Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ikeharel - Pre-screen / Pre-upload advice

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

  • ikeharel
    replied
    Good evening,
    Once again, a rejection that by far I cannot understand.
    A picture of this Mig 21 that the histogram shows a good display of the dark/bright parts, and the plane is well lit against the building on the backdrop.
    Also, sharpnes is fair and not even borderline-oversharp, in my humble opinion.

    Picture number: .php?id=10308226

    I refrain from appealing, not to be scolded for too many appealings.
    Please explain.
    Sincerely,
    Ike Harel

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    [QUOTE=TomEPKK;n1141343]Not sure how you would like to crop it as it would result in cut-off rejection. You may try to use noise removal in the top part of the photo but it needs to be very delicate and you need to be careful not to overprocess it.[/QUOTE

    Thanks Tomasz, will probably give it up altogether.
    ike

    Leave a comment:


  • TomEPKK
    replied
    Not sure how you would like to crop it as it would result in cut-off rejection. You may try to use noise removal in the top part of the photo but it needs to be very delicate and you need to be careful not to overprocess it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by TomEPKK View Post
    That's not shadows, whole wall in the background, especially top part is compressed.
    Thanks Tomasz,
    So if I can crop a tighter image to exclude the top, that's would be OK for acceptance? would this solve it?
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • TomEPKK
    replied
    That's not shadows, whole wall in the background, especially top part is compressed.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by Wheat View Post
    You can see the compression on the wall.
    That's shadows.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wheat
    replied
    You can see the compression on the wall.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Good morning,
    This picture was rejected for artefacts - and I really do not see where are those artefacts, merely shadows from the hall's illuminations.
    Here is the equlaized picture with the outcome photo from inside the museum.
    The plane fuselage shown with no faults, in my humble opinion.
    Appreciate any answer.
    Ike






    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued...al-large-photo

    Leave a comment:


  • JuklicekCZ
    replied
    IMHO, of course, you can technically appeal any shot, the appeal is there for cases of an incorrectly rejected shot, but not for brute forcing it through.
    However in this case, you have had a rejection, which was afterwards confirmed by a senior screener, thus from my point of view such an appeal is quite unnecessary.
    Please try to think about it in a way, that by appealing any rejection you are contributing into prolonging queue times which are already quite long.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by
    [U
    the dialogue is the forum[/U], so if you have a doubt please post it here and we'll advise you to appeal if needed, but what you're doing here is giving double work to the crew for, at the end, a picture that was rightfully rejected.

    Regards
    Alex
    Dear Alex,
    With all due respect, the "appealing" chapter in the guidlines doe's not specify when to appeal, so maybe it would be useful to update this section in the guidlines.
    Pesonally, I will try not to appeal any more (though several of my appeals were accepted in the past). The argument doe's not contribute any good for me.
    Sincerely,
    Ike Harel

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Sorry but did you take the time to correctly read what I told you ?
    Not only does the shadow on ground tells it was backlit but again, the full fuselage is in the shadow and I tried to explained you with the whites, not the blacks which can indeed be confusing.

    And yes, the dialogue is the forum, so if you have a doubt please post it here and we'll advise you to appeal if needed, but what you're doing here is giving double work to the crew for, at the end, a picture that was rightfully rejected.

    Regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    Tail planes rarely taxi on a straight line so you can't take the taxiway direction as a reference. Tail is fully in its own shadow (our reference) so is the rest of the plane and the shadow on ground/position of tail wheel seems to confirm it was slightly backlit.

    For reference see a correctly lit photo of that plane. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10355980
    See how the whites on tail are white compared to your photo where it's clearly grey ?

    Actually the only parts that are directly taking the sun on your photo is the top of the engine cowling and the wheels guards.

    Hope it helps
    Alex

    PS : In order to help us save time that we can use to screen, please either appeal and accept our hints and comments. Or refrain yourself from appealing and ask for advices here first

    Thank you
    Thanks Alex,
    I appreciate any answer, sincerely.
    My statement about the high sun was the only argument I had. When standing behind runway 12 at afternoon hours, sometimes it only looks as backlight with high sun.
    It is a black fuselage plane that also assumed as baklight.

    Yet, a careful view of the plane's shadows on the tarmac, you may realize it is marginally on the correct side of light, and falls on the borderline category.
    Upon this statement , it could be accepted.

    Thanks again,
    Ike


    p.s. about appealing: there is no real dialog with the screeners, not way to annswer an E-mail, so appealing and posting forum dialog is the only available way for contributing photographers on JP.



    Leave a comment:


  • JuklicekCZ
    replied
    Hello, not a screenerer,
    But to me it seems like some of those borderline cases, where the aircraft is pointing into the sun where the lighting may ba somewhat difficult to be recognized on such a dark aircraft.
    However when taking the hand as a reference, it indeed appears, that the inner part of the hand is lit instead of the outer pard, thus it seems to me, that the sun was somewhere between the 11th and 12th hour from the pilots perspective.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Tail planes rarely taxi on a straight line so you can't take the taxiway direction as a reference. Tail is fully in its own shadow (our reference) so is the rest of the plane and the shadow on ground/position of tail wheel seems to confirm it was slightly backlit.

    For reference see a correctly lit photo of that plane. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10355980
    See how the whites on tail are white compared to your photo where it's clearly grey ?

    Actually the only parts that are directly taking the sun on your photo is the top of the engine cowling and the wheels guards.

    Hope it helps
    Alex

    PS : In order to help us save time that we can use to screen, please either appeal and accept our hints and comments. Or refrain yourself from appealing and ask for advices here first

    Thank you

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    This picture was rejected for backlight, with an argument that the pilot's palm shows its a backlight.
    Just can't be .
    It was taken on afternoon hours along the txiway of runway 12R. The sun was a bit high - but behind me.
    There is no way to give an answer to the screener, can't state my argument, otherwise here on the furum.
    Sincerely,
    Ike Harel

    Picture number: ?id=10273700
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued...al-large-photo
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 4 million screened photos online!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X