Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Help Me Avoid An Appeal  
User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 45
Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Howdy

Given the current status of Johan's backlog of photos to screen (which dates back more than a month), I'll leave the fate of a personal favorite in your hands.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4788_DHLDC8_N806DH_JFK4Rarr_JFK.jpg

badquality.

I'm all for appealing, but if there's something extremely obvious here that I can try to fix and reupload (ie: faster screening), I'd rather opt for that.

Sorry for the link not being active--for some reason it's not working again.

What's the verdict?


Brian F(for 'feel free to plug all my other photos')utterman


What the FUTT?
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2729 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Brian,

On laptop right now, but the back end looks a little soft. Was the photo cropped a lot or was there a lot of Heat Haze present?

Simon



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 45
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2820 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).


Brian



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2796 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.


User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's the active link:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4788_DHLDC8_N806DH_jfk4Rarr_jfk.jpg

Looks tough to rescue, and would not (in my opinion) be a sucessful appeal. Need to be brightened a little, sharpened up at the back end. If it were mine I would write it off to experience.

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2776 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.


Sorry to come off as an ass, Danny.

Brian



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Although there are seventeen in the queue, most are of the previous paint scheme. The tail may be blury because of the exhaust plume deflection around the flaps.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineJakbar From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 442 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Gary...good point. (I say that because I have a similar pic of the same plane from the same day in the queue!) Big grin

Lest we forget...regardless of whether this pic is of good or bad quality, it deserves a BadFutt rejection.


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Hi Brian
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.
Have fun
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2571 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

a 50% Crop?

 Wow!

Dude, don't ever crop more than like 10-15%


User currently offlineJakbar From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 442 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Royal, I didn't even pick up on that...wow.

Futt...cropping a photo that much is gonna make it soft and grainy, especially in conditions like we had on Saturday.

Why the heck did you need to crop it 50% anyways??? Your 100-400 lens should have been able to zoom in pretty darn close, as my 80-400 lens got the plane almost full frame at less than 400mm.


User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2431 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:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4526_JetsgoMD80_C-FRYA_LGA4arrLineup_BF.jpg
badsoft (somewhat agree...but it's tough when there's not much to sharpen)

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4949_NW744spirit_N675NW_JFK4Rarr_BF.jpg
baddark

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4761_WestJet737W_C-FWCC_LGA4dep_BF.jpg
badmotiv

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4751_NWA752_N537US_LGA4arr_BF.jpg
badquality

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4636_NetJets_N251QS_LGA4arr_BF.jpg
badquality

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4592_CoastGuard_01_LGA4dep_BF.jpg
badmotiv

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4530_JetsGoMD80_C-FRYA_LGA4arr_BF.jpg
badmotiv


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.


Sorry,
Brian



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

If there's one thing I hate doing, it's bitching to screeners and making myself look bad

 Wow! Here's a concept. Quit doing it.  Wow!

You just got YOUR FIRST high powered camera. You will not be an expert right away. Practice makes perfect.

When I buy my 20D in 2 months, I expect that it will take a bit to get used to even though the 300D/20D are even more closely related than the 300D/10D.



[Edited 2004-10-28 22:30:18]

User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 45
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2394 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?


Brian
(I don't intend to be fresh, so no hard feelings...just frustration)



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineKlgaviation From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 243 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2371 times:

Brian,

I feel like you just came onto my side of the fence however I just jumped over to the other side. Big grin

Many of the "badmotiv" rejections I don't agree with, but the original shot rejection I do. Sorry for the lack of AIMage.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Chris



There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2357 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.





User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2334 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

1) It's soft like tofu.

2) Dark, contrasty, bad quality.

3) You got 2/3's of an airplane, and a huge fence in the foreground. Other than that its a great photo.

4) Horrible color. Northwest planes have a red tail, not magenta.

5) Ugly shot, it hurts my eyes.

6) Way too much clutter, both fore and aft. Also the telephoto compression kills it.

7) 2/3's of an airplane. Get a smaller lens.

I AM getting progressively more pissed off though

Then maybe you need a timeout? Getting worked up about something like this is absurd.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3520 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Brian,

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.  Big grin

[Edited 2004-10-29 03:10:04]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
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...
Help With Submitting An Appeal posted Sat Sep 13 2003 23:20:05 by Panman
Please Help Me Purchase A Camera Under $1000 posted Tue Dec 5 2006 20:35:16 by Vio
Help Me To Spot The Dust posted Sat Nov 18 2006 19:28:38 by NicolasRubio
Reject Reason: Colour Help Me Please posted Thu Nov 16 2006 18:19:37 by Andrei
Please Help Me Identify Airline And Plane PK-TSN posted Mon Nov 6 2006 07:25:59 by Gorkonfl
Please Help Me To Level This Pic posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:01:46 by Pitchul
Rejection Advice - Worth An Appeal? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 14:40:47 by UA935
Could You Help Me Fix Up This Photo? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 06:49:01 by Airplanenut
Help Me Price A Photo posted Mon Sep 25 2006 21:23:52 by AC888YOW
Help Me Find Borders On My Picture Please... posted Wed Sep 20 2006 20:21:55 by Avro85