Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Request Rejections Advice And Feedback  
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Badquality, badcentered  Sad

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=ECIJH2004-12-31_103_0301_2.jpg

Badquality, badsoft:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=HCBLE2004-12-14_273_7362_2.jpg

Appreciate any opinion and tips on possible improvement.

Thanks a lot

j


[Edited 2005-01-06 10:28:10]


"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

hello j,

to be honest: I have no clue ....

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

J,


For the first one-

'badcentred' will be due to the aircraft being a little high in the frame. I suspect this was your intention, as you wanted that detail in the bottom of the image, however, a.net can be particular about this.

'Badquality' may be a bit trickier in this case. You've got the aircraft full frame, and the A330 has a narrow cross-section, and it's shot from the rear so you're up against it to pull the detail out. I think there's a little haze in there.

That being said, it's a good image - a good scene - so work at it and you may be able to get it in the DB.


Cheers


James

[Edited 2005-01-06 10:42:54]


It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2618 times:

For the first image crop the same distance from both wingtips to the edge of the picture .
Otherwise they are very nice pics keep the good work up.



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2613 times:

As for the second one, it does not have the sharpness that a.net expects in a close-up, so I can understand the badsoft. It was an ambitious shot and all credit to you for trying it -- you almost pulled it off. Possibly more sharpening could fix it.

I can't figure out the badquality though. Perhaps a screener would be kind enough to explain, and we'd both learn from it.



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2600 times:

The first one is a good shot, I tried to to a similar shot and got bad distance.
Crop it a bit more and you might get rid of the bad quality at the same time. the aircraft itself looks good to me.

Fergul  Big thumbs up

2nd on great attempt but does need to be a bit sharper!



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2582 times:

Screening thousands of shots, most screeners can spot where a problem is on a shot.

Many of the rejections I would reject fall in the "easy rejection" category.
That is... the problem was so obvious, a seasoned uploaded would be able to spot it without a problem. These are usually rejection the first time a screener sees them.

Some of the rejections fall in the "so-so/fence sitting category". These shots are generally commented on by many screeners until a decision is made.

Likewise some rejection reasons are crystal clear....
Bad angle is obvious. Bad motiv is even obvious if you know what to look for.

Bad quality is a hard rejection reason to explain, but after a while it's easy to spot.

The start of the rejection reason is:


The image quality of these photos is low. This may be the result of several
perceived problems happening simultaneously, such as grain, blur, lighting,
contrast or color defects, which would lead us to believe that a fresh scan
(in the case of a non-digital image) or a complete rework starting with the
original camera file (in the case of a digitally taken image)would be necessary,
rather than a simple adjustment to the uploaded file.


Bad quality is simply a rejection applied when there are enough overall appearance issues with the photo.

When one selects a shot for editing and uploading, one should look at the overall quality of the shot. I kick myself everytime the most dramatic shot/best shot of the day, is also the one that no matter how much I edit it, it still has "something" wrong about it.

If it's bad quality, take another look at the original - or the method used to scan or edit.

Regards,

Glenn Stewart



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Glenn

Thanks for replying. The difficulty I've had with badquality is that, because it does not specify actual reasons why a particular shot doesn't make the grade, I'd be left none the wiser. I've learnt a great deal from other rejection reasons but badquality has only been a source of frustration.

In an ideal world, if there were 3 reasons for screeners to reject a photo they would list them all -- but I know that's easier said than done when there are several thousand photos in the queue.



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Glenn - I agree with Charles above that it is good to hear a screener's perspective on this issue, as I know many of us are left somewhat unclear when we get a bad quality rejection.

Javier - I too can understand the rationale for the rejection of the A330 image - not in the centre of the photo and there is a difference in the distance between wingtips and the left and right edges of the image. But clearly the motive of the photo would not be preserved if you centred the plane and so lost the runway. I like it the way you've done it and so I wonder if this is one of those where one screener would have approved and so let the bad centre issue go, whereas another wouldn't.

