Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ikeharel - Pre-screen / Pre-upload advice

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

  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    Ike, point is that those squares are very visible on the non-equalized version, on both my screens. Those squares are compression, either from editing or during saving process. They were also seen by the 2 screeners + the senior who screened your photo and by Ben here. So if you can't see them maybe you should consider a screen calibration ?

    As a reminder we do NOT screen the equalize version, we only use it to confirm a 1st impression, most of the time on haloes and dust. I wouldn't have used it on such a clear case as compression here.

    Hope it helps
    Alex
    It helps, Alex, appreciate the answer.
    Just will add something to this: at same time maybe 15 minutes interval from the Delta plane landing, I took one more a/p picture that was accepted, same size of wide body - and my process was the same, rutine with Canon DPP. Just saying, light was the issue here - not the PP.
    Good evening,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Ike, point is that those squares are very visible on the non-equalized version, on both my screens. Those squares are compression, either from editing or during saving process. They were also seen by the 2 screeners + the senior who screened your photo and by Ben here. So if you can't see them maybe you should consider a screen calibration ?

    As a reminder we do NOT screen the equalize version, we only use it to confirm a 1st impression, most of the time on haloes and dust. I wouldn't have used it on such a clear case as compression here.

    Hope it helps
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by B7772ADL View Post
    Ben pretty much summed it up and doesn't really need any further clarification.

    Looking at the colour image you attached in this thread I can clearly see blocks of colour through the sky. They are square, not rounded, so the photo has been assessed as having signs of compression. The photo will not be accepted when the sky looks like this. Maybe you should re-visit the original and re-process it. Maybe use masking so that the sky is untouched whilst you deal with the processing on the aircraft itself.
    Thanks James,
    As I wondered, #1 : why was I waiting 27 days to get any answer?

    Secondly, it is a long-time standing debate about compression, and I am not argueing about - but the original RAW was about 5800 pixles > converted when it was cropped to about 3900pixles, sized down to 1600 pixles, so not much of a compression as usual when I process planes pictures (I do not use any Photoshop - only Canon-DPP software).

    Third thing In my mind: in the past I raised this isuue and stated that if the compressin doe's nots shown on the main picture, only on the equalized photo - than it should be accepted, and indeed some of my argued appeal were accepted. So differnt time's - different result.

    I can live with it, the site is more valuable than just a debate about accepting pictures.
    Sincerely,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • B7772ADL
    replied
    Ben pretty much summed it up and doesn't really need any further clarification.

    Looking at the colour image you attached in this thread I can clearly see blocks of colour through the sky. They are square, not rounded, so the photo has been assessed as having signs of compression. The photo will not be accepted when the sky looks like this. Maybe you should re-visit the original and re-process it. Maybe use masking so that the sky is untouched whilst you deal with the processing on the aircraft itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Long View Post
    Firstly, I am not a screener.

    If you pay careful attention to the sky, you can see various shades of blue in block-like shapes. It almost looks like a wall of lego built out of similar shades of blue. This is what the screeners mean by "colour blocking". You can see it a lot clearer when we strip away the colour itself:
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Untitled-1.jpg Views:	0 Size:	9.4 KB ID:	1121519
    As you can see, there are blocks of contrasting tones/shades indicating image compression. This is not a natural occurrence. However, you're right that things such as heat and, particularly, smoke (as I experienced during our 2019 bushfires here in Australia) can create artefacts in the sky as seen on equalised images. These look different to compression, though.

    I would wait for an experienced screener to have their two cents, though.
    Regardless of the outcome you cannot appeal an appeal, both the photo and the appeal have been rejected.

    Regards,
    Ben.
    Thanks, Ben.
    I gave up about getting an answer - apparently nobody wants to deal with a problematic subject as JPEG-Compression.

    This is not JPEG-Compression case, the upper part differ pattern from lower part (On a "real" compression case the entire picture-space should look with same pattern i/e/ the small "block-like" cubes). Thus, this picture specifically has merely hot sky with strong summer-light-heat, which measured by Kelvin numbers greater than 8000.
    In any case, it is not visible on the original / main picture uploaded.


    Thanks again,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Long
    replied
    Firstly, I am not a screener.

    If you pay careful attention to the sky, you can see various shades of blue in block-like shapes. It almost looks like a wall of lego built out of similar shades of blue. This is what the screeners mean by "colour blocking". You can see it a lot clearer when we strip away the colour itself:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled-1.jpg
Views:	349
Size:	9.4 KB
ID:	1121519
    As you can see, there are blocks of contrasting tones/shades indicating image compression. This is not a natural occurrence. However, you're right that things such as heat and, particularly, smoke (as I experienced during our 2019 bushfires here in Australia) can create artefacts in the sky as seen on equalised images. These look different to compression, though.

    I would wait for an experienced screener to have their two cents, though.
    Regardless of the outcome you cannot appeal an appeal, both the photo and the appeal have been rejected.

    Regards,
    Ben.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    ​ This was first posted on the "Aviation photography forum" section on July 22nd and never got an anser, so here is a re-post, with hope to get an answer:

    Hello to the screening team,
    I had recieved an E-mail with an appeal rejection for this picture of a Delta plane reg. N407DX.
    The answer was as follows, quote: " Your appeal for photo id 9286366 has been processed and has been rejected.
    Admin Comments : Sky shows signs of breaking up and colour blocking. "

    The original rejection was "JPEG compression artefats" . Than, stated in my appeal that:
    1. No compression is shown on the main photo.
    2. The so-called artefacts on the Equalizer picture are merely a light-heat differential's ( which happend at high summer hot days ) and notable that the "artefacts" not shown over the entire picture, i.e. the lower part differ from the upper part as a result of what I explained about light heat differential above.

