NEW Editing advice thread

[wkd001]

Hey

Darken the dark tones and brighten the bright tones a bit so that there were no gaps in the histogram.
Something like this should be ok, but for the final result you should ask a screener for pre-screening.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9253[/ATTACH]

*NOTE THAT I HAVE DOWNLOADED YOUR PICTURE ONLY FOR EDIT BECAUSE OF YOUR REJECTION!* It will be deleted right now!

I hope this will help you a bit. Have a nice weekend!

Thanks Julian,

Will give it a try.

[777MAN]

Too much or too little contrast (dont see that - always open to views)
Similar photo uploaded
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6088895


accepted photo https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8698426

am i miss interpreting something here within the guidelines?

cheers tony

[dlowwa]

Hello.
Rejected due to overexposed. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6088724

Is it ok now?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9255[/ATTACH]

Looks ok.

Too much or too little contrast (dont see that - always open to views)
Similar photo uploaded
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6088895


accepted photo https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8698426

am i miss interpreting something here within the guidelines?

cheers tony

Same side + same day are now considered similar since the most recent guideline update. The upside is that you can now upload similar angles from different dates, but your two images above do qualify as similar now.

[ninadranade]

Hi Team,

The below shot was rejected due to oversharpened. Please let me know this is ok.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6086803



Thanks for the time.

Thanks,
Ninad

[dlowwa]

Hi Team,

The below shot was rejected due to oversharpened. Please let me know this is ok.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6086803

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9277[/ATTACH]

Thanks for the time.

Thanks,
Ninad

Sharpening looks ok, though it is also a bit darker.

[Eduardo Paixão Silva]

Hello.
This one - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6085031 - was rejected the first time due to oversharp; the second time due to "Too much or too little contrast; JPG compression artefacts and Bad Info".

I edited the photo again is it ok?


About the "bad info" i've read the general guidelines and because i was not clarified i did what was written here: https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ght=enter+myef

So can any JP member explain me what i did wrong and what's the right info for Santa Cruz (Flores Island)- LPFL Portugal - Azores airport overview?

Thanks again.

[pdeboer]

Hello.
This one - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6085031 - was rejected the first time due to oversharp; the second time due to "Too much or too little contrast; JPG compression artefacts and Bad Info".

I edited the photo again is it ok?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9317[/ATTACH]

About the "bad info" i've read the general guidelines and because i was not clarified i did what was written here: https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ght=enter+myef

So can any JP member explain me what i did wrong and what's the right info for Santa Cruz (Flores Island)- LPFL Portugal - Azores airport overview?

Thanks again.

It still has compression artifacts.
You missed the airport code in the regi field , you need to follow the upload guidelines, see 1.2.3: https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ES-New-version

[Eduardo Paixão Silva]

It still has compression artifacts.
You missed the airport code in the regi field , you need to follow the upload guidelines, see 1.2.3: https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ES-New-version

Hello pdeboer, i reduced the size of the photo, can you please tell me if the compression artifacts are still relevant? Thanks for your time.



Can i also get your opinion on this one rejected in the past due also to compression artifacts?

[YULplanespotting]

Hi,
These pictures got rejected a little over a week ago for a few reasons. I've tried fixing the Air Canada 787 picture and would like to know if the one attached below is better than the one rejected. As for the other two pictures, I would like to know what to fix and how to fix the issues (if possible).

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6077831 (Over Processed / Bad postprocessing, Blurry, Too much or too little contrast)
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6077829 (Over Processed / Bad postprocessing, Undersharpened (Soft), Too much or too little contrast)
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6077820 (Dark / Underexposed, Undersharpened (Soft)

Improved 787:

Thanks in advance for all the help and expertise!

[71sbeetle]

I'm curious about this one:
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6086676

Over Processed / Bad postprocessing is the rejection reason, it was edited just like every other one I upload. What am I looking for?

[dlowwa]

I'm curious about this one:
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6086676

Over Processed / Bad postprocessing is the rejection reason, it was edited just like every other one I upload. What am I looking for?

Light editing halos visible around tail and gear. Likely from clarity/shadow-highlight/similar tool use.

[dlowwa]

Hi,
These pictures got rejected a little over a week ago for a few reasons. I've tried fixing the Air Canada 787 picture and would like to know if the one attached below is better than the one rejected. As for the other two pictures, I would like to know what to fix and how to fix the issues (if possible).

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6077831 (Over Processed / Bad postprocessing, Blurry, Too much or too little contrast)
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6077829 (Over Processed / Bad postprocessing, Undersharpened (Soft), Too much or too little contrast)
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6077820 (Dark / Underexposed, Undersharpened (Soft)

Improved 787: [ATTACH=CONFIG]9363[/ATTACH]

Thanks in advance for all the help and expertise!

As with above editing halos visible (even stronger in your case). Try turning off the D-Lighting in your D90, or avoid the clarity/shadow-highlight/similar tool use mentioned above. For softness, add more sharpening. Although soft, I don't see any blurry spots, so maybe ignore that rejection.

[71sbeetle]

Light editing halos visible around tail and gear. Likely from clarity/shadow-highlight/similar tool use.

Thank you! I just looked at the original file and for some reason it's 2 stops under-exposed I guess those came from bringing the exposure back up. Lesson learned for next time

[Eduardo Paixão Silva]

Hello pdeboer, i reduced the size of the photo, can you please tell me if the compression artifacts are still relevant? Thanks for your time.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9336[/ATTACH]

Can i also get your opinion on this one rejected in the past due also to compression artifacts?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9337[/ATTACH]

Hello JP Team. Can i get your opinion about compression artifacts on these 2 photos. Thanks again

[Eduardo Paixão Silva]

Hello.
About this one: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6094470

I reduced the size to x1024 and sharped a bit more. Any of these acceptable? Thanks again!