Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

dfu - editing advice

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

  • dfu - editing advice

    Among other reasons (yes, I see the halos), this picture was rejected for an unspecified "digital manipulation" - what might that be? There is none...
    Click image for larger version

Name:	P1040696_03.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	213.3 KB
ID:	1046323


    And while this one was accepted, I received the following comment:
    "Checked Night Shot and Special Scheme category for you. Please be more careful next time or we may start rejecting your photos."
    This was taken at 6:30, well after sunrise - not really a night shot. I can't find any "Special Scheme Category" when uploading - what does that refer to?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	P1000618_1280.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	804.9 KB
ID:	1046324

  • #2
    Originally posted by dfu View Post
    Among other reasons (yes, I see the halos), this picture was rejected for an unspecified "digital manipulation" - what might that be? There is none...
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25259[/ATTACH]


    And while this one was accepted, I received the following comment:
    "Checked Night Shot and Special Scheme category for you. Please be more careful next time or we may start rejecting your photos."
    This was taken at 6:30, well after sunrise - not really a night shot. I can't find any "Special Scheme Category" when uploading - what does that refer to?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25260[/ATTACH]
    The digital manipulation one would probably be because of the halos.

    No idea why the night category was added onto the second shot. But there is a “special scheme” checkbox you need to tick for special liveries like this.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by meeshboi View Post
      No idea why the night category was added onto the second shot. But there is a “special scheme” checkbox you need to tick for special liveries like this.
      Oh, that.... Yes, maybe.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dfu View Post
        Among other reasons (yes, I see the halos), this picture was rejected for an unspecified "digital manipulation" - what might that be? There is none...
        The sky has been edited in such a way that it has been replaced by a single block of color. This is considered manipulation, whether intentional or not.

        Originally posted by dfu View Post
        This was taken at 6:30, well after sunrise - not really a night shot.
        Originally posted by meeshboi View Post
        No idea why the night category was added onto the second shot.
        You both might want to read the upload guidelines then. "2.2 Categories - Night Shots This category should apply for photos taken at dawn, dusk and night. For Dusk and Dawn photos these should show a red-orange glow and long shadows." That is clearly the case here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
          The sky has been edited in such a way that it has been replaced by a single block of color.
          Not actually the case here, but I get the idea.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dfu View Post
            Not actually the case here, but I get the idea.
            Yes, actually the case here. Care to explain how this effect was achieved?

            Click image for larger version

Name:	P1040696_03.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	304.9 KB
ID:	1039903

            The halos notwithstanding, the only way to get the sky a single, uniform block of color like that is through bad editing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
              Yes, actually the case here.
              Umm, no, quite simply. That's a false allegation. Nothing was "replaced". So no "manipulation" as such.

              Care to explain how this effect was achieved?
              A rather uniform blue sky to begin with and the "Average" softening effect in PS as a means to reduce noise. Won't be using that again...

              Click image for larger version

Name:	P1040696_03.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	304.9 KB
ID:	1039903

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dfu View Post
                Umm, no, quite simply. That's a false allegation. Nothing was "replaced". So no "manipulation" as such.

                A rather uniform blue sky to begin with and the "Average" softening effect in PS as a means to reduce noise.
                Not a false allegation, we just have a different definition of manipulation. Your use of the 'averaging' effect causes the sky to become a single uniform color, in effect replacing - or manipulating - the original sky.


                Originally posted by dfu View Post
                Won't be using that again...
                A good idea indeed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Recjections, rejections, rejections

                  I believe screeners here are absoutely hellbent on rejecting. No way to get across.

                  First try with
                  https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7392155
                  Rejected for
                  • Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots (the spots were flies)
                  • Categories wrong or missing


                  Second try, where I specifically asked which categories might be missing, and would screeners be so kind as to add them, as I had no idea which one would be applicable.

                  https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7422761
                  Suddenly they add:
                  • Dark / Underexposed
                  • JPG compression artefacts


                  And still
                  • Categories wrong or missing


                  You'd thnk perhaps people might have the decency/courtesy to explain what categories they are referring to, or not add new reasons for rejection that weren't mentioned before, but if it helps getting rid of submissions, why not make stuff up....?

