Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flying.Fonz - Editing advice

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

  • Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Hi,

    I had this photo rejected for Over-processing before I worked on it again and then it was rejected for the same reason. I could see why the first one would not have met the requirements. However, I keep checking this one and comparing it with the original but cannot identify the problem, especially since it has only had minimal editing. Any help greatly appreciated.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8377420

    Thanks
    Shadows look really washed out. Was there some light source beneath the aircraft? Looks unnatural to me as well (I didn't screen this one).

    Comment


    • It was a really bright day reflecting from everything, especially the underside so you could see it’s detail and what was being reflected. The reason for taking it was the highly unusual position and light combination.

      I no longer have the previous rejection where I think I added a lot of contrast for the reason you mentioned but it took away from what the actual photo was like.

      Comment


      • Hi,

        A quick question on upload guidelines 3.5 Obstruct/Clutter. In this photo, the tug is part of the motive but obstructs more than I would normally consider to be ok so I'd like your thoughts please.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	JP BA 772 G-VIIO post LAS fire repaint VCV 15-03-16.jpg
Views:	60
Size:	429.2 KB
ID:	1098168

        Thanks

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
          Hi,

          A quick question on upload guidelines 3.5 Obstruct/Clutter. In this photo, the tug is part of the motive but obstructs more than I would normally consider to be ok so I'd like your thoughts please.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	JP BA 772 G-VIIO post LAS fire repaint VCV 15-03-16.jpg
Views:	60
Size:	429.2 KB
ID:	1098168

          Thanks
          I have to agree, this is more obstruction than i would find acceptable

          Comment


          • Thanks. Much appreciated.

            Comment


            • Hi,

              I'm unsure about this rejection so I'm looking for your advise.

              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8393194

              The overexposure, although subjective and I disagree with it, is easy to fix. My question relates to the unlevel horizon. Prior to submission, I checked alignment against all structures on and off the photo and I've done it again. All are aligned so I'm not sure what is showing an unlevel horizon and would be grateful for a pointer.

              Many thanks

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
                Hi,

                I'm unsure about this rejection so I'm looking for your advise.

                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8393194

                The overexposure, although subjective and I disagree with it, is easy to fix. My question relates to the unlevel horizon. Prior to submission, I checked alignment against all structures on and off the photo and I've done it again. All are aligned so I'm not sure what is showing an unlevel horizon and would be grateful for a pointer.

                Many thanks
                Exposure looks acceptable, but it is leaning a bit to the right, so some CCW needed.

                Comment


                • Thanks

                  Comment


                  • Is this an acceptable amount of aircraft cut?

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	JP BA 744 G-BNLY Landor delivery tail LHR 09-03-19.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	1.51 MB
ID:	1098468

                    Thanks

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
                      Is this an acceptable amount of aircraft cut?

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	JP BA 744 G-BNLY Landor delivery tail LHR 09-03-19.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	1.51 MB
ID:	1098468

                      Thanks
                      Crop is too awkward for me, though others may disagree.

                      Comment


                      • Hi,

                        I'm trying to understand how a photo that was previously rejected for a specific reason and no other, is subsequently corrected without changing anything else and is then rejected for something that wasn't there originally. If it was there originally why not include it as one of the rejection reasons because the assumption is that correcting the rejection issues leads to an acceptance so long as you haven't created other problems (assuming you have corrected the original issues appropriately). The question being why was it missed the first time if that is something that forms part of the check anyway, although it is recognised and understood that screeners are only human so errors do happen.

                        The concern is two fold. First, we do this because it's fun and take pride in working towards high quality work while hopefully making life easier for screeners. Having the goal posts changed on a resubmission with the photo being treated as a new one which has not benefited from the feedback that would guarantee it's acceptance, doesn't make sense. It's already been assessed as being ok in all other aspects. That resubmitted photo can be rejected again for a 'new' reason that was not picked up the first couple of times and the cycle continues.

                        Secondly, with the current sub 20,000 photos queued and the rejection rate of circa 50% could lead to a huge number of resubmitted photos. Ideally, the resubmitted photos resolve the original issues and do not create new ones, but a rejection for a 'new' reason could result in a large number of resubmitted photos. This adds to the queue and the screeners' workload.

                        The upload guidance doesn't state that a resubmitted photo can have errors that were missed originally so be aware it can be rejected for new reasons.

                        This is genuinely about trying to help improve the system and understand how this can be resolved. Continuous resubmission can't be an effective way to make things better.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
                          Hi,

                          I'm trying to understand how a photo that was previously rejected for a specific reason and no other, is subsequently corrected without changing anything else and is then rejected for something that wasn't there originally. If it was there originally why not include it as one of the rejection reasons because the assumption is that correcting the rejection issues leads to an acceptance so long as you haven't created other problems (assuming you have corrected the original issues appropriately). The question being why was it missed the first time if that is something that forms part of the check anyway, although it is recognised and understood that screeners are only human so errors do happen.
                          You'll need to be a little less vague than that. Can't offer an opinion unless you can be more specific about the rejection(s). Could be a mistake, a difference in opinion, or something you missed when making your changes. Can only speculate..

                          Comment


                          • Hi,

                            This is the rejection in question. It is a subsequent rejection to the one you kindly offered your thoughts on how to correct. The original rejection did not state centreing as an issue.

                            https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8430123

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	JP AF SkyTeam A321 F-GTAE PRG taxi 11-08-20.jpg
Views:	34
Size:	1.29 MB
ID:	1099195

                            The original rejection we discussed above was down to over exposure and horizon not level. Both easily corrected, with one being subjective and the other only slightly out. Neither of these corrections can alter the centreing of the image and no additional editing was carried out. Hence the query regarding how can a new rejection reason appear when it wasn't there the first time round.

                            With reference to the 'bad info' rejection, that's just finger trouble from my part and frustrating since I checked data entry a number of times prior to it being screened.

                            The reason my original message was generic is because I've heard numerous other users mention the same thing and having experienced it, it didn't make any sense to me and it could easily happen a number of times with the same photo without the user changing anything.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
                              Hi,

                              This is the rejection in question. It is a subsequent rejection to the one you kindly offered your thoughts on how to correct. The original rejection did not state centreing as an issue.

                              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8430123

                              Click image for larger version  Name:	JP AF SkyTeam A321 F-GTAE PRG taxi 11-08-20.jpg Views:	0 Size:	1.29 MB ID:	1099195

                              The original rejection we discussed above was down to over exposure and horizon not level. Both easily corrected, with one being subjective and the other only slightly out. Neither of these corrections can alter the centreing of the image and no additional editing was carried out. Hence the query regarding how can a new rejection reason appear when it wasn't there the first time round.

                              With reference to the 'bad info' rejection, that's just finger trouble from my part and frustrating since I checked data entry a number of times prior to it being screened.

                              The reason my original message was generic is because I've heard numerous other users mention the same thing and having experienced it, it didn't make any sense to me and it could easily happen a number of times with the same photo without the user changing anything.
                              I would classify this one as difference of opinion. Aircraft is slightly high in the frame, but (obviously) would have been ok for me. The screener who rejected it for centering is a newer one (in training), so had you uploaded it with the correct info and centering was the only rejection reason, I'm pretty confident your appeal would have been successful, or the image wouldn't have even been rejected in the first place.

                              Comment


                              • That’s understood. However, if there was an issue it ought to have been raised initially so it could be corrected. Otherwise the assumption is that it is ok in all other aspects.

                                As always, thanks for your thoughts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X