Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 49 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2066 times:
Simon, the shot was cropped ABOUT 50%. The tail end is a bit out of focus, agreed, so maybe I'll see what a kick or two of sharpening in that area will do.
If it was bounced for that, then that's all good 'n dandy. If not, then what's the quality issue? The conditions were less than ideal, and this is probably one of the better shots (as if that would sway the screening process...HAH).
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3484 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
"The tail end is a bit out of focus, agreed"
Brian - you just agreed that tail is blury so why would you like to appeal? There is several shots of this a/c in the database hence rejection is justified. Try to improve it or give up. In my opinion appeal would not have any chances.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 49 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2022 times:
Danny...'blurry' is not synonymous with 'quality' in my book. If it had been rejected due to badblurry, then I would have no qualms. I take all my rejection reasons as literally as possible, and this time, I just can't find any real quality issues. I'll see about sharpening the end and take it from there.
There is several shots of this a/c in the database hence rejection is justified.
No offense, but there's no way in hell that I'm going to accept that as a response. Total of 17 photos of this specific aircraft in the database...WAY too much for an operational DC8, right? The phrase 'quality, not quantity' applies here in more ways than one.
Tamsin--I'm not going to write this one off too quickly. I love the contrast between the engines and the sky, and think the plane itself just seems out of place (in an aesthetic sort of way) and is very appealing. Will start from scratch and try my best. Thanks.
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1045 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
She needs a fair bit of work with Focalblade mate to sharpen that one up.
Looking at the inlets it seems to have already had a fair amount of sharpening applied so it will be a tough save for A.Net mate.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 49 Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1677 times:
Oy...you should know better than anyone, Josh, that I don't know what I'm saying half the time (half...50%..haha)
I'm really bad at gauging that kind of thing, so maybe Gary Watt or Benjamin Russell (who have seen the original shot) can chime in and maybe clarify how much it was cropped.
I AM getting progressively more pissed off though. Some of the other rejections I was just served are completely absurd. I'm willing to stand corrected, but in the mean time, here are some cases in point:
Yes, some of them have 'minor fence intrusions', but that PALES in comparison to another recent acceptance. Won't put the photographer or photograph on the spot. The NW 744's dark? NWA 752 and bizjets are lacking in quality?
Maybe I AM missing something--if there's one thing I hate doing, it's bitching to screeners and making myself look bad. I'm grateful for my photos that HAVE been uploaded, but a bit ticked off about the rejections, and am only arguing the specific reasons given.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 49 Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1640 times:
Chad. I'm not complaining about my camera. I'm not complaining about my photos (directly). My complaints in this thread have more to do with the Airliners.net criteria then it does with my photographic expertise (or lack thereof).
I remember Justin Wood got frustrated with this recently--what's so hard about just answering the question? Contest me all you want, but don't end your post without something remotely relevant...especially being a screener...
And who says the 300D is more closely related to the 20D than the 10D? EF-S?
(I don't intend to be fresh, so no hard feelings...just frustration)
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
You are complaining about your shots getting rejected.
Bad quality is bad quality.
Now the badmotiv's. The fence probably had a lot to do with that. Its an eyesore. On the last one, I kinda like that angle, but, the right mainmount is cut off. If that was all showing, it might have a chance. Again that is my opinion.
As far as the camera goes, EF-S is probably the closest relation. It seems like Canon took some of the good and bad points from 300D and the 10D and voila, the 20D. I have handled both 10D and 20D and the 20D is much more comfortable to me.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1543 times:
Pick a couple of your best shots and then resubmit; if they don't get through a second time, appeal them. There's a reason the appeal process exists. I'd resubmit your original shot (after some sharpening of the tail), the NWA 757 (work on opening up the shadows and toning down the highlights a little), and maybe appeal the NWA 747 straightaway. There's nothing dark about that shot from where I'm sitting on a properly calibrated screen. The screener may have been using a Mac (different gamma setting) or who knows, had their laptop on battery power or something.
The badmotiv on some of these shots I think are because they're sort of "in between" a nose shot and full body shot. I sort of agree with the screeners about the badmotiv of these... badquality seems arbitrary, though.
I'm not gonna lie to you, though; not all of these photos can be saved. But you've got a few here that I think are as good as or better than many of the photos that have been accepted recently, and maybe you just need a couple of adjustments.
btw, I'm enjoying this thread immensely.
[Edited 2004-10-29 03:10:04]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!