Fabrizio Gandolfo - Rejected Photo/Editing Advice

[Gandalf]

ok. I'm pretty frustrated. The best thing i can do is showing images and simply asking opinions.
10 years uploading. 11000 photos in database and counting.
For the first time in my life today i had 9 photos rejected. All for the same unacceptable reason.

Please consider that i never (i say: never) argued a screener decision. I've always had over 80 percent of photos accepted. Really rarely i've appealed rejected photo: if I complain in this way it is because I find absurd what has happened.

An example of rejection: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6479869

Just to explain what i'm meaning this is a my photo accepted: [photoid: 8904221] (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8904221): spot the difference.

Ok. I'm really thinking this is the time for asking a fully deletion of my account and all my photos from the database

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Hi,
When considering backlit we check the tail. I'm sure you can notice how dark the tail is on the rejected shot, which means it's the shade side of it. On the 747 the tail is much lighter which, while it's borderline, was acceptable.
Just remember that never anything good comes out of frustration, I know it sucks to have all the rejections you got there, but unfortunately, I'm afraid they were really too backlit

Kind Regards
Alex

[Gandalf]

Hi,
When considering backlit we check the tail. I'm sure you can notice how dark the tail is on the rejected shot, which means it's the shade side of it. On the 747 the tail is much lighter which, while it's borderline, was acceptable.
Just remember that never anything good comes out of frustration, I know it sucks to have all the rejections you got there, but unfortunately, I'm afraid they were really too backlit

Kind Regards
Alex

Thanks Alex for your replay.

You're right: never anything good comes out of frustration...

You won't miss me, i will miss You.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

We would miss you too

[Gandalf]

According to the Exif the 747 photo was taken on 22nd march at 11.00 am LT.

According to Suncalc this is the sun position at that time:




i never understand how a photo can be backlit with the sun behind on me. Tail shade or not.

[LX-A343]

According to the Exif the 747 photo was taken on 22nd march at 11.00 am LT.

According to Suncalc this is the sun position at that time:


[ATTACH=CONFIG]14880[/ATTACH]

i never understand how a photo can be backlit with the sun behind on me. Tail shade or not.

We don't check EXIF, Suncalc, and so on. We simply check the photo. Both photos are borderline, but the rejected photo has overall a harsh contrast and the tail is partly in its own shadow, while the accepted photo looks just that tiny little bit better, which made the difference.

BTW, the aircraft on the rejected photo landed 9:54, not 11:00 .... and now that I wrote this, I remember that I have to set the time on my camera to DST .

[Gandalf]

Hello!

can please the screener help me to understand what he/she means for Over Processed / Bad postprocessing here?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8042390

Thanks!

[dlowwa]

Hello!

can please the screener help me to understand what he/she means for Over Processed / Bad postprocessing here?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8042390

Thanks!

Editing halos are visible around the wings and tail.

In the future, please post any new questions in the same thread, no longer how much time has elapsed.

[Gandalf]

Hello!

An old photo... worth an upload?

VT-ALDFra240809 by rafanass68, su Flickr

Thanks,

Fabrizio

[dlowwa]

Hello!

An old photo... worth an upload?

VT-ALDFra240809 by rafanass68, su Flickr

Thanks,

Fabrizio

Might be better to attach the image you actually plan to upload. Far too much compression on the Flickr link to tell if the quality is good enough.

[Gandalf]

Might be better to attach the image you actually plan to upload. Far too much compression on the Flickr link to tell if the quality is good enough.

Not sure if quality lack depends on Flickr

[dlowwa]

Not sure if quality lack depends on Flickr

Well, better to be sure, right?

In any case, the it appears to be more noise than compression, and the contrast is not that great for a night shot, so I'd say overall probably not much chance.

[Gandalf]

Hello!
i had this shot rejected multiple times (unusual for me, if i can say...)

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8189299

Every time the issue was the same: contrast (more, less, too more, too less: i tryed everything).

It's an old photo and i'd like very much to see it in my folder. i do not want to give up. But now is the time i need to ask for an help: what's wrong with it? Which would be the correct way to set the contrast and make it accepted?

I know the way exist, but i can't find it.
Thanks for any hint.

Fabrizio

[dlowwa]

Hello!
i had this shot rejected multiple times (unusual for me, if i can say...)

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8189299

Every time the issue was the same: contrast (more, less, too more, too less: i tryed everything).

It's an old photo and i'd like very much to see it in my folder. i do not want to give up. But now is the time i need to ask for an help: what's wrong with it? Which would be the correct way to set the contrast and make it accepted?

I know the way exist, but i can't find it.
Thanks for any hint.

Fabrizio

In this case, contrast too harsh (and noisy). Looks like there was a thin overcast layer, making the light hitting the aircraft a little diffuse. Possibly fixable, but likely to be a challenge.

[Gandalf]

In this case, contrast too harsh (and noisy). Looks like there was a thin overcast layer, making the light hitting the aircraft a little diffuse. Possibly fixable, but likely to be a challenge.

Thank You diowwa as always for your help in the forum.

...and now:

ET-ALPFco2601008c by rafanass68, su Flickr

The file has been edited from scratch. Any valuable improvement?

Thanks,