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

[LOT747-400]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3803065

Whats wrong with the contrast in this one, and how can I fix it?

Thanks,
-Phil

[Michael Wolf]

Mark, hard to tell from the small size photo but it appears to me this one is too blurry to begin with, sorry.

Phil, it needs a dash less contrast as your dark areas are getting blacked out.

Cheers

[wrxflyer]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3822473

Dear screeners, this one was rejected for blurry.
I checked the RAW file over and over again, but except of a bit softness, I really don't see the blurry parts.

Please help me out of it.
I really don't think it's blurry at all.
Thank you

Freek

[hdgrubb]

Hey all
Had this one rejected today: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3822199

Now, I can assure you that the "dust spot" is a Delta 752


Hah, I only kid. Sorry to interrupt the board. I'll have this dust spot fixed asap

Thanks

[brianw999]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3822473

Dear screeners, this one was rejected for blurry.
I checked the RAW file over and over again, but except of a bit softness, I really don't see the blurry parts.

Please help me out of it.
I really don't think it's blurry at all.
Thank you

Freek

I don't have Photoshop available here at work but it looks more soft than blurry.

[KrisV]

Here is one that baffled me hugely.
"No Motive"
How does this have no motive, It is an air->ground shot in the middle of Alaska at 7AM with a rare site in Fairbanks, a JAL 767. The shadow is my aircraft taking off.
I want to appeal it...but I don't know if I should.

[Bjorn1979]

Need some attention on this one guys :

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3825777

It was rejected for cropping/photo edges/size ratio.
I appealed for it and the screener send me next message :
"It looks as if you resized without keeping a constant size ratio"

This is the original unedited image :

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3639/img9645b.jpg

As you can see the right wheels look maybe a bit oval but this is already seen the original and i think it's because of it's captured from this angle. I didn't change any settings in photoshop. I'm very sure that 1024*683 was set before cropping.

This is a new version and it's looks exactly the same as the original one.
The wheels have the same look as the rejected version.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/131/img9645k.jpg

Based on above facts i think it's more than acceptable to database so hopefully the rejection can be reversed and picture can be accepted.

Thank you.

Bjorn

[pvupilot]

Here is one that drives me up the wall... JPEG compression artifacts. I have done my reading and still can't figure out how to spot it! This photo got rejected due to it, but to me it looks smooth and ok. How can I remove the artifacts without affected the overall quality?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3826585

Thanks

[brianw999]

Need some attention on this one guys :

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3825777

It was rejected for cropping/photo edges/size ratio.
I appealed for it and the screener send me next message :
"It looks as if you resized without keeping a constant size ratio"

This is the original unedited image :

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3639/img9645b.jpg

As you can see the right wheels look maybe a bit oval but this is already seen the original and i think it's because of it's captured from this angle. I didn't change any settings in photoshop. I'm very sure that 1024*683 was set before cropping.

This is a new version and it's looks exactly the same as the original one.
The wheels have the same look as the rejected version.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/131/img9645k.jpg

Based on above facts i think it's more than acceptable to database so hopefully the rejection can be reversed and picture can be accepted.

Thank you.

Bjorn

Hi Bjorn,
I was the screener who made the "Oval wheels, tall and short" comment. This was based on the fact that to me the wheels appeared to be vertically oval and the aircraft appeared to be too tall and too short in proportions for an A319, classic indications of incorrect resizing where the width of the image is not as long as it should be due to cropping constraints not being maintained.

Short answer ? Yes...you're right and I was wrong. My apologies but it just didn't look right.
Unfortunately, now that it's been through the appeal process I believe that it will have to be re-uploaded but I'll have to leave that side of things to the seniors.

A note from me to them here....if the image can be added then please do so. I and the other rejecting screener were 100% wrong here.

[Bjorn1979]

Hi Brian,

Thank you for responding. After the appeal results e-mail came in i first really thought my settings in PS where not good any more and had to double check it first.

Good to now that image is good and hopefully can be added after an appeal has been rejected. If not please leave me a note so i can re-upload it and leave an comment to the screeners.

Thank you.

Cheers
Bjorn

[brianw999]

Here is one that drives me up the wall... JPEG compression artifacts. I have done my reading and still can't figure out how to spot it! This photo got rejected due to it, but to me it looks smooth and ok. How can I remove the artifacts without affected the overall quality?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3826585

Thanks

The compression can be seen in the sky which is very pixellated and the title and registration text letters which are "squished".
Minimal processing is the answer for you especially as you are using a relatively low end compact camera. Sorry to have to say that but it is a factor that has to be considered.
Could you post the original unprocessed image for us to look at please ?

[LX-A343]

Okidoki, Massa ... done!

Hi Bjorn,
I was the screener who made the "Oval wheels, tall and short" comment. This was based on the fact that to me the wheels appeared to be vertically oval and the aircraft appeared to be too tall and too short in proportions for an A319, classic indications of incorrect resizing where the width of the image is not as long as it should be due to cropping constraints not being maintained.

Short answer ? Yes...you're right and I was wrong. My apologies but it just didn't look right.
Unfortunately, now that it's been through the appeal process I believe that it will have to be re-uploaded but I'll have to leave that side of things to the seniors.

A note from me to them here....if the image can be added then please do so. I and the other rejecting screener were 100% wrong here.

[pvupilot]

The compression can be seen in the sky which is very pixellated and the title and registration text letters which are "squished".
Minimal processing is the answer for you especially as you are using a relatively low end compact camera. Sorry to have to say that but it is a factor that has to be considered.
Could you post the original unprocessed image for us to look at please ?

Thanks for the feedback! I know I use a low end camera, it does make it a little more enjoyable when I can get a photo to work from it though as it can be a challenge Here is the full unedited original shot. In the shot I uploaded on jetphotos, I can't see any pixles in the sky. In fact, I did photoshop a ton of pixles out of the sky and it turned out better than some of the shots I have already accepted on here. Still learning the whole aviation photography skills!

Thanks!

[Bjorn1979]

Okidoki, Massa ... done!

Thank you Gerardo

[brianw999]

Right then. Here's my version. The major problem was the noise in the sky which cameras of the type that you use tend to create and I have used Noise Ninja to deal with that. You chose to use a 4:3 crop 1024x768 when a 3:2 crop 1024x683 would have been more appropriate and would have reduced the amount of uninteresting sky and foreground. I have processed to the 4:3 crop that you used.
Other than the NoiseNinja noise reduction it didn't require a huge amount of processing in Photoshop CS3. I reduced some noise on the fuselage but to a lower level than that used on the sky. I sharpened overall two times at 50_0.2_0 and then gave the Phillipines title and the fuselage logo a further two shots of the same as selective sharpening.
The image is not that sharp to start with and I think the compression on the aircraft that you produced was more a case of oversharpening on a small image.
Anyway...try this one if you wish...