    My question is, as I never got an explanation like "Sky shows signs of breaking up and colour blocking. "... what this answer stands for?
    Can anyone re-assess my appeal, as in my humble opinion the picture is fair to be accepted.
    Sincereley,
    Ike Harel





    image widget

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Can't really comment on the latter having not screened either of the images in question. As for guidelines, there is nothing specific, I'm guessing the image above was rejected simply for aesthetic reasons (with which I'd tend to agree). Sorry if that doesn't help too much!
    Thanks for the reply, Dana.
    Indeed, aesthetic reason, which always in the eyes of the beholder, and there is nothing in the guidlines about it - that's exactly my point.

    As mentioned - saw several accepted photos to JP gallery where the plane / or planes were not centered in the overview image.

    Luckily, this airfield is about 16km from home, so I will be able and intend to visit the place yet again.
    Good evening,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ikeharel View Post

    Hi Dana,
    Thanks for the advise.
    Anyway, the general question is about the guidlines which I expect a clarification, as I see many photos where the planes is not centered in an "airport overview". can you refer to this issue?
    Also, why in the first rejection I got, there was other remark ("Horizon unlevel"), which I fixed and re-upload, but had no reference to the "bad composition..." issue?
    Sincereley,
    Ike
    Can't really comment on the latter having not screened either of the images in question. As for guidelines, there is nothing specific, I'm guessing the image above was rejected simply for aesthetic reasons (with which I'd tend to agree). Sorry if that doesn't help too much!

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Seems just a bit unbalanced to me. Maybe crop a bit closer to the treetops, or better yet, go for 3:2 instead of 16:9 and include the extra space at the bottom of the frame.
    Hi Dana,
    Thanks for the advise.
    Anyway, the general question is about the guidlines which I expect a clarification, as I see many photos where the planes is not centered in an "airport overview". can you refer to this issue?
    Also, why in the first rejection I got, there was other remark ("Horizon unlevel"), which I fixed and re-upload, but had no reference to the "bad composition..." issue?
    Sincereley,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ikeharel View Post
    Click image for larger version Name:	IMG_0941 LLHZ ramp.JPG Views:	0 Size:	803.2 KB ID:	1105393
    Good evening,
    This picture of a ramp in Herzlyia airport, LLHZ, was rejected for "Bad composition (aircraft not centered)"... on my appeal the note by the screener said "too low in the frame" .
    Now, I did not find a mandatory note in the guidlines stating just that (section 1.2.3 to the guidlines) and saw several pictures from diff. airports, ramp pic.s, aerodrom's photos that were accepted on JP gallery, where planes were not really in any center, vertically nor horizontally.
    My question to the mod's would be if there is any general instruction imposing centerpoint of such a photo? or, what's the point to impose center-ballance of this type of overview?
    I merely included the tower and part of the runway with the trees of the backdrop on the scene, a further crop would ruin the outcome altogether.
    Sincerely,
    Ike
    Seems just a bit unbalanced to me. Maybe crop a bit closer to the treetops, or better yet, go for 3:2 instead of 16:9 and include the extra space at the bottom of the frame.

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0941 LLHZ ramp.JPG Views:	0 Size:	803.2 KB ID:	1105393
    Good evening,
    This picture of a ramp in Herzlyia airport, LLHZ, was rejected for "Bad composition (aircraft not centered)"... on my appeal the note by the screener said "too low in the frame" .
    Now, I did not find a mandatory note in the guidlines stating just that (section 1.2.3 to the guidlines) and saw several pictures from diff. airports, ramp pic.s, aerodrom's photos that were accepted on JP gallery, where planes were not really in any center, vertically nor horizontally.
    My question to the mod's would be if there is any general instruction imposing centerpoint of such a photo? or, what's the point to impose center-ballance of this type of overview?
    I merely included the tower and part of the runway with the trees of the backdrop on the scene, a further crop would ruin the outcome altogether.
    Sincerely,
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied
    Originally posted by flying Doc View Post
    Hi Ike,


    Unfotrunatelly the width is under the minimum requirements as per the guidelines.


    Try to upsize it without losing much of the quality.

    Greetings
    Sotiris
    No go...
    Tried but did not maintain even the same quality, which is low by the original scan.
    I gave up, thanks Sotiris.
    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • flying Doc
    replied
    Hi Ike,


    Unfotrunatelly the width is under the minimum requirements as per the guidelines.
    2. The long edge of a photo must be at least 1024 pixels, while the short edge must be at least 576 pixels. Images that are overcropped (very narrow) will be rejected. Currently your maximum approved upload size is 1920 pixels wide.
    Try to upsize it without losing much of the quality.

    Greetings
    Sotiris

    Leave a comment:


  • ikeharel
    replied


    Hello to the screening team,
    I have this picture taken in JFK back in April 1978. It is a scanned photo with small size of 885/590 pixels, 403 kb.
    My question : would it will be accepted with such a small size?
    Sincereley,
    Ike Harel

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Concord in JFK F-BVFC.jpg
Views:	296
Size:	402.5 KB
ID:	1104304

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X