Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nicholas Hesler/NickFlightX - Editing Advise

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

  • nickflightx
    replied
    Had this photo rejected twice now for contrast. Can I get some opinion on what I should do to make this acceptable? First one was over contrast I could tell, but I have no idea for the second one. Can the rejection be changed to say which one it is, like a rejection for too much contrast and a rejection for to little contrast? This is by far the most common rejection I get and I am almost always confused as to which it is.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7151519
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7152333

    Leave a comment:


  • nickflightx
    replied
    I am trying to upload the photo from the last post I made, but the airport is entered wrong into the database. Right now, it is entered into the database as "San Martin/South County - Q99" and has the country of "Wake Island". The upload page simply wont let me change the country to USA - California, it has already caused me a rejection. Further more, the airport now has the name/code of: "San Martin - E16". Any chance this can get fixed so I would be able to upload the photo?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
    How does this photo look? Taken from an old camera, so not the best quality out there. Also, I am having trouble with uploading this pic. The airport, E16, does not appear to be in the data base. Cant find it anywhere.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]21267[/ATTACH]
    Some compression/oversharpening, but otherwise ok.

    Leave a comment:


  • nickflightx
    replied
    How does this photo look? Taken from an old camera, so not the best quality out there. Also, I am having trouble with uploading this pic. The airport, E16, does not appear to be in the data base. Cant find it anywhere.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01934.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	465.9 KB
ID:	1032505

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    you could be right, not technically backlit by definition but like the senior replied to your appeal "fuselage is not well lit, correctly rejected" which I agree with. for such front lit shot of such a common aircraft I recommend you wait for a better chance

    Regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • nickflightx
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7034787

    I got this rejected recently, and I am confused with the rejection. While the airplane is not very well lit, it is not back lit by definition. If you look at the taxiway center line, you can see that most of the shadow is on the far side of the center line, which shows that the plane is not back lit by definition. I appealed this a good time ago and haven't heard back which is why I am asking here.

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
    How does this photo look?
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20880[/ATTACH]
    Quality looks fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • nickflightx
    replied
    How does this photo look?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2282.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	728.2 KB
ID:	1032173

    Leave a comment:


  • pdeboer
    replied
    Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
    How do these photos look?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20570[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20571[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20572[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20573[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20574[/ATTACH]
    1 looks acceptable, 2 and 3 are a bit dark, 4 and 5 look acceptable

    Leave a comment:


  • nickflightx
    replied
    How do these photos look?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7640.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.41 MB
ID:	1031897
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7650.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1,024.0 KB
ID:	1031898
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8861.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	666.6 KB
ID:	1031899
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7749.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.31 MB
ID:	1031900
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7795.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1,014.3 KB
ID:	1031901

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
    Would this one get rejected for obstruction due to the loader on the back? (This is not edited for a jetphotos upload)

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20480[/ATTACH]
    Most likely yes, since it is avoidable with better timing.

    Leave a comment:


  • nickflightx
    replied
    Would this one get rejected for obstruction due to the loader on the back? (This is not edited for a jetphotos upload)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1449.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	310.5 KB
ID:	1031841

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
    How do these photos look?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20115[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20116[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20117[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20118[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20119[/ATTACH]
    1-3 soft/blurry, overprocessed
    4. ok
    5. borderline soft

    Leave a comment:


  • nickflightx
    replied
    How do these photos look?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0056.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	570.0 KB
ID:	1031565

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0089.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	733.2 KB
ID:	1031566

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0116.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	700.1 KB
ID:	1031567

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6543.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.38 MB
ID:	1031568

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6583.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.32 MB
ID:	1031569

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]20045[/ATTACH]

    How does this photo look? I am worried cause theres a big spike in the histogram for the bright side, but it clearly doesnt look over exposed. Thanks in advance!
    Soft, and borderline for contrast.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X