If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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
[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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Leave a comment: