Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Need Help With Badscan Rejection...  
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1754 posts, RR: 30
Posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

guys (and gals too)

i just went exploring at JAX int'l the other day since i'll be living there for the next four years for college...but anyway the only thing i took shots of was the Fedex A300 that arrived...now, there wasn't a great spot to take pics from since it arrived on runway 13, but i did manage to catch it turning off the runway and got what i thought to be a nice result...

JAX_82603_3.jpg>

rejected for badscan...now that i look at it, it appears that it might be slightly unlevel, but i'm just wondering what is wrong with the overall quality of the shot?

any help would be appreciated...

jonathan d.


"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1754 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

sorry, here's the link....

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.mainfilename=N671FE_A300_JAX_82603_3.jpg



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3521 times:

That's not the link.

When you click on that link, I get this:

"Sorry pal, but you seem to be lost. The page you requested does not exist. But don't worry, go here and things might clear up. "



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3512 times:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N671FE_A300_JAX_82603_3.jpg

Peter



-
User currently offlineJani From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 71 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Well, the fuselage with the reflection is quite bright. But IMO this looks more like baddistance, but there sure are similar photos in the db, picturing the whole wingspan...

[Edited 2003-08-30 12:35:05]

[Edited 2003-08-30 12:36:31]

User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1754 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

maybe it's just me, but i like the reflection of the sun off the fuselage...it was the best one where you could still see the fedex titles...i know the landing gear is partially blocked by the sign, but i couldn't see that when i took the shot...and about the baddistance, why would it be baddistance, the aircraft still fills a vast majority of the frame, do you think that i would have to make the shot concentrate on just getting the fuselage and engines perhaps in the shot to make it look decent? so by your logic, anything headon picturing the full wingspan is baddistance?? (just asking..)

still need help with why it was rejected for badscan, i'm wondering what the problem is with the general quality of the image?

i know it's not a really rare shot, but it's the only shot of a Fedex aircraft at JAX, and it would've been the 30th? photo from JAX in the database...but, whatever...i'm not losing sleep over this...i'm just wondering what i can do to avoid badscan rejections like this in the future?

thanks for the help,
jonathan d.



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineJani From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 71 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

so by your logic, anything headon picturing the full wingspan is baddistance??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but as this photo is not perfectly headon, maybe it would have been better to crop off the wings... I don't know.
One thing I know though, is that it doesn't matter if there's only one photo of an aircraft of a specific airline at a specific airport. It doesn't increase the chances of getting the photo accepted. (So I read on the forum some time ago, anyways.)


User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1754 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Jani,
The specific airline/aircraft at an airport is a questionable one i know...

the photo is not perfectly head on for a reason, i thought it better to show the Fedex titles and i think it's cool how the sunlight is reflected in the titles anyway...plus my equipment limitations prevented me from getting a tight front shot....oh well

i'm still wondering as to how it's a badscan??? i'm not complaining as to the rejection, but i just want to know why it was rejected for this and how i can improve it....could SOMEONE please help me here...

jonathan d.



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

Jonathan,

As I see it, its a badsoft rejection. Could use some rotation too. Anyhoo... if you dont mind, I took the liberty of changing it to meet my standards, and I think the standards of the site too:

http://home.planet.nl/~degraaf001/pics/editJderden777.jpg

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

Wietse's pic is definitely better: sharper and with more contrast.

I like the composition of this pic. DOn't change anything.

Cheers
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1754 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3363 times:

Wietse:

Thank you for the help...it's really difficult for me to tell whether or not it's sharp enough on my laptop screen...even pictures at 1100 pixels show up tiny on my computer and it doesn't show much detail when the images are relatively small...

I will work on this however...thanks!

jonathan d.



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3352 times:

I can't find anything wrong with that photo. Maybe they don't like the sun reflection on the fuselage or something. Try appealing I guess.

Also, are you running that laptop display on the highest resolution supported? You HAVE to do that with these LCD screens - at anything but their highest supported rez, everything appears very soft. It's due to the dithering in order to prevent a "pixellated" appearance. I have a 15" sony flat panel, running at 1024x768x32. The sharpest display I have EVER used. The photo looks plenty sharp on it, and I am also impressed at the lack of grain, if you can even be impressed about that anymore (a la digicams) speaking of, are you still shooting slides jon?

[Edited 2003-08-31 07:22:35]

[Edited 2003-08-31 07:26:36]


-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineJani From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 71 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3329 times:

I'm also using a laptop screen. Sometimes it gets really hard editing the photos, and when you then look at them on a "regular" computer screen, it's almost like a completely different photo!  Wow!

User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1754 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

USAir_757:

i am running my monitor at 1680x1050x32...i've got it set on 96dpi (normal size) instead of the default 120...that made photos look very compressed, so i changed it down to 96 and it seems to be ok, but now i have a problem with softness and what not...

anyway, you asked if i still shot slides...i do occasionally...lately all i have shot is digital, but when i went to europe i still managed to shoot like 18 rolls even though i was primarily digital...i think that what i will do is shoot digital for almost everything except the ramp shots which i rarely get to take...i am very impressed with digital, but if i can just edit photos to where they look "oversharp" to me maybe they'll be decent for the database here on a.net...i dunno...thanks for the comments though!

jonathan d.






"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Need Help With Badquality Rejection posted Thu Jan 20 2005 00:08:54 by Scottieprecord
Need Help With An Angle Rejection posted Fri Jan 13 2006 15:39:30 by UnattendedBag
Need Help With A Rejection! posted Thu Dec 30 2004 03:37:00 by Jran225
Need Help With A Rejection posted Fri Apr 16 2004 14:32:47 by Sfilipowicz
Need Help With A Rejection? posted Thu Jan 2 2003 06:28:45 by Sokol
Need Help With Two Rejections posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:14:35 by B076
Need Help With Camera Choice posted Fri Nov 24 2006 01:07:31 by DeltaGator
Need Help With A Photo posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:25:40 by AirKas1
Help With This Rejection Please. posted Tue Oct 10 2006 09:45:39 by LOCsta
Help With Distance Rejection posted Wed Oct 4 2006 00:27:20 by Ranger703