Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NEW Editing advice thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • B7772ADL
    replied
    Originally posted by austinshih90 View Post
    Hi, I got this rejection for a soft image. >> https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=5970303
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]8004[/ATTACH]
    Is the whole image soft or there are flaws in some parts? I appealed it and got rejected with no comment, so I came here to ask.

    Thanks.
    It's a little soft overall but not massively. I'd try a little more USM overall.

    Leave a comment:


  • austinshih90
    replied
    Hi, I got this rejection for a soft image. >> https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=5970303
    Click image for larger version

Name:	JP287.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	969.9 KB
ID:	1016072
    Is the whole image soft or there are flaws in some parts? I appealed it and got rejected with no comment, so I came here to ask.

    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • janamparikh
    replied
    Just wish to know if the below post is leveled in terms of horizon or not.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8645819

    Leave a comment:


  • Bjorn1979
    replied
    Originally posted by Bjorn1979 View Post
    Thank you would appreciate it if that can be done.
    Any senior screener who is going to accept my appeal ?

    Leave a comment:


  • ErezS
    replied
    Too much or too little contrast


    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5965368
    I'll appreciate any suggestion to improve the situation.

    PS: By the way, may you split this reason to two different reasons?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bjorn1979
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    For me there are not enough dependable references in the image to say it is definitely unlevel, so I can't say you're wrong. Giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt is my philosophy in these situations
    Thank you would appreciate it if that can be done.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Bjorn1979 View Post
    Hi,

    Got this picture rejected for horizon unlevel :

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5963919

    Before appealing i was checking almost every vertical line in the building behind this aircraft and saw straight lines. So to me no horizon unlevel just a acceptable picture and no reason for rejecting. So i decided to appeal.

    Unfortunately my appeal got rejected with the following message : Leaning a touch to the right on the centre verticals. Sorry guys but that's probably less then 0,1ccw and such a small correction that to me it still is an acceptable picture.

    Bjorn
    For me there are not enough dependable references in the image to say it is definitely unlevel, so I can't say you're wrong. Giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt is my philosophy in these situations

    Leave a comment:


  • Bjorn1979
    replied
    Hi,

    Got this picture rejected for horizon unlevel :

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5963919

    Before appealing i was checking almost every vertical line in the building behind this aircraft and saw straight lines. So to me no horizon unlevel just a acceptable picture and no reason for rejecting. So i decided to appeal.

    Unfortunately my appeal got rejected with the following message : Leaning a touch to the right on the centre verticals. Sorry guys but that's probably less then 0,1ccw and such a small correction that to me it still is an acceptable picture.

    Bjorn

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Hi,

    Can I please get some help with the following rejects:

    1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5944191 - The ATC tower behind the tail was used as ref to level the shot. No details are blown out due to over exposure. Any lesser and I am afraid it will be rejected as 'Under Exposed' considering the evening light.
    All verticals leaning left = needs CW rotation.

    Originally posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post

    2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5945550 - I am checking the CN info in another thread, but I felt the 'Foreground clutter' rejection was a bit harsh considering that it is a museum and its only a rope over wheel and perimeter pole over small part of landing arrester.

    Regards,
    Siddarth
    General rule for clutter on preserved aircraft is if it's avoidable from another angle, then yes, obstruction. If there is no way to avoid it from any angle, then not obstruction. Can't really tell in your image which case would apply.

    Leave a comment:


  • Siddarth.Bhandary
    replied
    Hi,

    Can I please get some help with the following rejects:

    1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5944191 - The ATC tower behind the tail was used as ref to level the shot. No details are blown out due to over exposure. Any lesser and I am afraid it will be rejected as 'Under Exposed' considering the evening light.

    2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5945550 - I am checking the CN info in another thread, but I felt the 'Foreground clutter' rejection was a bit harsh considering that it is a museum and its only a rope over wheel and perimeter pole over small part of landing arrester.

    Regards,
    Siddarth

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by JVSpotter View Post
    Sorry that I keep asking you questions, but is it appeal worthy?
    That's up to you, but I could see it going either way, so no guarantee if you did.

    Leave a comment:


  • JesseV
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Hard to tell at that size, but doesn't look too bad to me.
    Sorry that I keep asking you questions, but is it appeal worthy?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by JVSpotter View Post
    Hard to tell at that size, but doesn't look too bad to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Majky737 View Post
    Hi,

    Are these two sharp enought?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]7939[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]7940[/ATTACH]

    Thanks
    Marian
    First is a bit soft; the second is passable for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Majky737
    replied
    Sharp

    Hi,

    Are these two sharp enought?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	OE-HOO_2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	350.4 KB
ID:	1016023
    Click image for larger version

Name:	N10SL_2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	334.4 KB
ID:	1016024

    Thanks
    Marian

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X