DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 19 Posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2831 times:
I cant believe this. One by one my pictures have been rejected. So far not ONE of my pictures has been accepted!! I have been trying for six weeks now and have sent in about 80 pics, all beeing rejected. I have tried everything. 150 dpi, 200dpi, 250dpi, 300dpi. I have a Hewlett Packard R65 Scanner. My Camera: a Fuji Finepix, 6 MegaPixels. To me , the pictures look perfect.
Id like to speak with the screeners
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2796 times:
Post some examples, let's see what the problem is. Maybe some of the guys around here can help.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2793 times:
Change your name to Sam and you'll get them all accepted (joking guys!!)
Hmmmm I think your problem might be that you should use Photoshop or similar to post-process digital shots rather than a HP scanner? Seriously, post a few rejected pics and I'm sure you'll get some of the pros here to guide you in the right direction.
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 36 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
Take it easy.
Everybody gets pictures rejected. Post some, along with the rejection reasons, and you'll find that people will be able to help you work through getting images accepted.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 47 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2767 times:
I have tried everything. 150 dpi, 200dpi, 250dpi, 300dpi
A clear indication you lack some knowledge
An average screen is 72 and the very best 96 dpi so there is absolutely no point in uploaded a higher resolution, it simply will make your image smaller or larger but has no affect on your image what so ever.
When you want to make prints it is a different story of course.
Why don't you show some of your marvelous work ?
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
A clear indication you lack some knowledge Big grin
An average screen is 72 and the very best 96 dpi so there is absolutely no point in uploaded a higher resolution,
The resolutions he gave were scanning resolutions. He probably has no control over the resolution (not size) of his photos on his digital camera; my camera shoots at a fixed 180dpi and I think that's true of most digital cameras. He's clearly talking about the resolutions he's tried scanning at, but it sounds like he's scanning from prints and that may be one of the problems.
DeltaWings: sorry to say it but that shot is blurry, and that's even at the reduced size you've posted it here. If we could see the size you actually submitted at (hopefully larger than this) it's probably going to look even blurrier.
That photo, at least, is also lacking in dynamic range, though I don't know if this would be enough to get it rejected if everything else was perfect.
No idea if the softness is just bad focus or camera shake; would need to see some more examples to determine that.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
DeltaWings,
Is that the size you uploaded it at? If it is, I am sorry, but you should have a look at the general guidelines!
Post some more of your rejections. If you are even mad that this one is rejected, shows that you really need to have a scan through the database, and look through the photos that are accepted. As is said many times, and camera with enough megapixels alone will NOT get your photos accepted! Post processing is required, along with good motives, etc. Instead of getting so mad, post some rejections (several), and what they were rejected for, and then ask the more experienced photographers here nicely what you are doing wrong? Acting like you are, you will just get people mad.
Don't you think it's better to learn from your mistakes, than to just be mad at them?
Sebastian
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 46 Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2695 times:
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 47 Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
The resolutions he gave were scanning resolutions. He probably has no control over the resolution (not size) of his photos on his digital camera; my camera shoots at a fixed 180dpi and I think that's true of most digital cameras. He's clearly talking about the resolutions he's tried scanning at, but it sounds like he's scanning from prints and that may be one of the problems.
Of course he did, isn't that why we make a crop of our images...... ?
So we do have control over the resolution of the uploaded image apart from any camera or scanner resolution.
I was (and still am) just pointing out that someone is blaming the screeners without putting any kind of effort in post processing his work.
About the image....... don't know where to start, sorry
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
So we do have control over the resolution of the uploaded image apart from any camera or scanner resolution.
Point is you were telling him he was wrong for using more than 72dpi, but he has to scan at more than 72dpi - if you've ever scanned anything, you'd know that. Try scanning a negative at 72dpi and you tell me what the native size is as a result. Or, if you scan at 72dpi with a target width of 1024, you tell me what kind of quality results. You have to, have to, have to scan at the highest possible scanner resolution, and that's what he was talking about.
Now, regarding this photo, at the size he uploaded at it's just got all sorts of problems.
DeltaWings: I've looked at your profile, I see that you're still young and it sounds like this is your first attempt. I hope others are not too harsh on you and keep that in mind; we all had to start somewhere and it takes time to get things right. That said, maybe you could ask for help a bit more nicely next time.
Ok, first of all, something got lost in the translation when you either scanned in or transferred this image from your camera (I don't know if this was film or digital). It's clearly been resized up at some point in the process. I don't know if you were using digital zoom on your camera (never do that; only use optical zoom), or if somehow your target scanning size got messed up (like scanning at a larger size than your chosen scanning resolution can support), or if you manually resized it up for some reason, but this is not the native resolution of this photo.
So tell us first, is this one of your digital photos or your scanned photos? If it's scanned, what settings did you use on this particular photo?
Second, the size is too big. Check the submission guidelines for submission size.
Third, there is a lot of noise. It looks like a combination of both jpeg compression noise and either digital sensor noise or film grain. If this is a digital photo, this is dependent on both the settings in the camera (make sure you use the highest quality settings) and your file save settings. If it's film, then it depends on your film type and file saving.
Don't really know what else to tell you right now; only other suggestion I could make is to look at some of the other recent photos in the database and try to match the quality of those. Older photos may not be as technically proficient; the standards for technical prociciency have gotten higher here over the years, so make sure you look at recent submissions for comparison.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Hmm. Im not even that angry ( I think those smilies just make everything look alot worse.)
