Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: dfu - editing advice

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default 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:	162 
Size:	213.3 KB 
ID:	25259


    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:	172 
Size:	804.9 KB 
ID:	25260

  2. #2
    Junior Member meeshboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote 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...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1040696_03.jpg 
Views:	162 
Size:	213.3 KB 
ID:	25259


    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:	172 
Size:	804.9 KB 
ID:	25260
    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.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #4
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,192

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dfu View Post
    This was taken at 6:30, well after sunrise - not really a night shot.
    Quote 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.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,192

    Default

    Quote 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:	119 
Size:	304.9 KB 
ID:	25269

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

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote 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:	119 
Size:	304.9 KB 
ID:	25269

  8. #8
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,192

    Default

    Quote 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.


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

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default 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.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote 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

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    30

    Default

    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

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    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?

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote 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.



    Quote 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%

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Hamburg, Alicante
    Posts
    23

    Default

    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

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    118

    Default

    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

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    104

    Default

    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.

  17. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote 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?

  18. #18
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,192

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote 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?

  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    21

    Default

    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".

Posting Permissions

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