Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rejection question

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
    Good evening,

    I picked up a couple rejections lately, both for Colour.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7402978
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7433131

    Come to think of it the rejection before that (expired) was also for the same reason:
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]26619[/ATTACH]

    I'm aware of at least 15 (fifteen) different image problems that could be covered by the Bad Colour rejection. None of the above images came with screener comments so I'm hoping someone from the crew can comment on what the specific issues may be.

    Thanks,

    Alex
    All images have a strong green/magenta color cast.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quebec Golf
    replied
    Good evening,

    I picked up a couple rejections lately, both for Colour.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7402978
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7433131

    Come to think of it the rejection before that (expired) was also for the same reason:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6323_rawT_tif8_lev_colBalR-5_U10x3_U10loc_U15loc_flat.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.21 MB
ID:	1041076

    I'm aware of at least 15 (fifteen) different image problems that could be covered by the Bad Colour rejection. None of the above images came with screener comments so I'm hoping someone from the crew can comment on what the specific issues may be.

    Thanks,

    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
    Just wanted to say thanks to the screener who fixed the night shot category on my shot earlier today instead of rejecting (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9371007). I appreciate it!

    Alex
    Happens a lot more than people likely realize (I correct 20-30 images a day probably), you're welcome in any case

    Leave a comment:


  • Quebec Golf
    replied
    Just wanted to say thanks to the screener who fixed the night shot category on my shot earlier today instead of rejecting (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9371007). I appreciate it!

    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • Quebec Golf
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Everything in that photo seems to say CCW rotation is needed. Does the runway really slope that much at YHM?
    Nah, it's only about a 0.1% gradient. I would have been happy to take the runway as level, but then the fence post would look tilted and I suspect I'd be asking for rejection advice all the same.

    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
    Hello,

    the following photo was recently rejected for Horizon Unlevel: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7369432

    When submitting I added a note explaining that I chose to use the fence post as a vertical reference. The rejection email contained no comments from the screener so I do not know if the message is that:

    a) the crew thought the fence post wasn't vertical enough, or
    b) the crew thought that some other feature (e.g. edge of grass or rwy) should have been used as a reference instead
    ?

    Alex
    Everything in that photo seems to say CCW rotation is needed. Does the runway really slope that much at YHM?

    Leave a comment:


  • Quebec Golf
    replied
    Hello,

    the following photo was recently rejected for Horizon Unlevel: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7369432

    When submitting I added a note explaining that I chose to use the fence post as a vertical reference. The rejection email contained no comments from the screener so I do not know if the message is that:

    a) the crew thought the fence post wasn't vertical enough, or
    b) the crew thought that some other feature (e.g. edge of grass or rwy) should have been used as a reference instead
    ?

    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
    The following was rejected for Categories Wrong or Missing. No comments were provided and the system does not allow me to check what categories were selected. Can someone from the crew advise:

    - what categories were selected
    - what categories should have been selected

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7295605

    Thank you,

    Alex
    The only category needed is “Airport Overview”

    Leave a comment:


  • Quebec Golf
    replied
    The following was rejected for Categories Wrong or Missing. No comments were provided and the system does not allow me to check what categories were selected. Can someone from the crew advise:

    - what categories were selected
    - what categories should have been selected

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7295605

    Thank you,

    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Yeah, the compression was just an assumption, not a certainty, as to what was causing the blockiness of the effect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quebec Golf
    replied
    Thanks for looking Dana.

    As far as the magenta blocks in the equalized image go, I've been looking for a while and eventually found the culprit last night. It was the automatic CA correction in the RAW converter that was on by default. The linear borders of the artefacts are a function of the way the algorithm works, breaking up the picture into segments (to questionable effect in this case).


    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4839_RT_withCA_equalized.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	294.3 KB
ID:	1034794
    (Auto CA correction, no VigC)

    If this photo was rejected for Over-processed I would disagree as well, since the artefacts aren't visible in the actual image. I wouldn't have made a thread about it however, since I see a world of difference between the Digital Manipulation rejection and every other kind of rejection.

    P.S. I'm surprised at your comment about the compression. To me it's generally a balancing act between noise in the sky and compression artefacts. Without seeing any banding or distinct blotching (over the size of 3-4 pixels) I would have thought this one is well within the gate for that criteria. Any further thoughts on this would be appreciated.


    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Thanks for sending the RAW file; after taking a look, I can see that effect was almost certainly unintentional, and cause by two things. First, the lighter areas on the left and top of the frame are a result of some poor vignetting removal, or other poor processing on your part. The fact that they are quite blocky is likely due to how compressed the image you uploaded was. If I were to re-screen the image, I would change the manipulation rejection to overprocesed and (maybe compression) instead. I processed a jpeg from the RAW file you sent, with no editing other than cropping. Compare the equalized versions:

    What you uploaded
    Click image for larger version

Name:	procimages (1).jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	1.23 MB
ID:	1034779

    What it should have looked like with no processing
    Click image for larger version

Name:	procimages.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	934.4 KB
ID:	1034780

    Should be clear to see somewhere along the line (likely in an attempt to correct vignetting as I said above) you overdid the processing a bit, resulting in the brighter areas along the edges.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
    I appreciate your reply and need more clarification: What kind of digital manipulation could the magenta blocks (in the equalized image) be indicative of? I.e. is the thinking of the crew that I copied and pasted some sky into my photo?

    I don't want to come accross as overly pedantic but this is an important issue for me, especially considering the nature of the rejection.

    Alex

    Edit:

    To be clear:
    - the photo was not digitally manipulated, have the RAW file to prove it
    - the photo required minimal processing. All processing (except perhaps sharpening) applied to the entire frame
    - the blocks visible at equalization are artifacts of the RAW conversion
    If you want to send me the RAW file, I can take a look. I've never seen such patterns in a RAW file before, but I'm willing to take a look to see if that is in fact the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quebec Golf
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Indeed, bad edit of the sky on the left and top edge of frame.
    I appreciate your reply and need more clarification: What kind of digital manipulation could the magenta blocks (in the equalized image) be indicative of? I.e. is the thinking of the crew that I copied and pasted some sky into my photo?

    I don't want to come accross as overly pedantic but this is an important issue for me, especially considering the nature of the rejection.

    Alex

    Edit:

    To be clear:
    - the photo was not digitally manipulated, have the RAW file to prove it
    - the photo required minimal processing. All processing (except perhaps sharpening) applied to the entire frame
    - the blocks visible at equalization are artifacts of the RAW conversion

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Indeed, bad edit of the sky on the left and top edge of frame.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X