Okay, I apologize if this seems to hard. The picture of the Troyan I uploaded with 200 dpi. I used the scanner and scanned it in at 100%. (I didnt have the memory chip anymore, so I scan the pics in). I dont know, why it turned blury.
I thank everyone for their help so far. Thanks again.
[Edited 2004-10-12 22:50:54]
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
Photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2546 times:
Lets go back and look at the Red Bull photo for a moment.
1) It's not sharp. Regardless of size, it still looks blurry.
2) Poor composition and attention to detail. Look at the nose gear. Oooops, can't see it for the stand and stanchon in the way. A full frame evaluation of the image BEFORE you press the shutter button and you would have seen this. So either adjust your position slightly, or even GENTLY lay the stands down (towards you) so the rope/stands don't show, take your photo, THEN STAND THEM BACK UP AGAIN. If possible ask permission first to do this. Asking politely and you might be surprised at the co-operation you get. If not, heck, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
3) There's no punch in the light quality. Very flat and no dynamic range. Adjust your scanner and keep trying.
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2489 times:
I'm confused, you say you took the pic with a digital camera, but then you say you scanned it in. Which is it? If you made a print from the digital camera then tried scanning it in on a flatbed I'm sorry, but an ice cube has a better chance in hell than that image getting accepted. If not, ignore that last statement. Please explain everything you do in order including the settings on the camera all the way until you upload it. For example, this is what I do:
Take the picture with my trusty Nikon film camera
When the roll is done I develop it, normally
If it's print film I have the lab scan it at 400dpi giving me an image size of 2000x3000 pix
If it's slide film, I try to figure out who's gonna scan it (not relevent)
Bring the CD home and open it up in Jasc Paint Shop Pro
Fix any problems with the hi-res file including spots, color, and level and crop if necessary
Resize
Sharpen
Run thru NeatImage
Anyway, that's what I do, but since I'm doing film, it's a little different than what you do.
One more thing, when I started, a little over a year ago, I tried using a Fuji Finepix 2600Zoom 2MP camera. I never got a single image uploaded with that camera...the same might be the case with your camera. Sorry.
DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2377 times:
Aviopic: I didnt say i was blaming the screeners, I just simply said Id like to speak to them, to find out what Im doing wrong, since I cant figure it out.
Ok. again to what I did.
I borrowed a Fuji Finepix from a friend for a week. He said he would develop the pictures for me, and thats what he did. When the fotos came, they looked really sharp ( not blury like above). Unfortunately my friend deleted the memory chip my pictures were on, so I decided to scan them in. The picture was 10 times 15 cm big. I scanned them in ( the Red Bull at 200 dpi), using dpi between 150 and 300. Of course I scanned the pictures in at 100%. When the scanning was compleeted It asked me, in what quality I would like to save it in jpeg. I saved all of them in best quality. Having compleeted this, I uploaded ( the originallly very sharp develloped pictures) them onto a.net, having them all rejected saying their blury. I dont understand why this happened. Could it be that i didnt sharpen then, as KCMMI said?
I dont know how to do that.
Thanks for all the great help so far. and again I apologize for how I started the topic!!
Thanks
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
Beechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 46 Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2340 times:
Deltawings,
i don´t really get it. So you´ve said you´re using a Digital Camera (6mP), but you´re printing the photos and scan them back into a digital file again??? That doesn´t make sense to me. It seems obious that you´re loosing quality.
Why don´t you try and do some postprocessing on the original digital file?
regards, Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2285 times:
Yes, I said I had to scan them in again, because i didnt have acess to the digital file anymore. But does this really downgrade the quality? I mean what do you do with a film camera? With a film camera you have to scan pictures in aswell, so lets just make believe i had a fiilm camera. Even fotos from film cameras get accepted.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
Res From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 417 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Pics like that shouldn't be in the Q in the first place.
FLY NAVY
25 Siggi757: It is very difficult to get pictures captured on film accepted on Airliners.net. I think it is safe to say that all of the guys who shoot film and sub
26 DeltaWings: I thank you Siggi Ben! I think I know what to do in future. If I cant get his camera again Ill just use my film camera and have the fotoshop put the p
27 Danpio: I was wondering why he said he was using a scanner and a 6MP digicam. That was my first thought when reading the intro. The standards on a.net really
28 Spacecadet: I just want to give my thoughts on specifically why this process didn't work this time, since I think it's important to understand what's actually goi
29 KC7MMI: Hey, when you have the photo shop put 'em on CD, they should be at least 3000x2000 pix. Then you can crop & resize to 1024x768. All my shots are scann
30 Bruce: Getting back to the original topic about the rejection... http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=AN-1.jpg I can agree that is bad
31 SA006: Bruce - I think it is also badly centered... As for badmotiv I think if the picture is superb quality they might give a little bit of leeway.. Rgds SA
32 BO__einG: Ha! This kid reminds me of me when I was 15 and struggled to get picts on.. Back in the days however it was easier to get in touch with Johan to whine
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3249 posts, 
(joking guys!!)
Seriously, post a few rejected pics and I'm sure you'll get some of the pros here to guide you in the right direction.
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, 
And to my untrained eye, it does look just a wee bit blurry. 
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}