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

[oo-jan]

Hi Jan,

Just try it with some 0,5 cw rotation and you will see that the result is much better

[patkini]

Hello,

I received a rejection for this earlier for softness & since then have considerably added more sharpness. But now it has been rejected for Blurry as well. If it is really considered to be blurry & unsharpened, should I try & work further on this or consider this only for personal collection? If former, please do guide about the steps to be taken.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4217691

Regards,
Pats

[LX-A343]

This one is for the personal collection. The photo is simply too blurry, which can't be fixed.

[Leftseat86]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4217996

Rejection Reason(s): - Bad Info: Location


I'm guessing that despite LAX being clearly visible in the shot, the fact that we are out over the ocean in flight means I should re-upload this as "Inflight - USA California" ??

[Alex - Spot-This !]

I'm guessing that despite LAX being clearly visible in the shot, the fact that we are out over the ocean in flight means I should re-upload this as "Inflight - USA California" ??

Yes absolutely. LAX is clearly not the main subject of the pic.

Regards
Alex

[pdeboer]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4217996


Rejection Reason(s): - Bad Info: Location


I'm guessing that despite LAX being clearly visible in the shot, the fact that we are out over the ocean in flight means I should re-upload this as "Inflight - USA California" ??

Great to see you uploading again !

[Leftseat86]

Great to see you uploading again !

Little Lumix camera is a lot of fun for me while traveling. Happy to be back!

I have re-uploaded with corrected info, it's a shame I didn't catch the mistake earlier after it sat in the queue for more than 2 weeks haha. Slowly getting used to being vigilant about these things once again!

[pdeboer]

Little Lumix camera is a lot of fun for me while traveling. Happy to be back!

I have re-uploaded with corrected info, it's a shame I didn't catch the mistake earlier after it sat in the queue for more than 2 weeks haha. Slowly getting used to being vigilant about these things once again!

Yeah, these little compact camera's can have amazing quality.
If you are not sure about the correct info or categories, you can always check the upload guideline, or ask here before uploading. Could save some frustration

[patkini]

Hello,

This got rejected for Horizon Unlevel and Motive. While I can definitely rework on the horizon, I fail to understand the rejection for the motive part.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4218968

I request the screeners/experience members to guide me.

Regards,
Pats

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Hello,

This got rejected for Horizon Unlevel and Motive. While I can definitely rework on the horizon, I fail to understand the rejection for the motive part.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4218968

I request the screeners/experience members to guide me.

Regards,
Pats

It was actually rejected for motive because it's hard to see what you're actually trying to show. The planes ? small and quiet blurry... the ramp ?

Horizon is the main rejection reason here, but Motive was added to make you realize that sometimes a picture just doesn't show much, which seems to be the case here.

Regards
Alex

[Leftseat86]

Yeah, these little compact camera's can have amazing quality.
If you are not sure about the correct info or categories, you can always check the upload guideline, or ask here before uploading. Could save some frustration

Actually, I did, I think this sentence threw me off in my head:

1.1.6 Uploading Wing Views

Shots taken airborne need to be 'Inflight' unless an airport is visible in the shot.

Obviously this means if you are actually over said airport, not if one is visible in the distance, I just didn't think about that, plus LAX was in the auto-fill from my previous upload.

[Leftseat86]

For being a brand new 748i, this window was quite dirty...I cloned a lot of spots and blemishes, but there are still some lines and smudges, does this have a chance?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=4234472

[aviationhk]

Hi, I was very surprised this one got 3 different rejection reasons..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4217723

I agree it may be tad over-sharp, but where is it over-exposed? Edge of the wings?

I'm not sure how to rectify the contrast on this one either. Does it need less contrast maybe?

Some advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.

[Simpleboy]

Hi, I was very surprised this one got 3 different rejection reasons..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4217723

I agree it may be tad over-sharp, but where is it over-exposed? Edge of the wings?

I'm not sure how to rectify the contrast on this one either. Does it need less contrast maybe?

Some advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Hey there,

There's too much contrast in the image. There's quite a bit of pure black and pure white in it.
I do think that if you correct the contrast it will also fix the overexposure.
And since you agree on the oversharp, I wont comment on that.

[patkini]

Hi,

The below image was rejected for horizon unlevel. I have used the horizontal boundary wall (blue coloured) & also, another brownish hedge like structure in the foreground, both of which seem level.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=4223198

Need some guidance on this image.

Regards,
Pats