NEW Editing advice thread

[pawelm]

Hi guys,

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5980665
I got this one rejected for bad genre. Unfortunatley I don't remeber which one was selected (I think I selected "civilian" because it has civilian reg, and according to guidelines aircraft operated by government are considered civilian), can you please check it up? And which genre should be selected?

thanks

[pilotgolfer]

Howdy there!
I've had a few rejections for various reasons recently and wondering about them.

For this one, is there anything else besides the noise issue?
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5978213

I can see the dust after it got rejected. I'm not sure why I missed it before. That and I obviously missed the cargo category (or was it special scheme for the 25?). It was pretty cool to see, though!
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5984134

For this one I wanted to include the 748 to balance the picture out a little bit. Is the MD-80 too high here?
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5988698

Finally, we were delayed a couple hours, so we didn't take off until after sunset and this was the view as it was. For the scene I wanted to capture, is it too dark for here? I also see the window frame in the bottom corners when it's equalized now. Also, was the dark sky in the corners contribute to the vignetting reason? I was using my 10-18 wide angle and that's as far as the light went in the sky. Is there any way I can rework it for here or is it for personal?
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5988726

Besides those reasons, is there anything else to spruce these pictures up to database standards?

I appreciate it and thanks a bunch!

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Hi Ryan,
First one : big noise issue indeed but also could have been rejected for cut off as it's not really a tail shot but more an angle and a cropping that only shows the back part of a plane , there's too much fuselage for a tail shot

2nd, missed cargo indeed

3rd, composition works for me but the screener should have selected dark and over sharpening. Needs a complete re-edit imo

4th, unfortunnaly it's really blurry, even the wing, and I doubt it has any chance.

regards

[pilotgolfer]

Hi Ryan,
First one : big noise issue indeed but also could have been rejected for cut off as it's not really a tail shot but more an angle and a cropping that only shows the back part of a plane , there's too much fuselage for a tail shot

2nd, missed cargo indeed

3rd, composition works for me but the screener should have selected dark and over sharpening. Needs a complete re-edit imo

4th, unfortunnaly it's really blurry, even the wing, and I doubt it has any chance.

regards

Awesome, thank you. I'll give the second and third ones another go and shelve the other two.

[JetSetGB]

Hi Admins,
Just Checking if any of these could be appealed?
I have begun to get overwhelmed now looking at the count of rejections I have received lately, and I have a feeling I need to revisit the Kindergarten school for editing.

I was browsing the link at the upload page and was hoping to see if the acceptance parameters have recently changed, the below link seems to be broken.
http://forums.jetphotos.com/showthre...oad-Guidelines

Here are a few reject links which I thought did not have any defect/perhaps acceptable, and I would love to get constructive feedback on bettering the submission.

1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989639 (rejected for dark/underexposed & contrast)

2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989625 (rejected for dark/underexposed, contrast & backlit, I thought the tail was not casting any shadow?)

3. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989326 (the Horizon seems ok to me looking at the vertical lines from the terminal)

4. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5988077 ( Some more information on bad color reject would be appreciated)

5. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5988067 ( I am not sure about any window dirt since it was a brand new aircraft with no smudges/dirt, perhaps I am unable to see any glare)

6. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5986976

7. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5979571 (Any particular area which has remained soft which can be taken care in the fresh edit)

Many thanks in advance for your time,

Cheers!

Girish

[dlowwa]

Hi Admins,
Just Checking if any of these could be appealed?
I have begun to get overwhelmed now looking at the count of rejections I have received lately, and I have a feeling I need to revisit the Kindergarten school for editing.

I was browsing the link at the upload page and was hoping to see if the acceptance parameters have recently changed, the below link seems to be broken.
http://forums.jetphotos.com/showthre...oad-Guidelines

Here are a few reject links which I thought did not have any defect/perhaps acceptable, and I would love to get constructive feedback on bettering the submission.

1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989639 (rejected for dark/underexposed & contrast)

2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989625 (rejected for dark/underexposed, contrast & backlit, I thought the tail was not casting any shadow?)

3. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989326 (the Horizon seems ok to me looking at the vertical lines from the terminal)

4. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5988077 ( Some more information on bad color reject would be appreciated)

5. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5988067 ( I am not sure about any window dirt since it was a brand new aircraft with no smudges/dirt, perhaps I am unable to see any glare)

6. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5986976

7. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5979571 (Any particular area which has remained soft which can be taken care in the fresh edit)

Many thanks in advance for your time,

Cheers!

Girish

A few of those rejections seem a little harsh, in particular the first three. While the light is not great on the first two, I probably would have accepted them. You are correct the BR 77W is not backlit. I also agree about the level on the CX. I don't see anything from the verticals that it is not level, so benefit of the doubt. Feel free to appeal, but of course my opinion doesn't guarantee your appeal will be successful

The other four look like justified rejections to me.

[uveges13]

Hello
Need some help.
Rejection: "Similar photo uploaded"
Why?
I don't have a photo Air Canada Rouge.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989183

Thank you!

[LX-A343]

Hello
Need some help.
Rejection: "Similar photo uploaded"
Why?
I don't have a photo Air Canada Rouge.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5989183

Thank you!

Best would be to appeal it.

[DirtyCrow]

I have got this rejections today

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5992552

I can not really understand it, because i always level my photos on the edge of the runway and it was never a problem.
Also i can not see the softness (is this word correct? you know what i mean)

Same problem with this one
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5992547

It looks sharp to me and i used the category jetphotos gave me and many pictures of this plane are online with exact these informations.

Thanks for your help.

[LX-A343]

I have got this rejections today

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5992552

I can not really understand it, because i always level my photos on the edge of the runway and it was never a problem.
Also i can not see the softness (is this word correct? you know what i mean)

Same problem with this one
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5992547

It looks sharp to me and i used the category jetphotos gave me and many pictures of this plane are online with exact these informations.

Thanks for your help.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5992552
Using the edge of the runway as reference, as you mention, is far less suitable than using known vertical references, as for example buildings. A runway is never level, a building usually is. The verticals in your photo are clearly leaning to the right.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5992547
This one needs more sharpening and needs Business Jet category, as it is an ACJ.

[Rik86]

Already read comment screener, but is it a new rule?
Because I always post the various angles and positions, I look at the right hand on the landing and the same direction in the taxation. Do I see other photos as well because I was discarded?

My photos in the database are these:


The one just discarded is not similar
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=5989930

Thank you

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Yes, as advertised in the forum, we have updated the upload guideline on early july

https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ES-New-version


Regards
Alex

[71sbeetle]

I need some advice, I got this one rejected for too much or too little contrast (I'm assuming it's too little?) should I bump up the contrast in it or should I just not bother with it and move on to another picture? The reason I ask is because I tried putting more contrast but I just doesn't look right, so I'm thinking maybe I should just not upload this shot?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5990835

[dlowwa]

I need some advice, I got this one rejected for too much or too little contrast (I'm assuming it's too little?) should I bump up the contrast in it or should I just not bother with it and move on to another picture? The reason I ask is because I tried putting more contrast but I just doesn't look right, so I'm thinking maybe I should just not upload this shot?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5990835

Doesn't look that bad to me, but I suppose it could use a little more contrast.

[71sbeetle]

Doesn't look that bad to me, but I suppose it could use a little more contrast.

Thank you! I will add a little bit of contrast and then reupload, hopefully it will be good I almost appealed it (would be my first appeal ever) but looking at the histogram I can see what appears to be low contrast. Those new AA liveries are so tricky