Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flying.Fonz - Editing advice

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

  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    Originally posted by Lehondre Photos View Post

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=9025801

    Change 'viewqueued' to 'viewreject' in the link
    Aha, excellent.Thanks very much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lehondre Photos
    replied
    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Hi,

    This was rejected for 'Bad Info' but I can't see what the info is so I don't know what was wrong. Do you know what the issue was?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9025801

    Thanks
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=9025801

    Change 'viewqueued' to 'viewreject' in the link

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    Hi,

    This was rejected for 'Bad Info' but I can't see what the info is so I don't know what was wrong. Do you know what the issue was?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9025801

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    Cool, thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post

    We'll leave it at that then.

    Thanks. In general, how would you distinguish between light haloing and natural cloud effects? The majority of the time, it is obvious but in this instance, I had a look at the original image and there are unfortunately natural brighter sky areas around parts of the aircraft.

    Cheers
    Generally if it follows the the outline/shape of the aircraft itself its either a result of editing, or an extremely rare/unlucky cloud formation. If the latter, using a different frame taken only a few seconds earlier/later should solve the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    To be honest, the first time I checked, I did so only to see if it was in the queue as I usually do with most prescreening requests (I only see a thumbnail at that point). I noticed it was still in there when checking to see if the UA silhouette shot was also queued, and wondered why as I had mentioned it would likely be rejected - so took a closer look (i.e. actually opened the full size image). This is when I finally noticed what you had done.

    Admitting a mistake was made (and then not repeating it) is all we can really ask, so I'm happy to leave it at that.



    A bit noisy, and some light haloing going on. Other than that, ok for me.
    We'll leave it at that then.

    Thanks. In general, how would you distinguish between light haloing and natural cloud effects? The majority of the time, it is obvious but in this instance, I had a look at the original image and there are unfortunately natural brighter sky areas around parts of the aircraft.

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    I was disappointed in myself for following up on a comment and then not following up on the query I made and then not following up with you on your subsequent comment that it was already uploaded.

    I'm not after breaking the rules or making exceptions, you know that's not the way I work. What made me raise my eyebrows was that if you saw it, took the time to comment that it was uploaded but didn't mention anything about the error.

    Regardless of the current situation and mentioned many times, I value your regular guidance, especially when I’m wrong.
    To be honest, the first time I checked, I did so only to see if it was in the queue as I usually do with most prescreening requests (I only see a thumbnail at that point). I noticed it was still in there when checking to see if the UA silhouette shot was also queued, and wondered why as I had mentioned it would likely be rejected - so took a closer look (i.e. actually opened the full size image). This is when I finally noticed what you had done.

    Admitting a mistake was made (and then not repeating it) is all we can really ask, so I'm happy to leave it at that.

    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    I worked on your comments and wanted to see what you think of this one.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	JP UA 789 N29975 LHR 27L sunrise approach 20-02-21.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	833.9 KB
ID:	1113369
    A bit noisy, and some light haloing going on. Other than that, ok for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    I was disappointed in myself for following up on a comment and then not following up on the query I made and then not following up with you on your subsequent comment that it was already uploaded.

    I'm not after breaking the rules or making exceptions, you know that's not the way I work. What made me raise my eyebrows was that if you saw it, took the time to comment that it was uploaded but didn't mention anything about the error.

    Regardless of the current situation and mentioned many times, I value your regular guidance, especially when I’m wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    I am aware, but I thought the way you explained suggested that the minor change might be acceptable. My apologies if I misunderstood. I genuinely believed that was the case and is, therefore, an error on my part. A far cry from someone intending to abuse the system by deliberately doing this, which is the reason for the strong and punitive guidance.

    With due respect, I joined for the pleasure of the hobby to bring value, support the site, and improve my skills while upholding the guidelines.
    Not to belabour the point, but you say you were aware of the guidelines, but when caught breaking perhaps the most important of those guidelines you then feel disappointed? If you meant disappointed in yourself, fair enough, but I see no justification in feeling disappointed with the site or screening process, since you have been treated in the same manner as anyone else breaking the rules in this way: simply a polite warning that should something similar happen again, further consequences would result.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    I am aware, but I thought the way you explained suggested that the minor change might be acceptable. My apologies if I misunderstood. I genuinely believed that was the case and is, therefore, an error on my part. A far cry from someone intending to abuse the system by deliberately doing this, which is the reason for the strong and punitive guidance.

    With due respect, I joined for the pleasure of the hobby to bring value, support the site, and improve my skills while upholding the guidelines.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Ah, sorry. I believed your suggestion would be acceptable hence why I enquired.
    To which suggestion are you referring? Nowhere did I suggest you should manipulate the image in such a manner.

    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    It might have been useful to raise it here, and then I would have acted upon it immediately. Unfortunately, those of us who mean well and intend to bring value to the site are the ones who take this seriously and are most disappointed when the punishment comes through.
    So you are implying you weren't aware manipulating images in such a manner is forbidden? To be clear, it's literally the very first item of the upload guidelines:

    https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/a...S-New-version=

    1.1.1 Upload only unaltered images

    Cloning anything in or out of a photo will mean that the photo will be rejected and you are running the risk of your upload privileges being withdrawn or limited for some time. Manipulating a photo is something we will never tolerate. We reserve ourselves the right to remove manipulated photos from the database. All that we allow to be cloned out are artefacts in the picture that look like sensor dust spots.

    Any manipulation of a photo will not be tolerated and might result in a ban if repeated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    Ah, sorry. I believed your suggestion would be acceptable hence why I enquired. It might have been useful to raise it here, and then I would have acted upon it immediately. Unfortunately, those of us who mean well and intend to bring value to the site are the ones who take this seriously and are most disappointed when the punishment comes through. Thanks for pointing it out in any case.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Flying.Fonz View Post
    Thanks. Do you have any other thoughts?
    I do now, seeing as the one you decided to submit to the queue had the offending vegetation cloned out. This is obviously not allowed. I've rejected the image, and placed a warning on your account. Please be aware that any future instance of images submitted with such manipulation will result in a loss of upload slots and/or a ban.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Possible/probable issues with contrast, processing, and centering.
    Hi,

    I worked on your comments and wanted to see what you think of this one.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	JP UA 789 N29975 LHR 27L sunrise approach 20-02-21.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	833.9 KB
ID:	1113369

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied
    No worries. Thanks

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X