Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Rejection question

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    67

    Default Rejection question

    Greetings,

    the following photo was rejected for Digital Manipulation, no further details were provided in the rejection email.

    ...

    What is the reason for the rejection?


    Regards,


    Alex

  2. #2
    Junior Member meeshboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quebec Golf View Post
    Greetings,

    the following photo was rejected for Digital Manipulation, no further details were provided in the rejection email.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7252602

    What is the reason for the rejection?


    Regards,


    Alex
    Would most likely be this huge colour halo difference on the right side of the image.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.jpg 
Views:	141 
Size:	15.6 KB 
ID:	23988

  3. #3
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,717

    Default

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

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote 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

  5. #5
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,717

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,717

    Default

    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:	77 
Size:	1.23 MB 
ID:	24043

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

Name:	procimages.jpeg 
Views:	81 
Size:	934.4 KB 
ID:	24044

    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.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    67

    Default

    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:	33 
Size:	294.3 KB 
ID:	24063
    (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

  8. #8
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,717

    Default

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

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    67

    Default

    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

  10. #10
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,518

    Default

    Quote 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”

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    67

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,717

    Default

    Quote 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?

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote 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

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Canada (ON)
    Posts
    67

    Default

    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

  15. #15
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,717

    Default

    Quote 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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •