Help on rejected photo - minhtrankhiem

[minhtrankhiem]

Thanks for having enough confidence in the process to post that. Having seen the original, I can now say that the rejection should have been for overprocessed only, with the color being a subjective issue (slightly oversaturated). As I suspected, the overprocessing is due to the top corners being much brighter than the center of the frame, which is much darker towards the top-center. This could possibly due to too much vignetting correction, or some other software/editing function. With a better, re-processed image, it should be acceptable.

Thank you for your answer, I'm now clear on what's wrong with this photo.

Best regards,
Minh

[dlowwa]

Hi, thank you for your reply.

I always include Exif data with my picture. The reason it doesn't show on this image could be because it was rejected.

You could find the Exif data here, on the original file come straight out of the camera.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=19i...hjhllBbBfxD2jf

Regards,
Minh

Thanks for having enough confidence in the process to post that. Having seen the original, I can now say that the rejection should have been for overprocessed only, with the color being a subjective issue (slightly oversaturated). As I suspected, the overprocessing is due to the top corners being much brighter than the center of the frame, which is much darker towards the top-center. This could possibly due to too much vignetting correction, or some other software/editing function. With a better, re-processed image, it should be acceptable.

[minhtrankhiem]

It could simply be the effect of a wide angle + filter that is causing the darkening pattern in the upper part of the sky, but since you've stripped the exif, it's difficult to tell.

Hi, thank you for your reply.

I always include Exif data with my picture. The reason it doesn't show on this image could be because it was rejected.

You could find the Exif data here, on the original file come straight out of the camera.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=19i...hjhllBbBfxD2jf

Regards,
Minh

[dlowwa]

Hello everyone,
I'm reposting from a different thread. I thought that I need another thread for a different case. Sorry for that!

Turning back to the problem, I've just had a rejection, here is the link to the image: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7157106

Can you help me on how to improve this image? I don't know what's wrong with this one.

Thank you very much!

Regards,

It could simply be the effect of a wide angle + filter that is causing the darkening pattern in the upper part of the sky, but since you've stripped the exif, it's difficult to tell.

[comet1]

Hi,

maybe there is a minimal red tint. But this is quite subjective. The other issues, espicially digital manipulation, I cannot see at all.
Brgds

Rainer

[minhtrankhiem]

Hello everyone,
I'm reposting from a different thread. I thought that I need another thread for a different case. Sorry for that!

Turning back to the problem, I've just had a rejection, here is the link to the image: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7157106

Can you help me on how to improve this image? I don't know what's wrong with this one.

Thank you very much!

Regards,

[dlowwa]

Those blocks usually appears after I do the noise reduction and resizing.
Moreover, are there anyway to clear my name up or I just keep getting rejection like this in the future?
Thanks!

Your name doesn't need to be 'cleared up'. You've been caught twice, and that's on your record. The third one was just a failure to extend you the benefit of the doubt on a questionable image. There were no further repercussions for that one other than the rejection. As long as you don't submit any more images that have been intentionally manipulated (filling in the frame, removing objects, etc..) you have nothing to worry about.

[minhtrankhiem]

This is a blown-up view of the top left corner of the second version you submitted:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21053[/ATTACH]

This is a blown-up view of the same corner on the third version (same as top of this thread):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21054[/ATTACH]

If all you did was rotate and crop as you said, there should be no variation in the pixel pattern between the two. However, you can clearly see the second has repeated blocky patterns along the top edge, where there are none in the other image. While we can't say this is definitely caused by intentional manipulation on your part, due to your past history, you did not get the benefit of the doubt. If you had no history of manipulating images, this would not have been checked more carefully, and the image would most likely have been accepted.

Those blocks usually appears after I do the noise reduction and resizing.
Moreover, are there anyway to clear my name up or I just keep getting rejection like this in the future?
Thanks!

[dlowwa]

I donÂ’t understand what you are implying about the sky is different in the two pictures. I cropped it differently so it should be different too.
Screeners you guys told me to send you a raw picture so that you can say that it is ‘irrelevant’ doing so???

