Originally posted by a.m.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
pre-screen photos at dawn
Collapse
X
-
-
Thx dlowwa.
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post1. histogram; spike along the right edge indicates overexposure.
Regarding the missing files, strange indeed. Well, looking further on the resolution topic.
I have one additional question regarding a vignette rejection
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View Post
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
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
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View Post
Thx dlowwa. wow, what a setback. basically I was convinced that those light poles were ok. my mistake then.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View PostI need your help to understand these 3 rejections for: Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter, ( It's the first time I've receive an "Obstruction rejection")
Leave a comment:
-
Hi dlowwa. How's life ? hope fine .
I need your help to understand these 3 rejections for: Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter, ( It's the first time I've receive an "Obstruction rejection")
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
I've appealed for the first , in order to get some feedback, but can't understand it, then my request for help.
"when a small obstruction like here is easy to avoid then it gets rejected".
I believe the "small obstruction" is the runway lights in front of the wheel.
If that's the case, then I'm completed puzzled.
Sure I could have not upload such photo... if I knew it would broke a rule... but so far, that wasn't been a problem.
As one of these coincidences, in my last post above, I've asked advise on a small wired in front of the wheel. It was considered obstruction.
And I understand why.. the wired is an external factor to the "environment"...
So, I believe I'm acquainted to the obstruction rules,
During this 3 years I've uploaded lots of files in the same position, therefore with the same lights in front of the wheels.
Still in the previous batch, 2 other photos in the same exact position where accepted.
Can you please shed some light ?
Thx for your time and help
Leave a comment:
-
Understood , thx. Unfortunately I’m already in the angle limit to take the photo. Maybe next time, they park it one yard away. Thx
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View PostHi dlowwa. Long time no see/talk. how's life ? hope fine .
Can you please review this one, specifically regarding the iron string over the wheel. Would it be be considered obstruction ?
thx
Leave a comment:
-
Hi dlowwa. Long time no see/talk. how's life ? hope fine .
Can you please review this one, specifically regarding the iron string over the wheel. Would it be be considered obstruction ?
thx
Leave a comment:
-
Thx dlowwa
I agree that head shots, really don’t identify the aircraft.. so that’s understandable to remove these.
But never tough that CS-TUE could be removed for that reason. The registration number it’s clearly seen In the middle of the picture, along with the tail. There’s no other special thing on this livery to be seen.
Strangely , enough I took 5 or so photos in sequence and I choose this one because it show the plane on a different angle. In my “ingenuity” I was thinking on creating diversity and avoid always the same angle. Damn.. it looks I’ve failed.. but this angle rule is/will be something very difficult to master.
Back to the drawing board..
/rgds
a.m.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by a.m. View PostHi dlowwa, long time no see/talk . How's life ? hope well.
I just realize that several photos don't show up on FR.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9810851
is there any particular situation for this ?
thx for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
(these ones, have already been replaced by a newer one... so case close for them , but they have never appeared.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9795451
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9795450
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9796364
)
Leave a comment:
-
Hi dlowwa, long time no see/talk . How's life ? hope well.
I just realize that several photos don't show up on FR.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9810851
is there any particular situation for this ?
thx for your time and help
/rgds
a.m.
(these ones, have already been replaced by a newer one... so case close for them , but they have never appeared.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9795451
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9795450
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9796364
)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
Honestly, it's no issue checking one or two images once in a while, especially if you are specific about your concerns. It's the guys who constantly post the max 5 images every 24 hours with only comments 'pre-screening please' that start to get on my nerves a bit.
Great. See you then one of this days with a tuff problem.
/rgds
a.m.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: