Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MarkLawrence - Editing Advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    I realize that crops can be subjective, but what would be more an option to crop this to make it more acceptable, bearing in mind that the original doesn't have the full wingspan of the aircraft.

    Thanks for any help.

    Rejected image: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8822145

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Now you point it out Dana - that is a dust spot - re-editing and I will resubmit - thanks for the assistance!!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    Can someone help me with where the dust spot(s) is/are on this because I think I'm going blind....

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8718096
    On the runway under the 'u' in Sun? That's about all I can see. If that's not dust and actually a mark on the runway, feel free to appeal.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Can someone help me with where the dust spot(s) is/are on this because I think I'm going blind....

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8718096

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Thanks Dana!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    This is an iPhone image taken from an adjacent runway. I know that there are not many phone camera images accepted, but wondered if this had any chance, and what might improve it to give it any chance.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	C17-0187-KFLL-11202020-02.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	777.9 KB
ID:	1103674
    Sorry no chance. Very soft and extreme amounts of noise/compression.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    This is an iPhone image taken from an adjacent runway. I know that there are not many phone camera images accepted, but wondered if this had any chance, and what might improve it to give it any chance.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	C17-0187-KFLL-11202020-02.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	777.9 KB
ID:	1103674

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Thanks Dana - that was the first in the sequence due to clouds - I did manage to get one at the end of the sequence where it's not obstructed and have edited that one.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8423794

    This was rejected for obstruction , but as it is the tug pushing the aircraft back, does it not possible count as being part of the composition?
    This one's a bit subjective, but the instances where we allow the tug to block the gear is when it's unavoidable. Looks like in this case a few seconds earlier you would have been able to get a shot without it blocking.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8423794

    This was rejected for obstruction , but as it is the tug pushing the aircraft back, does it not possible count as being part of the composition?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    Would this be classed as backlit because the sun is right overhead? And other problems screeners might detect too?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	BlueAngels-04.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	661.3 KB
ID:	1089314
    Being backlit is enough that you don't really need to worry about the other issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Would this be classed as backlit because the sun is right overhead? And other problems screeners might detect too?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	BlueAngels-04.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	661.3 KB
ID:	1089314

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Surprisingly, I have just submitted an appeal for it!!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    Interestingly enough Dana, I submitted again with the Small Prop - it got rejected this time for noise/grain - AND - incorrect categories - soooooooo - if I do manage to edit a frame without the noise - I still doesn't know which one will be correct!!!!
    Well... there is some noise visible, but obviously would have been acceptable for me, especially as a new reg. Category rejection was a mistake, so if you were to appeal, I know I would accept it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Interestingly enough Dana, I submitted again with the Small Prop - it got rejected this time for noise/grain - AND - incorrect categories - soooooooo - if I do manage to edit a frame without the noise - I still doesn't know which one will be correct!!!!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X