Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ikeharel - Pre-screen / Pre-upload advice

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

  • ikeharel
    replied
    TO LX-A343,
    You were definitely right when critisized my MSG. Already sent a personal MSG with an appology to the person it was directed to.

    And to further clarify about the issue, just few months ago I realized I was limited to 1280 pixels when posting photos. Consequence to that, immediately I had an unusual number of "JPEG Compression" rejections, apparently due to this limit, to my opinion.

    I do not work with Photoshop, use Canon-DPP, and tried to elaborate on this with Canon experts in the USA and England - but to no avail.
    That is the reason for my disappointmen, and when told "not to blame the site" - I was very angry, because I did not get an answer on the appeals for that and other rejections, just a simple reply "appeal rejected".
    I now decided to refrain from posting new pictures on JP, for an undisclosed period of time, and again my appologies to whome offended by my words.
    Sincerely,
    Ike Harel

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by ikeharel View Post
    1. To TomEPKK here is the link: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6570582
    2. To oplu7: Photoshop is not mandatory software on JP. I use Canon-DPP software.
    3. To Alex: You addressed my notes and not the issue. How slight JPEG Compression is acceptable, as always there may be a compression to a certain extent as of any upload.
    I once kept the Equalized original's for learning reasons - and saw where there was a real compression, and where actually not. Than according to those - I did cancel some posts as a result of compression realized. Being with more than 50 years of photography ( I am 65 and hold a camera since 13) you can trust me that I do not speak without judguing words.
    Please reconsider the issue, and please again - not my written words.
    Sincerely, with regard to all members reading this,
    Ike Harel
    I am just addressing this bit here: "How slight JPEG Compression is acceptable, as always there may be a compression to a certain extent as of any upload." There is no exact indicator for JPG compression. If the edges are fuzzy, large areas of one colour (e. g. sky) are too blotchy, then we will more likely reject it.

    And just one word of advice: read your messages to others twice, before sending them. How would you react if you got these messages you wrote in your appeals?

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    1. To TomEPKK here is the link: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6570582
    2. To oplu7: Photoshop is not mandatory software on JP. I use Canon-DPP software.
    3. To Alex: You addressed my notes and not the issue. How slight JPEG Compression is acceptable, as always there may be a compression to a certain extent as of any upload.
    I once kept the Equalized original's for learning reasons - and saw where there was a real compression, and where actually not. Than according to those - I did cancel some posts as a result of compression realized. Being with more than 50 years of photography ( I am 65 and hold a camera since 13) you can trust me that I do not speak without judguing words.
    Please reconsider the issue, and please again - not my written words.
    Sincerely, with regard to all members reading this,
    Ike Harel

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6570582

    Doing this, in the few minutes of screening, did not take into account the effort forany photographer contributing to the site, time invested and distance traveled to await for the plane for the perfect moment, than a long queue of 9 days.

    There's one very important thing you need to realise, before being screeners we're all photographers and we know how too well the hobby. We went through all that and for a very long time for the vast majority of us.

    The compression on this picture is a very easy fix and I really suggest you take a very deep breath. This is taken from your appeal message. This is simply outrageous, its been sometimes that I feel JP screening had became harsh, unfrirendly to amatur photographers like myself, rejecting few good photos of mine. Its like a sign hanging over my account saying "reject photos of this guy..." - Do you realise how far this is going ? It's just a rejection, just a hobby. And yes. maybe you don't realise it but it is really blaming us for your mistake, nothing else.


    And if 9 days is too much of a wait, we're really sorry that the team working on their free time for your pleasure can't satisfy your urgent need to see your picture published. We're really doing our best but well...

    Sincerely
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • oplu7
    replied
    When you equalize the photo, you can see the sky is covered in little squares as a result of JPEG compression.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5163 4K-SW008.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	1.50 MB
ID:	1028173
    Remember that you can get rid of JPEG compression in photoshop and so, like a "soft" rejection, you just have to go back and sort it out!

    Leave a comment:


  • TomEPKK
    replied
    Could you please link the rejected picture? (not attached one)

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    JEPG compression rejection

    Hello,
    Picture no. 6570582 of Silkway Boeing 747-400F registration 4K-SW008 was rejected for “JPEG Compression” , appealed and rejected yet again.First, let me say that there is always be a result with compression at some level when taking planes pictures while in motion, due to the fact that it has to meetother criteria like being balanced within the frame, both horizontally and vertically.The compression on this picture is mostly invisible, and the plane came perfectly within the frame, vividly lit and in fine contrast and sharpness.The screener who rejected this went an extra-mile when screening.(and please don’t tell me I blame the JP site for my mistakes). Doing this, in the few minutes of screening, did not take into account the effort forany photographer contributing to the site, time invested and distance traveled to await for the plane for the perfect moment, than a long queue of 9 days.I can understand and accept reasons for not accepting photos, but this was in extra scrutiny.Do not judge me for being disappointed – it was an unjust rejection.
    I will be glad for re-consideration of this picture.
    Sincerely
    Ike Harel
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Hi Julian and thanks for your reply.
    I process all my photos with Canon DPP and use the masks. It doe's not happened in all the photos processed, and I always do the same technique and steps. So I do not think this is the reason.
    Good evening,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Julian S.
    replied
    Originally posted by ikeharel
    The original thread was moved to a list, I have no idea why this happened.
    This is the reason for a re-post.
    Ike
    Hi,
    here it is: https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...-upload-advice

    As in the rejected Appeal commented, the sky is very noisy. This is not due to the nature, this happens when a picture gets sharpened without masks.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Rejection of "Sky is quite noisy"

    Admin Comments >> Sky is quite noisy.
    >>
    http://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=6455080

    Hello,
    I appealed the rejection of photo # 6455080 with the reason "Sky is quite noisy", for the photo I show in the attachment.Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4838 G-CLBA.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	770.4 KB
ID:	1023049
    As daylight was bright and warm, pixels tend to be dense on RAW picture with ISO100, but I cannot control nature.
    Any idea how to overcome this phenomenon, as in the post-processing I could not do any better.
    Sincerely,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    OK, will reconsider.
    Thanks,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ikeharel View Post
    Thanks,
    In one case, the Easy-jet you are right about cropping the image, and the Wizz probably the case of underexposure due to heavy overcast.
    Any chance to be accepted - or to give-up?
    Ike
    Chance? Sure. Likely? Maybe 50% chance, I'd say, so if you don't mind the possibility of rejection, go for it. If you do decide to, I'd probably add a bit of sharpening on both.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Thanks,
    In one case, the Easy-jet you are right about cropping the image, and the Wizz probably the case of underexposure due to heavy overcast.
    Any chance to be accepted - or to give-up?
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ikeharel View Post
    Thanks dlowwa for replying,

    Can you please explain what is the issue with " fair amount of compression in the sky" and how I solve this so both will be accepted?
    Is this a case of Peripheral light management. I work with Canon DPP 4.0 .
    Regards,
    Ike
    The sky is noisy/compressed. I see that you shot at ISO100, so it could be either that you have cropped the images significantly, or perhaps they were underexposed. Both of those situations would cause noise/compression artifacts to appear, but without starting from the originals and knowing your whole workflow, I can only guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Pre-screening

    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    They are both valid to upload; if you are asking if they would be accepted, I see a fair amount of compression in the sky on both, so that may be an issue.
    Thanks dlowwa for replying,

    Can you please explain what is the issue with " fair amount of compression in the sky" and how I solve this so both will be accepted?
    Is this a case of Peripheral light management. I work with Canon DPP 4.0 .
    Regards,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X