ikeharel - Pre-screen / Pre-upload advice

[ikeharel]

So, at the end of the day, it's still compression

Can't argue with you James, you have the prerogative of making the last decision.

A perfect compression is equally spreading across the whole picture space, like this picture which I taken this afternoon, and deliberatly cropped a tight outcome (it is not fully processed photo, though):

Good evening,
Ike

[ikeharel]

Good morning,
This KVRB control tower picture was rightly rejected at first for a dust spot (a bird) that I did not "clean".
On my second upload it was rejected this morning for being undersharp.
It may be rightly rejected for being undersharp - but why it was not mentioned those two rejections criteria from the first screening ??
Now I will have to re-upload again, comsuming the screeners precious time for yet another upload.
Just my thinking about ... an elaborated answer is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ike Harel

[Julian S.]

Good morning,
This KVRB control tower picture was rightly rejected at first for a dust spot (a bird) that I did not "clean".
On my second upload it was rejected this morning for being undersharp.
It may be rightly rejected for being undersharp - but why it was not mentioned those two rejections criteria from the first screening ??
Now I will have to re-upload again, comsuming the screeners precious time for yet another upload.
Just my thinking about ... an elaborated answer is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ike Harel

Good morning from Germany, Ike

It`s possible that the screening decision can go both directions if they are borderline - as we are a team of more than 20 Screeners each one has another point of view regarding if it is soft or not. Also the screen can be more soft or more sharp.
We all are interested in fair decisions - thats why we have a Vote system as well as a appeal option.

For me (personally) the image isn´t too soft and probably acceptable. It´s up to you to get the photo reviewed a 3rd time by sending a appeal.

All the best!

[ikeharel]

Good morning from Germany, Ike

It`s possible that the screening decision can go both directions if they are borderline - as we are a team of more than 20 Screeners each one has another point of view regarding if it is soft or not. Also the screen can be more soft or more sharp.
We all are interested in fair decisions - thats why we have a Vote system as well as a appeal option.

For me (personally) the image isn´t too soft and probably acceptable. It´s up to you to get the photo reviewed a 3rd time by sending a appeal.

All the best!

Thanks Julian,
My intention is to enhnace sharpnes rather than appealing.
Besides,
I was told not too long ago that I had appealed too many times, so subject to reduce slots.
In due time will post yet again when ready.
Sincerely,
Ike

[ikeharel]

Again a strange rejection, on picture no. 10241587 , and this time I
had appeald and got an even stranger answer:
This picture was rejected with the reason "Part of the aircraft cut off" - the E-mail answer for my appeal was as follows: " Please choose a closer crop or do not cut off such a small part left of the wing."

Checking the "center' tab, the plane is perfectly centered and moving a closer crop would ruin the outcome yet again.
Odd reason, that I cannot understand, cannot correct and feel a bit lost about this.
Sincerely,
Ike Harel

[Julian S.]

Again a strange rejection, on picture no. 10241587 , and this time I
had appeald and got an even stranger answer:
This picture was rejected with the reason "Part of the aircraft cut off" - the E-mail answer for my appeal was as follows: " Please choose a closer crop or do not cut off such a small part left of the wing."

Checking the "center' tab, the plane is perfectly centered and moving a closer crop would ruin the outcome yet again.
Odd reason, that I cannot understand, cannot correct and feel a bit lost about this.
Sincerely,
Ike Harel

Hello again.

Indeed a strang cropping, like chopping off the winglets of a B737 or so. Either showing the wohle Aircraft including the wingtips which are cutted off in the image shown above, or cropping closer to the tail on the left side like you did on the right.

[ikeharel]

Hello again.

Indeed a strang cropping, like chopping off the winglets of a B737 or so. Either showing the wohle Aircraft including the wingtips which are cutted off in the image shown above, or cropping closer to the tail on the left side like you did on the right.

OK Julian, I will leave it.
I am not going to try cropping further this beautiful picture. It is perfectly centered, by all means of photography methodology.

It is once in a lifetime that I visited Florida and this museum, I an not due again on this place.

it could be accepted, not such a deviation from rules.

But the decision of the screeners prevails.
With all due respect.
Ike Harel

[LewisW295]

OK Julian, I will leave it.
I am not going to try cropping further this beautiful picture. It is perfectly centered, by all means of photography methodology.

It is once in a lifetime that I visited Florida and this museum, I an not due again on this place.

it could be accepted, not such a deviation from rules.

But the decision of the screeners prevails.
With all due respect.
Ike Harel

If you are going to crop images in, I tend to operate on an image by image basis....

BUT....

I always try to keep the tail fully in the shot and (for example, a 737) engines at the edge of the frame such as this one https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10618294 (not mine) though I can see why the tail has been cut.

Or try to centre the focal point of the image a rather than the whole airframe such as:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9943189 <-- Focused on the cockpit section and engine intake. I cropped it tightly to the nose and adjusted til I had a natural cut off behind the cockpit.

or

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9932788 <-- Where I couldn't get a full frame image, I cropped in to keep the engine and pit central whilst cutting off some excess wing.

[ikeharel]

If you are going to crop images in, I tend to operate on an image by image basis....

BUT....

I always try to keep the tail fully in the shot and (for example, a 737) engines at the edge of the frame such as this one https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10618294 (not mine) though I can see why the tail has been cut.

Or try to centre the focal point of the image a rather than the whole airframe such as:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9943189 <-- Focused on the cockpit section and engine intake. I cropped it tightly to the nose and adjusted til I had a natural cut off behind the cockpit.

or

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9932788 <-- Where I couldn't get a full frame image, I cropped in to keep the engine and pit central whilst cutting off some excess wing.

Thanks.

NICE - but not relevant. We see the whole airplane with only small parts of both wings which I had to crop out due to the following:
1. Physical obstacles in the museum hall.
2. Keeping a precise center point within the frame.
.3. Took the picture when the camera was placed on the floor (again, to avoid obstacles), a further crop, which already tried, would distort the planes within the frame.

So, I gave up. This picture will find place on my personal album. I will post a different picture on this craft.
Good evening,
Ike Harel

[ikeharel]

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

[Alex - Spot-This !]

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

[JuklicekCZ]

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.

[ikeharel]

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.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

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

[ikeharel]

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