Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Delta95Heavy - Prescreening/Rejection Help

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Delta95Heavy View Post
    Already resized to what I hope is acceptable. Anything else you all think I can to do improve the odds of approval?

    Many thanks!


    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_5059.jpg Views:	20 Size:	555.2 KB ID:	1110473

    I'm not a screener but it is a bit dark for my taste, but that's just a subjective opinion. Now objectively speaking, the aircraft is poorly centered and the horizon is unlevel, check for dust also shows a lot of compression in the sky.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Delta95Heavy View Post
      Already resized to what I hope is acceptable. Anything else you all think I can to do improve the odds of approval?

      Many thanks!
      Needs clockwise rotation to bring the horizon level. Aircraft is too low in the frame and I would crop a bit closer to the nose. A little dark over-all (whilst the aircraft itself seems to be exposed ok, the background is darker). Remember to select special scheme on the upload page.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by trenchjp View Post


        check for dust also shows a lot of compression in the sky.
        If you are talking about the JP check for dust, it compresses the image on display so it's not a true indication of the actual compression, so be careful when looking at it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by B7772ADL View Post

          If you are talking about the JP check for dust, it compresses the image on display so it's not a true indication of the actual compression, so be careful when looking at it.
          Got it. Thanks for the information!

          Comment


          • #20
            Hey everyone, thoughts on these two shots before I attempt to upload them to the queue? Many thanks as always!

            Click image for larger version

Name:	_MG_3886.jpg
Views:	101
Size:	405.0 KB
ID:	1137169
            ​​
            Click image for larger version

Name:	_MG_3807.jpg
Views:	102
Size:	432.7 KB
ID:	1137168
            Attached Files
            “In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.” – Anonymous

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Delta95Heavy View Post
              Hey everyone, thoughts on these two shots before I attempt to upload them to the queue? Many thanks as always!
              1. borderline soft/heat hazed
              2. borderline soft

              Comment


              • #22
                Prescreen request on this please. Not in the JP database as of yet.​​​​​​​

                Click image for larger version

Name:	05-28-2022-1571.jpg
Views:	123
Size:	583.3 KB
ID:	1137896
                Last edited by Delta95Heavy; 2022-05-30, 18:13. Reason: Re-uploaded photo.
                “In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.” – Anonymous

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Delta95Heavy View Post
                  Prescreen request on this please. Not in the JP database as of yet.
                  Soft spots, especially the tail.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                    Soft spots, especially the tail.
                    Gotcha. This re-edit has been sharpened as much as LRc will let me. Do you think reducing the size down to 1028 on the long edge would do it some justice as well? Cheers!


                    Click image for larger version

Name:	05-28-2022-1571.jpg
Views:	113
Size:	594.2 KB
ID:	1138018
                    “In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.” – Anonymous

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Delta95Heavy View Post

                      Gotcha. This re-edit has been sharpened as much as LRc will let me. Do you think reducing the size down to 1028 on the long edge would do it some justice as well?
                      Still borderline, but ok for me. Lower resolution always hides flaws better.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                        Lower resolution always hides flaws better.
                        Kinda of learning that's the case sometimes. I hate to have to reduce the resolution/size just to get a really nice photo accepted. Have to wait to get some queue spots back though to try again. Not a fan of only having 5 but I'll live with it I guess.
                        “In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.” – Anonymous

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Ok, I am a little mystified and need to vent a bit. So this got rejected for a third time for being "soft". I reduced this down to 1028 on the long side and the sharpening has been as maxed as I can get it, yet it got rejected again. I appreciate all the advice I have gotten, especially dlowwa who has been most patient with me.

                          I also understand from talking to a lot of other people who submitted photos to JP that most of the screeners are "subjective" in their screening processes. Isn't that the wrong way to go about screening? I thought when presented with something to review, you're supposed to be "objective" and not let your personal taste, feelings and opinions come into play. I have browsed through lots of photos here and really question how some made it through screening and published. Had I been a screener and been objective, I would have rejected them.

                          I am not saying that this is unfair, but as a relatively new uploader (8 photos accepted) it is a little disheartening to go through all this effort to get one photo rejected 3 times (and lost 3 queue slots in the process) after being told on the forums what was wrong and I try to correct. I think for first registrations, there needs to be a little more leniency for something minor. I get it if something is way out of focus, backlit, etc..., even I know a lousy photo when I see one but quite personally, I don't even see on the tail where it is soft on my photo.

                          Anyways, that's all I have to say. Not really trying to stir things up and I apologize in advance if that seems to be the case! Cheers!

                          Click image for larger version  Name:	05-28-2022-1571-2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	424.7 KB ID:	1138169
                          Last edited by Delta95Heavy; 2022-06-04, 23:29. Reason: Grammar corrections.
                          “In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.” – Anonymous

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Delta95Heavy View Post
                            Ok, I am a little mystified and need to vent a bit. So this got rejected for a third time for being "soft". I reduced this down to 1028 on the long side and the sharpening has been as maxed as I can get it, yet it got rejected again. I appreciate all the advice I have gotten, especially dlowwa who has been most patient with me.

                            I also understand from talking to a lot of other people who submitted photos to JP that most of the screeners are "subjective" in their screening processes. Isn't that the wrong way to go about screening? I thought when presented with something to review, you're supposed to be "objective" and not let your personal taste, feelings and opinions come into play. I have browsed through lots of photos here and really question how some made it through screening and published. Had I been a screener and been objective, I would have rejected them.

                            I am not saying that this is unfair, but as a relatively new uploader (8 photos accepted) it is a little disheartening to go through all this effort to get one photo rejected 3 times (and lost 3 queue slots in the process) after being told on the forums what was wrong and I try to correct. I think for first registrations, there needs to be a little more leniency for something minor. I get it if something is way out of focus, backlit, etc..., even I know a lousy photo when I see one but quite personally, I don't even see on the tail where it is soft on my photo.
                            As I mentioned, the tail is soft, and as I also mentioned its chances were borderline for being accepted due to that softness, so not sure why you are 'mystified' exactly.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Thoughts on these two before I try to queue them up?


                              Click image for larger version

Name:	04-19-2022-0793.jpg
Views:	65
Size:	736.7 KB
ID:	1138238


                              Click image for larger version

Name:	03-26-2022-0596.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	324.7 KB
ID:	1138239
                              Attached Files
                              “In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.” – Anonymous

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Delta95Heavy View Post
                                Thoughts on these two before I try to queue them up?
                                1. borderline heat haze
                                2. dark/contrast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X