Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is Going On?!  
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4160 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.

 Pissed  Pissed  Pissed

Id like to speak with the screeners



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4127 times:

Dude, chill and please reformulate your thread. This isnt getting you anywhere...


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3522 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4125 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!
User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4122 times:

Change your name to Sam and you'll get them all accepted  Smile (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?  Confused 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.

Mike


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4123 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.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4096 times:

I have tried everything. 150 dpi, 200dpi, 250dpi, 300dpi

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, 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
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4090 times:



reason for rejection:BAD QUALITY, BLURY



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3522 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4056 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!
User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4041 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.
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4030 times:

no,no, this is the size

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=AN-1.jpg



Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2729 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4024 times:

I love the comment, very enthusiastic  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Simon



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineJaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4016 times:

Lovely comment  Laugh out loud And to my untrained eye, it does look just a wee bit blurry.  Big grin

Tom


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4001 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
User currently offlinePNEPilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3994 times:

I'm sorry, but if that looks perfect to you it's time to make an appointment with your optometrist.

User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3522 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3969 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!
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3959 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.

 Smile

[Edited 2004-10-12 22:50:54]


Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3946 times:

Why won't this pic get accepted?


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Eric Daniel Smith



Ahh the infamous USAirways shot Big grin


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2643 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3875 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.

Let us see your results.

Steve


User currently offlineKC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3818 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.

    [Edited 2004-10-13 02:33:25]

  • User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
    Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3706 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.
    User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 43
    Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3669 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!
    User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
    Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3614 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.
    User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3593 times:

    Yes, you lose quality, lots of quality.

    Staffan


    User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
    Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

    Ok. Thanks alot Staffan! So in future I will just make shure I only upload pictures from a digital file and Ill forget scanning


    Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
    User currently offlineRes From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 417 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

    Pics like that shouldn't be in the Q in the first place.


    FLY NAVY
    25 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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
    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...
    What Is Going On? Baddouble posted Wed Feb 9 2005 07:01:26 by United4everDEN
    What Is Going On?! posted Tue Oct 12 2004 21:23:40 by DeltaWings
    What Is Going On In Lala Land? posted Sat Nov 22 2003 01:34:43 by LGB Photos
    What Is Going On In This Photo? posted Mon May 27 2002 16:19:50 by SafetyDude
    What Is(n't) Going On posted Wed Oct 3 2001 14:00:41 by Ckw
    What Is Going On. posted Tue Apr 24 2001 02:02:08 by Glenn
    What The Heck Is Going On? posted Tue Feb 26 2002 19:31:53 by N509JB
    What's Going On With The Photo Printing? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 19:21:29 by Mcdonobr
    What Is The Latest On The FRA Observation Deck? posted Sun Oct 2 2005 13:41:25 by F4wso
    What's Going On A 7dayshop posted Thu Sep 1 2005 21:57:09 by LHRSIMON