pre-screen photos at dawn

[a.m.]

Since you've already appealed, and the comments were nearly identical to the ones I made several months ago, I don't think there is much to add. As for the two 'similar' accepted images, one should have been rejected (EC-MEL), and in the other the obstruction is much more minor.

Thx dlowwa. wow, what a setback. basically I was convinced that those light poles were ok. my mistake then.

[dlowwa]

Thx dlowwa. wow, what a setback. basically I was convinced that those light poles were ok. my mistake then.

As both I, and the other senior screener mentioned in your appeal, when the obstruction appears to be easily avoidable, we generally consider it as such, even if relatively minor.

[a.m.]

Hi Dlowwa.
How's life the universe and everything ? hope well.

I need your help understanding and future avoiding these two type of rejections.

1) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10208618. Where can I verify it's overexposed ?

2) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208605
3) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208619

are these "Under-sharpened (Soft)" a problem at origin or lack of processing ?
I'm including the original image and a new processing.

thx for your time and help

[dlowwa]

Hi Dlowwa.
How's life the universe and everything ? hope well.

I need your help understanding and future avoiding these two type of rejections.

1) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10208618. Where can I verify it's overexposed ?

2) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208605
3) https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=10208619

are these "Under-sharpened (Soft)" a problem at origin or lack of processing ?
I'm including the original image and a new processing.

thx for your time and help

Hi,

1. histogram; spike along the right edge indicates overexposure
2-3. unfortunately the originals do not appear to be attached, as such I can only comment on the rejections/edits; both appear to show soft areas (still), so perhaps it's not the editing and a lower resolution might be necessary to hide those soft areas

[a.m.]

Thx dlowwa.

1. histogram; spike along the right edge indicates overexposure

ah. easy stuff then .
Regarding the missing files, strange indeed. Well, looking further on the resolution topic.

I have one additional question regarding a vignette rejection

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10211154

When looking at the original image, I thought that the crop region was from a reasonable vignette free zone, special in the low part of the plane..
Looking a the rejected image , it looks indeed that it has some vignetting... but at the same time it looks also the shape it's an oval instead of a circle... like if it was an optical vignette illusion.
Your comments/recommendations please.


/rgds
a.m.

[dlowwa]

Thx dlowwa.



ah. easy stuff then .
Regarding the missing files, strange indeed. Well, looking further on the resolution topic.

I have one additional question regarding a vignette rejection

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10211154

When looking at the original image, I thought that the crop region was from a reasonable vignette free zone, special in the low part of the plane..
Looking a the rejected image , it looks indeed that it has some vignetting... but at the same time it looks also the shape it's an oval instead of a circle... like if it was an optical vignette illusion.
Your comments/recommendations please.


/rgds
a.m.

It's noticeable, and as you can see from the cropped original, it's not really an illusion, simply the corners in the cropped image are still darker than the rest of the frame - which is the definition of vignetting. It only looks like an oval because that's how you cropped it.