Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

dfu - editing advice

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

  • #16
    Hi there. I can totally understand where you are coming from. We have all been there. It took me months to get my first pic accepted after many continuous rejections. However it doesn't help in any way to take your frustrations out on the screeners as they are human and they make decisions based on what they see. You must also take into account the fact that your pic will more than likely be looked at by different screeners, especially if you upload more than once after it's been rejected. The next screener may see faults that the first screeners missed and add those to the rejection reasons. It does not mean the screeners are out to get you.

    Getting to the pics you uploaded. The first one of the A319 does seem to have some issues that warrant it being rejected. There are some hints of dust spots in either side of the vertical stabiliser and the pic does appear to be a bit dark. I usually brighten my pics up to a point where they are just a tad over exposed. I found that usually helps to avoid a dark/underexposed rejection. As for the comparison between the pics of the A330 and A350, I think it's pretty easy to see why one was accepted and one was rejected. The A330 pic is well lit and has overall good contrast, while the A350 is backlit, giving it poor contrast and a flat dull look.

    You mustn't take the rejections so personally. Even though it might not seem like it, the purpose of the rejections is actually to help you improve your photos so you can take better pics. It sounds weird but it's true.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RobertLN View Post
      Hey,
      I get where you're coming from. However the A350 is backlit no matter how you look at it. It just is.
      Nah - it was headed right towards the sun. Here's a shot seconds earlier...


      The category which is probably missing in the first two shots is 'Night Shot'.
      Indeed that is what it was supposed to be - which makes absolutely no sense to me, the aircraft is in direct sunlight, the sun hasn't even set. And I don't understand why screeners won't just add a category. And of course the rude rejection (with more reasons added after the fact, which weren't there before) was again followed with a rejection of the appeal, and I get a slot blocked. This is just sheer arrogance, purposefully screening to reject and to frustrate. If I specifically ask in submission comments to add the required category, because I had no idea what it might be, how hard can it be to simply do that, instead of slapping on more reasons to reject and simply bring up the missing category again?

      Comment


      • #18
        Think you have a bit of a persecution complex. No one is out to get you. If the category had been the only issue with the image, it would have been fixed, simple. This is our standard procedure (to fix categories if nothing else is wrong), not only to build up a little good will with the photographers, but to also simply avoid clogging the queue when the image invariably gets resubmitted. I'd guess on average I fix categories/bad info for 20-30 images a day. Screeners may or may not leave a message (doing so adds significantly to the screening time), but if there is something you are unsure about (like the category), simply ask for help in the forum.

        If you want to complain about inconsistent screening, so be it. It happens on a crew of 35+ people that sometimes things are missed, or that different people see the same image differently. That's unavoidable, unfortunately. But to suggest that someone is "absolutely hellbent on rejecting" your images is laughable at best, so you might want to give up on that unsubstantiate notion.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
          If you want to complain about inconsistent screening, so be it. It happens on a crew of 35+ people that sometimes things are missed, or that different people see the same image differently. That's unavoidable, unfortunately. But to suggest that someone is "absolutely hellbent on rejecting" your images is laughable at best, so you might want to give up on that unsubstantiate notion.
          So I tried to add "Nightshot" to that picture (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7453030), and sure as hell it was rejected again for wrong/missing category. But did the screener have the courtesy to let me know which category was missing? No, of course not, why bother.... This is really rude, folks. Especially considering that I specifically asked during submission to let me know which category was missing or to simply be so kind as to add it. No way, I get another slot blocked for two weeks. Thanks. And you tell me this is not purposeful screening to reject and frustrate?
          Also, I did increase exposure a bit, but still get "dark/underexposed" - makes no sense to me.
          And I have no idea where there are artefacts. These reasons for rejection only came up after I fixed other issues (spots). This IS odd, it feels like reasons for rejections are just being added and made up on the go. Feel free to laugh or call it "unsubstantiated", but this is not the first time I see that kind of thing. Are screeners even more likely to reject if the acceptance rate so far is low?

          Comment


          • #20
            And sure as hell I get banned until October. Very nice. I have asked again and again to be told which category is missing. No one told me, not one screener had that wee little bit of courtesy to help me out, even during appeals. If the missing category was NOT "Night Shot", what could it have been?
            Where do I appeal this ban? I consider it extremely rude for screeners to repeatedly (!) and totally ignore a request for help with the missing category (no hint, just slap on another rejection), and for simply adding reasons for rejection that weren't there originally, and I get banned for protesting that? That's really weird. There is definitely an issue on the screening side of things, and that's not "persecution complex".

            Comment


            • #21
              I can't comment on the category as I am not a screener, but I can comment on the dark/undexposed - it you have a look at the histogram that I am attaching, you will see that the right hand side of the histogram does not reach the edge of the box - there is lots of space - that is the dark/unexposedClick image for larger version

Name:	hg.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	5.9 KB
ID:	1041279 rejection.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dfu View Post
                And sure as hell I get banned until October. Very nice. I have asked again and again to be told which category is missing. No one told me, not one screener had that wee little bit of courtesy to help me out, even during appeals. If the missing category was NOT "Night Shot", what could it have been?
                Where do I appeal this ban? I consider it extremely rude for screeners to repeatedly (!) and totally ignore a request for help with the missing category (no hint, just slap on another rejection), and for simply adding reasons for rejection that weren't there originally, and I get banned for protesting that? That's really weird. There is definitely an issue on the screening side of things, and that's not "persecution complex".
                The problem really is your attitude. You complain about rude treatment, but to I've seen no rude comments to you at all from the crew. Starting your appeal with "You've got to be f**king kidding me", however, is extremely rude, and is what led to your ban. As clearly stated here, such language directed towards the crew is simply not tolerated:



                As I had suggested, you should have taken a little time to cool off a bit before doing/saying anything, but it is too late now. You'll simply need to deal with the consequence.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                  The problem really is your attitude. You complain about rude treatment, but to I've seen no rude comments to you at all from the crew. Starting your appeal with "You've got to be f**king kidding me", however, is extremely rude, and is what led to your ban. As clearly stated here, such language directed towards the crew is simply not tolerated:
                  Rudeness in actions is also rudeness. And the way screeners kept shifting goalposts and ignoring requests was rude as well. What I said was a reaction to that, and apart from that one word, I stand by it.

                  Website currently says I have reached my daily limit - well after the date when that ban should have expired. Just saying.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X