NEW Editing advice thread

[B7772ADL]

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.

[austinshih90]

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

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.

[janamparikh]

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

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

[Bjorn1979]

Thank you would appreciate it if that can be done.

Any senior screener who is going to accept my appeal ?

[ErezS]

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?

[Bjorn1979]

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.

[dlowwa]

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

[Bjorn1979]

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

[dlowwa]

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.

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.

[Siddarth.Bhandary]

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

[dlowwa]

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.

[JesseV]

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?

[dlowwa]

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5944389

Is this one really that soft?

Hard to tell at that size, but doesn't look too bad to me.

[dlowwa]

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.

[Majky737]

Sharp

Hi,

Are these two sharp enought?




Thanks
Marian