Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pkautzsch - Editing Advice

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

  • #31
    Hello again, got a few questions.

    1. Framing ok like that? Kept more space to the right to include Easyjet.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	0205_VQ-BET.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	952.8 KB
ID:	1034642

    2. Crop ok?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	0221_G-EZDI_NR.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	1,016.6 KB
ID:	1034643

    3. Still ok or backlit?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	0555_I-ADJX.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	746.8 KB
ID:	1034644

    Thank you

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
      Hello again, got a few questions.

      1. Framing ok like that? Kept more space to the right to include Easyjet.
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]23895[/ATTACH]

      2. Crop ok?
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]23896[/ATTACH]

      3. Still ok or backlit?
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]23897[/ATTACH]

      Thank you
      First would likely be a centering rejection, as the EasyJet in the background doesn't justify the crop. Second should be ok, but third also likely a rejection for contrast/backlit.

      Comment


      • #33
        Had a "similar" rejection. Seems I mixed up regs while uploading, this one (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7285486) is actually D-AICF and not CG, while the other one (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7285485) shows the correct D-AICG reg entered.
        IIRC ID 7285486 should rather be a "bad info" rejection then, right?
        As I had a few other pics from the same spot rejected for contrast or oversharpen, I wonder if the two pics would have any chances if I appealed or re-uploaded with proper info?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
          Had a "similar" rejection. Seems I mixed up regs while uploading, this one (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7285486) is actually D-AICF and not CG, while the other one (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7285485) shows the correct D-AICG reg entered.
          IIRC ID 7285486 should rather be a "bad info" rejection then, right?
          As I had a few other pics from the same spot rejected for contrast or oversharpen, I wonder if the two pics would have any chances if I appealed or re-uploaded with proper info?
          Yes, Bad Info would have been more proper rejection. Contrast borderline but acceptable for me, I'd be more concerned about the oversharpening.

          Comment


          • #35
            A few crop questions, would these have a chance?

            1.
            Click image for larger version

Name:	3286_D-AIPZ_A320_amerikanische_T.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	843.2 KB
ID:	1042638

            2.
            Click image for larger version

Name:	3455_D-ABOK_B753_t.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	557.8 KB
ID:	1042639

            3. obviously the fuselage is not horizontally centered, would this be ok here?
            Click image for larger version

Name:	3019_G-EUUD_A320_T.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	995.7 KB
ID:	1042640

            Thanks in advance

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
              A few crop questions, would these have a chance?

              1.
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]28492[/ATTACH]

              2.
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]28493[/ATTACH]

              3. obviously the fuselage is not horizontally centered, would this be ok here?
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]28494[/ATTACH]

              Thanks in advance
              1. soft/blurry
              2. borderline cut off
              3. soft/blurry, contrast

              Comment


              • #37
                Here are some more doubt candidates I don't want to directly put in the queue, would anyone mind to comment?
                Especially wrt exposure/curves and heat haze.


                1
                Click image for larger version

Name:	2909_C-FITL_B773_T.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	980.9 KB
ID:	1042672


                2
                Click image for larger version

Name:	2995_D-AIMB_A388_T.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	944.8 KB
ID:	1042673


                3
                Click image for larger version

Name:	3013_D-AIHV_A346_T.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.03 MB
ID:	1042674

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                  Here are some more doubt candidates I don't want to directly put in the queue, would anyone mind to comment?
                  Especially wrt exposure/curves and heat haze.


                  1
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]28529[/ATTACH]


                  2
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]28530[/ATTACH]


                  3
                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]28531[/ATTACH]
                  1. borderline overexposed
                  2-3 overexposed, noisy, oversharpened, heat haze

                  Also, when you get a chance, please read here:

                  https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ning-from-crew

                  Try to keep your requests to a maximum 5 per 24 hours, or they stand the chance of being ignored by crew.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Thank you once again, Dana, for your patience really appreciated!

                    Usually I know about the 24/5 rule, seems I didn't properly look at the time when posting the next day, sorry about that!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Had a "Digital Manipulation" rejection which I don't quite know what to make of.
                      Screener comment is "bad editing below aircraft". Don't think I edited anything except some dust spots in the sky. Maybe the screener thought the two boxes below the main gear were cloned out of one?
                      Rejected image: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7582191
                      Here's the un-edited camera JPG for comparison:
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3410.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	678.2 KB
ID:	1042929

                      Asking especially because of the implications of a "manipulation" reject, glad for any input!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                        Had a "Digital Manipulation" rejection which I don't quite know what to make of.
                        Screener comment is "bad editing below aircraft". Don't think I edited anything except some dust spots in the sky. Maybe the screener thought the two boxes below the main gear were cloned out of one?
                        Rejected image: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7582191
                        Here's the un-edited camera JPG for comparison:
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]28824[/ATTACH]

                        Asking especially because of the implications of a "manipulation" reject, glad for any input!
                        Yeah, that was me. You've clearly done something to the grass below the aircraft (area circled in red), intentionally or not.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	45445_1568628171.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	731.0 KB
ID:	1042932

                        It looked to me like it was unintentional, so I didn't add any warnings to your account. Just be careful with your editing in the future

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thanks Dana! Screener comments are always helpful, and somehow I suspect you're the one who gives most of these, very much appreciated!
                          Yeah, that's not intentional, no visible dust spots there, grass helps hiding them. Must have been quite some expectation bias making me miss that mistake before uploading and even when looking at the rejected picture! Actually it's quite obvious.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Here are two pics I'm a bit doubtful about, wrt vignette and sharpness, care to comment?

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	5008_D-AIZM.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	459.1 KB
ID:	1043547

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	5064_I-ADJV.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	737.2 KB
ID:	1043548

                            Thank you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by pkautzsch View Post
                              Here are two pics I'm a bit doubtful about, wrt vignette and sharpness, care to comment?

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]29573[/ATTACH]

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]29574[/ATTACH]

                              Thank you
                              Second would be ok for me, but the first is oversharpened and also shows signs of vignetting/vignetting overcorrection.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                As always, very helpful, really appreciate your effort, Dana!

                                In the first I did not sharpen at all. It's just a bit cropped and resized to 1024 px, but indeed I thought it looked like oversharpened. You always learn something new...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X