Photo rejected by motive: - Over Processed / Bad post processing

[dlowwa]

So ... that's exactly what I was told in an appeal that I made.

"---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your appeal for photo id 6301448 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> The noise reduction has caused a loss of detail in the trees in the background. They just look washed out.
>> http://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6301448"

but the details of the trees in the background are already lost due to the gases from APU and engines. It was not the noise reduction tool

That is the my question... só, why reject by this motive?

Ok, my mistake then. The loss of detail is obviously caused by engine exhaust, so is not an issue for me. For me, the halos were the problem, but perhaps one of the screeners who rejected the image will comment.

[edilsoncarlos]

The details of the trees were not considered during the screening of this image.

So ... that's exactly what I was told in an appeal that I made.

"---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your appeal for photo id 6301448 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> The noise reduction has caused a loss of detail in the trees in the background. They just look washed out.
>> http://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6301448"

but the details of the trees in the background are already lost due to the gases from APU and engines. It was not the noise reduction tool

That is the my question... só, why reject by this motive?

[dlowwa]

Thank you for your reply...

Can you explain what are this Halos? Where are they in my photo?


But I think that this isn't the question...


The question is...


My claim is about the out of detail behind the aircraft, in the trees . The answer to the appeal I made was that the tool I using to reduce image noise eventually affected the details of the trees. The details of the trees were already affected in the original photo without even before editing, caused by gases from APU and engine..

The details of the trees were not considered during the screening of this image.

[Julian S.]

Can you explain what are this Halos? Where are they in my photo?

Halos are bright places around shadows or in your case trees and the tail of the aircraft. Those are the result of using, as Dana said, Clarity or Shadow/Highlight tool in Photoshop or other Editing Software. You can avoid those (if they are not visible in the original .jpeg image) by leaving the named points at "0". If you have a .raw/.dng file you can "erase" them with a good workflow.
The declaration on Wikipedia says that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiligenschein
You can check your picture by clicking equalize in for example Photoshop or after upload on jetphotos by selecting the picture in the queue and then "check for dust".

The question is...


My claim is about the out of detail behind the aircraft, in the trees . The answer to the appeal I made was that the tool I using to reduce image noise eventually affected the details of the trees. The details of the trees were already affected in the original photo without even before editing, caused by gases from APU and engine..

I don´t now if they were another rejection reasons, but i think the screeners know about the "gases and heat haze" from the engines and would not reject the pictures if only the background of the picture is hazed by the "exhaust".

Hope that this will help you in the future, have a nice day!

[edilsoncarlos]

There are editing halos visible around the tail and treeline visible in the rejected photo that are not visible in the original. Something you are doing with your editing is causing this, perhaps a tool such as Clarity, Shadow/Highlight, or something else similar.

Thank you for your reply...

Can you explain what are this Halos? Where are they in my photo?


But I think that this isn't the question...


The question is...


My claim is about the out of detail behind the aircraft, in the trees . The answer to the appeal I made was that the tool I using to reduce image noise eventually affected the details of the trees. The details of the trees were already affected in the original photo without even before editing, caused by gases from APU and engine..

[dlowwa]

I do not understand why this photo is being rejected for this reason in the title. There is something in the photo called "APU gases and aircraft engines" that cause heat waves and affect the sharpness of the image in the trees behind the aircraft. I can not control it. There is no way I can bring the sharpness of the trees in front of the gases !! I am sending the raw photo, without editing, with nothing, just with my name to protect my intellectual property. In this unedited photo it is clear that the lack of detail in the trees already comes from the original image. There is nothing I do to bring the trees forward of the gases, I am not magical.

Original photo[ATTACH=CONFIG]13095[/ATTACH]
Rejected photo[ATTACH=CONFIG]13096[/ATTACH]

There are editing halos visible around the tail and treeline visible in the rejected photo that are not visible in the original. Something you are doing with your editing is causing this, perhaps a tool such as Clarity, Shadow/Highlight, or something else similar.

[edilsoncarlos]

I do not understand why this photo is being rejected for this reason in the title. There is something in the photo called "APU gases and aircraft engines" that cause heat waves and affect the sharpness of the image in the trees behind the aircraft. I can not control it. There is no way I can bring the sharpness of the trees in front of the gases !! I am sending the raw photo, without editing, with nothing, just with my name to protect my intellectual property. In this unedited photo it is clear that the lack of detail in the trees already comes from the original image. There is nothing I do to bring the trees forward of the gases, I am not magical.

Original photo
Rejected photo