                  Also https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7422737
                  • Dark / Underexposed
                  • Backlit
                  • JPG compression artefacts


                  Where are the artefacts?Backlit is not correct, either, the sun came right from the side.
                  Rejection of appeal came within minutes, and said "slightly dark" - and again, three slots blocked for two weeks.
                  So much fun, so much motivation to continue. But probably that's the idea, frustrate people (apart from the chosen few) to a degree where they will just give up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dfu View Post
                    I believe screeners here are absoutely hellbent on rejecting. No way to get across.

                    First try with
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7392155
                    Rejected for
                    • Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots (the spots were flies)
                    • Categories wrong or missing


                    Second try, where I specifically asked which categories might be missing, and would screeners be so kind as to add them, as I had no idea which one would be applicable.

                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7422761
                    Suddenly they add:
                    • Dark / Underexposed
                    • JPG compression artefacts


                    And still
                    • Categories wrong or missing


                    You'd thnk perhaps people might have the decency/courtesy to explain what categories they are referring to, or not add new reasons for rejection that weren't mentioned before, but if it helps getting rid of submissions, why not make stuff up....?

                    Also https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7422737
                    • Dark / Underexposed
                    • Backlit
                    • JPG compression artefacts


                    Where are the artefacts?Backlit is not correct, either, the sun came right from the side.
                    Rejection of appeal came within minutes, and said "slightly dark" - and again, three slots blocked for two weeks.
                    So much fun, so much motivation to continue. But probably that's the idea, frustrate people (apart from the chosen few) to a degree where they will just give up.
                    Hey, I don't think you should say such things about screeners.. They are human, and they're trained to closely examine each and every photo. They know more about photography, editing, and screening than pretty much anybody else on Jetphotos.
                    I too, have gotten lots and lots of rejections, most of the time caused by bad editing. I don't take each rejection personally, nor do I always disagree.. Occasionally I appeal, but I usually come to the forum first for advice before appealing, and I'd suggest that you do the same. Ask a screener here on the forum before appealing.

                    As for those rejections, wait for an actual screener to take a look at them.....




                    Thanks,
                    Andrew
                    Andrew - CVG Spotter
                    Canon T4i - 75-300mm

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I was In the same position when I first started out, the Screeners Are not out to reject all youre photos,

                      With JPG Compression If you are using Lightroom make sure the slider is up to 100% trust me this will help,

                      With Spots use the spot removing tool or serach for how to remove them online.

                      and When using Auto-fill (this happens to everyone) Make sure the the C/n is in and you have ticked the correct class eg, Small Prop helicopter

                      Hope this helps
                      FBO

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Comparing histograms of the rejected picture with one that was accepted earlier, just for laughs...


                        Is the A350 better like this? If yes, why do I have to wait two weeks to make a minor adjustment?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by FlyBoyOne View Post
                          With JPG Compression If you are using Lightroom make sure the slider is up to 100% trust me this will help,
                          Always do, no exception. I have no idea where they see them here.

                          and When using Auto-fill (this happens to everyone) Make sure the the C/n is in and you have ticked the correct class eg, Small Prop helicopter
                          I asked them to add a suitable category, as I was unaware of what it might be. No reply, just another rejection for the same reason (with a few other reasons added). I consider that quite rude, to be honest.



                          Originally posted by AndrewBison View Post
                          As for those rejections, wait for an actual screener to take a look at them.....
                          My success quote for appeals is 0%

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hey,
                            I get where you're coming from. However the A350 is backlit no matter how you look at it. It just is. The category which is probably missing in the first two shots is 'Night Shot'. I suggest reading the upload guidelines which are posted in this forum. We all have been there and I do understand your frustration. I hope my post helped.

                            Upload Guidelines: https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...load+guidlines

                            Greetings
                            RobertLN

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              that must be frustrating for you about the a319 and it can get annoying ive been here for a month now and with the 14 day rejected thing ive only been able to upload like 6 pictures 4 been rejected 1 accepted and 1 in queue still but i don't think you should talk about the screeners that way these guys are very good at what they do and probably better than 95% off people on here.

                              but if there is a person on here with the authority to change things maybe try to change the rejected wait from 14 days to 7 days. it sure would save me alot of waiting thanks

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X