I think that the picture it's leveled, so I sent this appeal:
Hello,
I'm apologize to appeal again.
I suppose that the screener is rely on the building located just below the aircraft but it's a optical mistake no doubt! This is the architecture of this building, I wish you could see it in high resolution here. The top floor of this building was shorter on one side than the other side, so there is an optical illusion that it is not leveled.
Please look at the building at the bottom of the picture, and on the two antennas you see in this picture, and it's see clearly that they are leveled.
Thanks in advance,
Erez.

Now I got the following answer:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your appeal for photo id 3601620 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> needs CCW and looks quite noisy
>> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3601620
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So I'm very confused ...
Does it need rotation clockwise or counterclockwise?

I do not think the picture is noisy, but it's not the issue now.
The issue in this discussion is about the problem that I wrote here for many times:
Each person sees things differently.
And a man like me, don't know what to think and don't know what to make with the pictures.

Best regards,
Erez.

[LX-A343]

Could have been a typo by one of the screener, but needs definitely CW rotation.