Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NEW Editing advice thread

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

  • Originally posted by Julian S. View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • 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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Eduardo Paix„o Silva View Post
        Hello.
        Rejected due to overexposed. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6088724

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

        Originally posted by 777MAN View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • 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

          Click image for larger version

Name:	N365NW_09_22.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	725.9 KB
ID:	1017226

          Thanks for the time.

          Thanks,
          Ninad

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ninadranade View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • 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?
              Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_2816ps2x1280.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	997.9 KB
ID:	1017262

              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Eduardo Paix„o Silva View Post
                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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pdeboer View Post
                  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.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_2816ps2x1024.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	660.6 KB
ID:	1017280

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

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_5731psbx1024.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	651.4 KB
ID:	1017281

                  Comment


                  • 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: Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0711 (2)-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	863.9 KB
ID:	1017306

                    Thanks in advance for all the help and expertise!

                    Comment


                    • 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?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 71sbeetle View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by YULplanespotting View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                            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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Eduardo Paix„o Silva View Post
                              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

                              Comment


                              • 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!

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_4632ps7x1024.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	912.9 KB
ID:	1017349
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_4632ps6x1024.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	926.0 KB
ID:	1017348

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X