Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nicholas Hesler/NickFlightX - Editing Advise

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
    Is is possible to somehow fix those? Or is the image just too blurry? Not sure exactly how to fix the compression issue.
    If the original is blurry, there is no way to fix it. Compression can be addressed by modifying your save settings so that the jpeg quality is at maximum.

    Comment


    • #47
      Looking for some clarification on this photo rejection. Looking to resubmit it.

      https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7221628

      Im curious about all of them actually. The photo was cropped this way to include the C-5 and the F-16 in the same photo, which I think is a very cool composition. Do I just need to make the C-5 as close to the top as I can or does the F-16 itself need to be centered?

      Second was the missing/wrong categories. Not sure what was missing from this one.

      And finally the invalid hot. I added the hot due to this being the first photo with the number 6 on this jet. Used to be TB1. Ive had other photos with small changes like that get accepted for hot.

      Thanks in advanced.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
        Looking for some clarification on this photo rejection. Looking to resubmit it.

        https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7221628

        Im curious about all of them actually. The photo was cropped this way to include the C-5 and the F-16 in the same photo, which I think is a very cool composition. Do I just need to make the C-5 as close to the top as I can or does the F-16 itself need to be centered?

        Second was the missing/wrong categories. Not sure what was missing from this one.

        And finally the invalid hot. I added the hot due to this being the first photo with the number 6 on this jet. Used to be TB1. Ive had other photos with small changes like that get accepted for hot.

        Thanks in advanced.
        No specific categories apply to this aircraft; if none were selected, then it might be worth an appeal as the other rejection reasons weren't appropriate, imho.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
          No specific categories apply to this aircraft; if none were selected, then it might be worth an appeal as the other rejection reasons weren't appropriate, imho.
          Also, before any future appeals, please be sure to read here thoroughly, especially #8:

          https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ning-from-crew

          Comment


          • #50
            Oh, thanks. I should double check on all of these.

            May I make a suggestion, sense there is a lot of information and specific rules for uploading, pre screening, appealing, etc. Maybe when members join, then get an email with links to all these different forms. So they have all the information handed to them because I personally was unaware that a lot of these posts with rules existed. Think it would be good help for everyone and possibly bring down the number of posts/appeals that break the rules.

            Comment


            • #51
              Hello,

              Confused by these rejections. All 3 got rejected for over processed and bad color. I dont understand how the over processed rejection is valid as I dont see any signs of over processing. Plus the color looks fine on all the photos imo.

              Thanks in advanced.

              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7235007
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7235000
              https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7234998

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
                Hello,

                Confused by these rejections. All 3 got rejected for over processed and bad color. I dont understand how the over processed rejection is valid as I dont see any signs of over processing. Plus the color looks fine on all the photos imo.

                Thanks in advanced.

                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7235007
                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7235000
                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7234998
                It appears a filter was used, either physically, or in post processing. The former is allowed, but the latter is not. If the former, you can contact me via DM to send an original copy to confirm, and I will have the images accepted. If the latter, please know such bad editing is not permitted.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Thanks for sending the files. I can confirm after comparing the raw files to the ones you uploaded that the editing you did indeed changed the images significantly enough that I think an overprocessed rejection was an appropriate rejection reason. The skies in all of the images are darker and more saturated than the original files, while the rest of the frame is little changed. If you're using features like clarity, dehaze, or shadow/highlight to achieve this effect, I'd recommend avoiding their use with future uploads.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Took this on my recent trip, not sure if this could be accepted. Thoughts?

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2003.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	651.3 KB
ID:	1040285

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Hi,
                      Colors and contrast are the main issue

                      Regards
                      Alex

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Either of these acceptable?
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2381.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	776.3 KB
ID:	1041507
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2392.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.10 MB
ID:	1041508

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Hello,

                          I got some photos rejected recently and I would like some clarification.

                          https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7632349
                          I queued this as hot as there is new writing on the nose gear door. The screener said that this was too small of a change. However, I also had a second photo of an F-35A that was accepted for the same reason, new writing on the nose gear door. So I am confused as to why one was accepted and one was not.

                          https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7633248
                          This one says the registration is wrong, however I am failing to see how N88394 is wrong. The only other thing I can think of would be NC88394, however the FAA database does not accept that as a valid registration.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
                            Hello,

                            I got some photos rejected recently and I would like some clarification.

                            https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7632349
                            I queued this as hot as there is new writing on the nose gear door. The screener said that this was too small of a change. However, I also had a second photo of an F-35A that was accepted for the same reason, new writing on the nose gear door. So I am confused as to why one was accepted and one was not.
                            Imho, neither should have qualified as hot. Is it vitally important that these minor changes appear on the DB 6-7 days earlier that waiting in the regular queue? It seems more like trying to take advantage of the system and using any insignificant change to skip the queue. In your case the first barely qualified, as it was new markings where there had previously been none, while the second is simply an update of the current markings which no one would have noticed unless they looked really closely.

                            Originally posted by nickflightx View Post
                            https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7633248
                            This one says the registration is wrong, however I am failing to see how N88394 is wrong. The only other thing I can think of would be NC88394, however the FAA database does not accept that as a valid registration.
                            NC- is used in the DB. See all the other images using that format already accepted.

                            In the future, no comments will be made on images you've already appealed.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              How does this photo look? First time really trying out an aerobatic shot, so still working on getting the best settings and techniques.

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5366.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	411.1 KB
ID:	1043209

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X