Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejections Galore ...  
User currently offlineEGFF From UK - Wales, joined Sep 2001, 2201 posts, RR: 12
Posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2053 times:

Im feeling a little hard done by this evening .... Im sure your all fed up just as i am with these posts about how 'unfair' it was to reject there pic, well ... i feel i have a fair case here.
The following rejected for "Bad Quality"
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Dsc05885.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Dsc05902.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Dsc05972.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Dsc05970.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Dsc05961.jpg
These are just a handful of about 80% of what i uploaded and that was rejected for many other things ... all comments welcome please,
Regards,
Shaun  Sad



All together or not at all
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJon01 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

First 4 are over-exposed with loss of clarity. Look at the reg's and white areas.
Using some negative exposure compensation when bright and sunny should help.

The cockpit photo appears too dark! Fill in flash used?

Rgds,

Jon


User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Make you feel better Shaun I have just had a rejection

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=251-5143_CRW_RJ.jpg

The photos were of low esthetic qualities - bad angle, included
window reflections


I know the picture has window reflections its a bit hard not to get that on this sort of shot and yes if it was a 'common' picture I could agree with the rejection but I looked at all the Jaguar pictures on Anet and not one cockpit shot is on here so I would have thought this would be accepted because it is rare?

It was screened by a trainee so do you think I should appeal? is it rare enough and good enough to go on the database in your opinions?

Cheers

Derek


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

Yes, the first four are overexposed, and they aren't contrasty enough (but jacking up the contrast will just increase the level of over-exposure) and they are a little soft.

The cockpit shot is a little soft, it looks good quality though so i'm sure you can brighten it up in PS.


User currently offlineEGFF From UK - Wales, joined Sep 2001, 2201 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

The cockpit shot is a surprise to me, i sharpened it TWICE, anymore and it'll look stupid ... Im gonna start all over again and re-do all the pics, hopefully to some avail ...
Regards,
Shaun



All together or not at all
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

The cockpit doesn't need to be sharpened, it needs to be brightened  Smile

User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

2 things:

They are NOT overexposed. I see loads of detail in the white areas.

secondly, I know what weather it was that day. It wasnt very clear. It may look sunny, but it was a little hazy.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineEGFF From UK - Wales, joined Sep 2001, 2201 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Oh, finally somebody here to help me, lol ...
Someone mentioned flash, i didnt use the flash in order for the computers and other lights to stand out ...
Dan, dark? Look again, it's not that dark ...
Regards,
Shaun  Laugh out loud



All together or not at all
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They are NOT overexposed. I see loads of detail in the white areas.
===================================================

They are, the fuselage is clearly "washed out". Having recently had some problems with it myself I know Big grin -0.3 0.5 should do it.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJon01 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

If they are not over exposed , then they have been brightened up too much. There is clearly no detail on the upper (sun lit) areas, you should be able to see the panel joins. The darker (shady) areas are very grainy.

The 'haze' shouldn't affect quality much with shots taken this close.

I fear it could be the use of a magnifier/lens converter on this type of camera (Sony F?) that affects quality/exposure on a fast moving subject.

Jon



User currently offlineJon01 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

The cockpit shot is under-exposed as the camera is fooled by the bright window light. Using 'fill in' flash or just concentrating on the instrument panels should give better results like this:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manuel Javorik



Jon



User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 725 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

I like them which explains why I have so many rejections.

Dust blob on the lower left of the No 3 pic though.

Cheers

Bailey



Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Great pics Shuan!!! I think the screeners are just cranky lately... they've rejected a few GREAT shots of mine as well.

If it were me, I would enhance the color saturation and contrast a bit. These don't look "soft" to me, but then I've uploaded some photos that you could see a mouse hopping in the grass between the runways, and they still get shot down for being soft.

My two cents would be to enhance, re-upload, and hope for a different screener!!!

Keep up the great work!

On this shot, I used no flash, and turned the lights on the panels all the way up. I did do a bit of editing, but they finally accepted it.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Freight-Dawg




I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1771 times:

Looks nice but yes I agree that overexposure is the key word here.
I think the first photo has the worst overexposure but the 3 after that have a little bit lesser amount of it.
The fourth one, yeah its good but just too dark.
Try and adjust the curves by bringing it down a little in photoshop. It might help but guarantee isnt 100%



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineQantas744 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 246 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

You already know how much I like these pictures Shaun, but the cockpit shot is a bit underexposed. The others are perfectly acceptable to me.


Matt



you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
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...
Soft Rejections posted Sat Aug 18 2007 01:32:33 by ThomasW1974
A Few (more) Rejections posted Thu Aug 16 2007 21:11:32 by DerekF
Was I Overconfident This Time? (rejections) posted Thu Aug 16 2007 05:13:04 by DeltaAVL
Need Help With Rejections posted Thu Aug 16 2007 01:30:53 by Preelude
Lots Of Rejections: Please Help... posted Mon Jul 30 2007 22:45:25 by D L X
Couple Of Re-edited Rejections posted Thu Jul 26 2007 15:03:34 by McG1967
Two Quality Rejections. posted Sun Jul 22 2007 04:04:05 by Sluger020889
Error Rejections posted Tue Jul 3 2007 05:25:43 by Clickhappy
Size Rejections posted Fri Jun 22 2007 12:01:07 by DerekF
Two Recent Rejections posted Tue Jun 19 2007 20:44:38 by BmiBaby737