Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your most common rejection?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Your most common rejection?

    I was curious because recently I've gotten some rejections more than others, specially contrast.

    So, I analyzed my statistics, I keep very thorough records of rejection reasons, queue and upload ID's, upload names and dates, acceptance ratios, etc (And still I can't get a job, go figure!)

    So, these are my top rejection reasons:

    1. Over/Under Sharpen
    2. Noise (I do have a P&S)
    3. Category/Info (Mainly in the past)
    4. Contrast (The one I thought was the main one.. so I was wrong about that)
    5. Horizon unlevel


    If you don't have detailed info, just off the top of your head which do you think is your most common rejection reason?

  • #2
    Wow,

    I am also a statistics- freak, but not in this way........

    I have discoverd that it depends also on who's screening. Normally I've only rejections for over/undersharpened, but now and then there are suddenly more rejections for noise & grain.
    Without pointing at anybody; some screeners are looking better for that kind of reasons than others,so the rejection statistics will be different by the week.

    Freek

    Comment


    • #3
      I dont upload much but the one i hated was horizon unlevel, even with the level tool on PS ill still sit there looking at it going, it doesnt seem right,
      Sam Rudge
      A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash

      Comment


      • #4
        Horizon unlevel,one of my most common and the most hated rejection reason on my side until i found out the ruler tool

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Simpleboy View Post
          I dont upload much but the one i hated was horizon unlevel, even with the level tool on PS ill still sit there looking at it going, it doesnt seem right,
          that's my biggest one as well, even using the grid in the view finder I'm way off. It's pathetic how I can't keep the dam thing straight...

          The next would be soft, I always think I'm using to much ISM so usually end up too soft....

          Comment


          • #6
            Exactly the same for me as Top_Gun, If I think a photo is sharp enough, soft rejection.
            In the begin backlit was also a lot of times one of the rejection, because I had absolutely no idea what it was and how to see if it was a backlit or not. My ratio is now 54%

            Comment


            • #7
              Yep, that fear of oversharpening is always there, specially with a p&s camera that sometimes sharpens the pic internally....

              and freek, I've also noticed there are more rejections by a specific reason from time to time.... maybe you're right, there are screeners who give more importance to a specific issue...

              Comment


              • #8
                For me it's definitely over/under sharpen. I always seem to mess it up. Next one would probably be lighting or contrast. Though I'm getting better.

                -Chris

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by z740 View Post
                  For me it's definitely over/under sharpen. I always seem to mess it up.
                  Same here.

                  I do always laugh when I get a picture rejected for "over sharpened" and "under sharpened (soft)" at the same time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Its actually quite easy to get those two together. We see a lot of people who have camera or plane movement in the picture, probably from too slower shutter speed. Then to compensate when the pic is edited too much sharpening is wound in so you then have areas that look soft and areas that look overshaprened. Most screeners actually use the 'overprocessed' reason on these sort of shots. (e.g. overprocessed to take out the blur/soft).

                    I guess from the screeners point of view this thread could be renamed "Your most common mistake while editing?".

                    As a screener you don't know how disheartening it is sometimes when you open a shot to screen and it looks fantatstic, and you're ready to hit the instant add button until you notice a cmos/dust spot that should have been picked up but wasn't and you have to reject. Then you check the next shot from the same uploader and you see the same spot on all the uploaders pics. Now thats disheartening.

                    The same goes for info. It's so easy to find the info on these aircraft on the web these days.

                    And my other favourite is contrast. If there is one bit of advise I offer to all uploaders, it is to learn about the Histogram, how it works, and what it tells you not only about the shot out of the camera, but after you have post processed. There seems to be a run lately of underexposed or bad contrast shots, that could have been easily fixed in post processing and a look at the Histogram.

                    Remember the histogram is your friend, get to know it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I do always laugh when I get a picture rejected for "over sharpened" and "under sharpened (soft)" at the same time.
                      I can see why that might cause some head scratching but, as Billsville says, it is a result of the use of selective USM where some parts are soft and some are oversharp. When screening I've got into the habit of ticking overprocessed, soft and oversharp and then leave the following message to the photog...." Some parts soft, some parts oversharp" to explain the rejection. I've noticed that other screeners are doing the same.

                      My personal majority reasons for rejection ?

                      1. Bad info-Genre.

                      It's my own fault...I upload a bunch of civil shots which always default to civil and then upload a military shot which doesn't always default to military and I miss it. As a screener that is a MOST embarrassing reject

                      2. Horizon.

                      Anyone who has shot at Malta Luqa or Popham GA field in the UK will know about horizon problems !! Often, an explanation note to the screeners will avoid this rejection.

                      I'm personally quite pleased that I rarely get soft or contrast rejections. I'm sure that the reason for this is down to my religiously checking the histogram, setting not only the highlight and dark ends of the graph but also adjusting the midtones, and using layer masks when sharpening.

                      When I'm screening, by far the most common rejection reasons I come across are soft and oversharp.
                      Contrast comes a close second and I am amazed at how many photogs very obviously haven't checked the histogram to adjust this feature of a picture.
                      The most irritating reject reason is the one that Billsville mentions i.e. CMOS dust. Apart from being very easy to avoid by regularly cleaning the sensor, and easy to cure by checking the equalised version it really is saddening to have to reject a set of uploads that would otherwise be fine.

                      Many photogs use the clone tool to fix spots but this relies on the adjacent area selected as the clone area being exactly the same tone as the area being fixed. Personally I prefer to use the heal tool as I get a much cleaner fix. Clone fixing can, in itself, generate a manipulation reject due to the messy cloned area.

                      Talking of manipulation, please don't be tempted to replace a sky !! It's very easy for screeners to tell that this has been done, especially the ones where the photogs have deleted the entire sky and replaced it with a flood fill single colour blue. Yes, believe me, it does happen and it results in future pics being very closely examined !!

                      Finally....reuploading unchanged rejections. It shows a total disregard of the fact that a fault has not been rectified and again, there is a very easy way for us to tell that a pic has not been touched.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Billsville View Post
                        Remember the histogram is your friend, get to know it.
                        'The histogram is the digital photographers' best friend' is one of my favourite sayings, and it really is true!

                        I've had a couple rejected lately for being either under or over sharpened, but that's what I get for editing around 80 on the trot. Doesn't do the old eyes much good! Also a couple for too much or two little contrast, which I haven't necessarily agree with as the histogram has been fine and they've looked essentially the same as others that have been accepted, but these minor variations will always exist!

                        Paul
                        Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

                        My images on Flickr

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                          I can see why that might cause some head scratching but, as Billsville says, it is a result of the use of selective USM where some parts are soft and some are oversharp. When screening I've got into the habit of ticking overprocessed, soft and oversharp and then leave the following message to the photog...." Some parts soft, some parts oversharp" to explain the rejection. I've noticed that other screeners are doing the same.
                          Oh I know, but I figure it is better to laugh then get angry over a rejection.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I definitely fall into the soft/undersharpened category.

                            Ray.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Usually contrast for me (despite using histogram) Have had a run on 'horizon unlevel' in recent weeks but i put that down to the location being particularly tricky (Lanseria & Joburg) Also using a wide angle lens does not help as the centre can be ok but the edges can be off.

                              Brian - agree with you about Popham - it is my local GA field and my advice is to try and avoid getting an obvious horizon in a picture.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X