Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Editing Advice - Arnold Aaron

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

  • ajaaron
    replied
    Is the contrast acceptable on this one - I realise not ideal conditions...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2613.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	598.9 KB
ID:	1042468

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    Many thanks...

    Had both of these pictures at London City airport rejected for 'wrong category/category missing'. Now, notwithstanding any other issues with these pics, I dont believe either of these pics come under any of the 'aircraft Specific' categories in the upload page, and neither are either of these pics 'Business Jets' or private jets. What should they be uploaded as? Many thanks.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]28259[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]28260[/ATTACH]
    Night Shot applies to both.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaaron
    replied
    Many thanks...

    Had both of these pictures at London City airport rejected for 'wrong category/category missing'. Now, notwithstanding any other issues with these pics, I dont believe either of these pics come under any of the 'aircraft Specific' categories in the upload page, and neither are either of these pics 'Business Jets' or private jets. What should they be uploaded as? Many thanks.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4251.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	891.1 KB
ID:	1042455

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4233.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	835.1 KB
ID:	1042456

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post

    Couple of questions...

    1. photo already sharpened almost to the max. - surely picture looks adeuately sharp?
    Surely not, else it would not have been rejected.

    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    2. Heat haze is only near runway surface, and not affecting any part of the aircraft - surely that would be permitted as its not affecting the aircraft itself?
    Affecting most of the aircraft actually. Look at how soft the gear, the nose, etc.. are. That's mostly due to the haze.

    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    3. Overprocessed - I can;t see any halos including when looking at the 'check for dust' tool - what are the signs here of overprocessing?
    There are some slight halos visible, but really they are insignificant compared to the other issues. If the other issues were not present, I doubt it would have been rejected for processing alone.

    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    if picture reduced down to 1280px, is this likely to overcome the above issues?
    Possibly, but not probably.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaaron
    replied
    Just had this one rejected... For unsharpened, over-processed and heat haze.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3320-11.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	566.2 KB
ID:	1042265

    Couple of questions...

    1. photo already sharpened almost to the max. - surely picture looks adeuately sharp?
    2. Heat haze is only near runway surface, and not affecting any part of the aircraft - surely that would be permitted as its not affecting the aircraft itself?
    3. Overprocessed - I can;t see any halos including when looking at the 'check for dust' tool - what are the signs here of overprocessing?

    if picture reduced down to 1280px, is this likely to overcome the above issues?

    Many thanks, I'm almost up to approaching 100 pics in the databse - it is so so addictive!

    Arnold Aaron.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    Can i just check my understanding of the 'aircraft cut-off' rules.... these photos below would not be rejected for 'cut-off', would they? the full body is included, and although tail fin is cut-off this is acceptable - am I correct? - Many thanks.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27952[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27953[/ATTACH]
    These are both pretty poorly cropped. Either give them a wider crop to avoid cutting the stab., or crop much tighter to the engines. Both would definitely be rejections for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaaron
    replied
    Can i just check my understanding of the 'aircraft cut-off' rules.... these photos below would not be rejected for 'cut-off', would they? the full body is included, and although tail fin is cut-off this is acceptable - am I correct? - Many thanks.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1846-4.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	939.2 KB
ID:	1042206

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1867-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	725.2 KB
ID:	1042207

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    Would this picture work, perhaps as a creative shot? - trying to be a little creative here...


    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27853[/ATTACH]
    Not sure why this would be considered creative; I am relatively sure however that it would be rejected for contrast, dirty, and maybe soft.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaaron
    replied
    Would this picture work, perhaps as a creative shot? - trying to be a little creative here...


    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4131.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	422.5 KB
ID:	1042125

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    Just had this one rejected because I didn't include position of this spotting point in the remarks box - Photo otherwise acceptable from what I can make out.... Question.... Could I have this photo accepted into the database and I'll immediately update remarks box with details of position and description of location - never had a rejection based on the remarks alone before - should I appeal to this effect, and I'll add the remarks in right away? - Many thanks.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27795[/ATTACH]
    Please read here:

    3.4.2 Spotting location

    https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ES-New-version

    You will need to re-submit the photo with appropriate remarks/description.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaaron
    replied
    Just had this one rejected because I didn't include position of this spotting point in the remarks box - Photo otherwise acceptable from what I can make out.... Question.... Could I have this photo accepted into the database and I'll immediately update remarks box with details of position and description of location - never had a rejection based on the remarks alone before - should I appeal to this effect, and I'll add the remarks in right away? - Many thanks.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	470.1 KB
ID:	1042081

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    IS this motive acceptable? - i.e. the trucks in front not causing an obstruction rejection?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27647[/ATTACH]
    Motive is fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaaron
    replied
    IS this motive acceptable? - i.e. the trucks in front not causing an obstruction rejection?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3627.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	878.3 KB
ID:	1041948

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaaron View Post
    Could you be a bit more helpful please....Poor quality in what regard? - Is there too much noise for this size? - picture not sharp enough? - would it be better at say 1280, like this?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]27510[/ATTACH]
    Much too soft/blurry for 1920. Even at 1280 still kind of soft. Looks like a significant crop + heat haze causing the issue(s).

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaaron
    replied
    Could you be a bit more helpful please....Poor quality in what regard? - Is there too much noise for this size? - picture not sharp enough? - would it be better at say 1280, like this?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3320-4.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	329.4 KB
ID:	1041835

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X