Originally posted by Flying.Fonz
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Flying.Fonz - Editing advice
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
Comment
-
Hi,
I'm unsure about this rejection so I'm looking for your advise.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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 PostHi,
I'm unsure about this rejection so I'm looking for your advise.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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
-
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 PostHi,
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.
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.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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 PostHi,
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.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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
Comment