This is a blown-up view of the top left corner of the second version you submitted:



This is a blown-up view of the same corner on the third version (same as top of this thread):



If all you did was rotate and crop as you said, there should be no variation in the pixel pattern between the two. However, you can clearly see the second has repeated blocky patterns along the top edge, where there are none in the other image. While we can't say this is definitely caused by intentional manipulation on your part, due to your past history, you did not get the benefit of the doubt. If you had no history of manipulating images, this would not have been checked more carefully, and the image would most likely have been accepted.

[minhtrankhiem]

Again, if you examine the two images you submitted the pixel pattern is different in the aforementioned area. Whether this was intentional or not, you lost the benefit of the doubt because or your previous infractions. Looking at the original raw file is irrelevant in this case, since we are discussing the images you submitted. There is no need to try and make your case any further, as no other actions will be taken as long as you don't repeat this kind of editing/manipulation in the future.

I donÂ’t understand what you are implying about the sky is different in the two pictures. I cropped it differently so it should be different too.
Screeners you guys told me to send you a raw picture so that you can say that it is ‘irrelevant’ doing so???

[dlowwa]

I admit that I used processing tools to fill in the blank pixels in the second attempt in order to fix the cropping rejection on the first attempt. But to the third attempt I did the whole editing all over again. And I did nothing else to manipulate anything.
You can verify this by downloading my raw file onto your computer. Rotate 0.4 CCW. And crop tight onto the aircraft with the ratio of 3:2 as I did on my photo. If you crop a bit wider, no border would appear on the upper left but the bottom right. I did nothing to the sky as well in the second rejection.
This is a cropping review showing that the sky is perfectly fine but not the grass on the bottom right when I choose to crop wider (please refer to the buildings in the background).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]21052[/ATTACH]

Thank you!

Again, if you examine the two images you submitted the pixel pattern is different in the aforementioned area. Whether this was intentional or not, you lost the benefit of the doubt because or your previous infractions. Looking at the original raw file is irrelevant in this case, since we are discussing the images you submitted. There is no need to try and make your case any further, as no other actions will be taken as long as you don't repeat this kind of editing/manipulation in the future.

[minhtrankhiem]

As you are aware, an earlier version of this image was also rejected for manipulation, after you obviously filled in part of the frame to remove a border. This was kept in mind when you tried for the third time with the image above, and it was noticed that the sky in the upper left (where a border would have appeared after rotating it CCW like you did) did not match the earlier versions. Given your previous history of using manipulation (including the instance in Feb. 2016 with B-16411), we decided not to no longer give you the benefit of the doubt in such cases.

Please understand that given your history, any future cases where your images are found to be altered in such a manner will result in a reduction of upload slots and/or temporary upload ban.

I admit that I used processing tools to fill in the blank pixels in the second attempt in order to fix the cropping rejection on the first attempt. But to the third attempt I did the whole editing all over again. And I did nothing else to manipulate anything.
You can verify this by downloading my raw file onto your computer. Rotate 0.4 CCW. And crop tight onto the aircraft with the ratio of 3:2 as I did on my photo. If you crop a bit wider, no border would appear on the upper left but the bottom right. I did nothing to the sky as well in the second rejection.
This is a cropping review showing that the sky is perfectly fine but not the grass on the bottom right when I choose to crop wider (please refer to the buildings in the background).


Thank you!

[dlowwa]

Hello,

I recently got a rejected photo for 'Digital manipulation'. Here is the link into the rejected photo: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7043764

I believe this is a false rejection and I would like to provide the raw image for clarification as requested by screeners that rejected my appeal request.
Here is the link to the original file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Fx...ew?usp=sharing

I hope the raw file could help to clear everything up.

Thanks a lot

Best regards,

Minh

As you are aware, an earlier version of this image was also rejected for manipulation, after you obviously filled in part of the frame to remove a border. This was kept in mind when you tried for the third time with the image above, and it was noticed that the sky in the upper left (where a border would have appeared after rotating it CCW like you did) did not match the earlier versions. Given your previous history of using manipulation (including the instance in Feb. 2016 with B-16411), we decided not to no longer give you the benefit of the doubt in such cases.

Please understand that given your history, any future cases where your images are found to be altered in such a manner will result in a reduction of upload slots and/or temporary upload ban.

[rui cardoso]

At the base of the JP there is a picture almost the same, taken at the same time and same place.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Hi,
We also had a doubt, that's why we asked you to send the original raw file by email

Regards
Alex