As regards the TAME 737 - I think you've done a great job with that image. If it's soft then it's very marginal in my opinion. Also, no doubt it would have looked better in flattering sunlight, but maybe it's just that the quality threshold is getting higher and higher for the database. Could it be improved a bit with the levels slightly altered to make it brighter and some extra colour saturation to offset the somewhat dull lighting? Maybe worth another go as the panning is excellent.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

I find the "Bad Quality" rejection the most annoying of all... A week ago i had 10 out of 10 download rejected for bad quality. If it said "Grain" or "Noise" i would have some idea whats wrong. But "Bad Quality" still leaves me baffled most times......

I don't know what rejections other people get but 99.9% of my rejections are bad quality. Never Bad color or bad angle , just alway bad quality !!!  Sad




Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlinePhilhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

I agree with Psych on the recommendations.

I have only received one plain-old "badquality" rejection. I've received two other "badquality" rejections with the additional qualifiers like "badcommon". The rest of my rejections have been for bad cropping or angles.

Not to get too far off-topic, but my most frustrating screening result is when I fix a problem from the first rejection (like badborder) and then it gets kicked out the second time for quality. The perception is that it was OK the first time.

cheers,
Phil



HoustonSpotters Admin - Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know how that one feels Phil.

I recognise that it is difficult for screeners, as sometimes I guess they go for what they see as the primary fault with a photo, even though there may be more than one. However I, like you, am often lulled into a false sense of security in that if I think I have corrected the fault that the initial screening identified I hope for a positive outcome from the reupload. Then it can feel frustrating if the photo then gets rejected a second time for an unrelated issue.

But I still wouldn't fancy the potential flak that screeners always seem to have coming their way. It seems to be an almost impossible job to make what is essentially a subjective assessment completely objective.

Paul


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Thanks a lot for your replies, I appreciate it.

Sulman, Psych - As you both stated the first shot is badcentered on purpose, to show the runway, I see no way of going around that without making it a boring shot.

Psych - I followed your tips, applied some new techniques learned in this thread http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/163335/ and came up with this, which I feel is a real improvement:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/HCBLE2004-12-14_273_7362_2_2.jpg.

Glenn - Thanks for taking the time to reply, but, maybe because of my bad English, your answer is to me "clear as mud"  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Thanks again.

j





"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Hi All,

I'll take the confusion with the "bad quality" on board. I might discuss this with screener collegues.

Generally speaking, I know that I try to combine as many rejection reasons with bad quality as possible. But this can't always be the case.

For the moment, I would suggest be self critical of any shot rejected bad quality. Ask yourself the question:

"What problems can I find with this edited photo?"
"What problems can I find with the original photo?"

Often it's a case of start again, or try another photo....

Regards,

Glenn Stewart






Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Javier - firstly can I say that I can only wish that I could speak/write a foreign language as 'badly' as you do. You express yourself very clearly.

I have had a look at your new version of the 737 shot and do like the result. To my eye it is a clear improvement from the point of view of the overall image. Judging by the amount of blur in the background the shutter speed cannot have been that fast and so a further rejection for blur would be harsh, in my opinion.

Good luck with it - I hope it gets accepted.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

Thanks again to everybody for your help, the TAME shot just got accepted!  Smile

Regards

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
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...
Advice And Aircraft ID posted Sun Apr 30 2006 23:03:19 by ANITIX87
Quality Rejections, Advice Needed posted Thu Dec 8 2005 00:31:30 by Mrk25
Badquality Rejections - Advice Needed posted Mon Feb 21 2005 18:15:00 by Parsival
Rejections Advice ... posted Wed Sep 29 2004 20:01:45 by Rotate
FRA Overview Advice And Help Needed posted Fri Sep 24 2004 10:52:32 by Beechcraft
A Few Rejections, Advice Requested. posted Sun Jan 11 2004 11:46:08 by 747 4-ever
Request Badscan Advice posted Fri Nov 21 2003 23:15:30 by Atco
Rejections Advice Please posted Fri May 16 2003 12:57:40 by Manzoori
Two American Airlines Rejections-Advice Please posted Tue Feb 18 2003 19:47:12 by Qantas744
Rejections - Advice Needed Please posted Thu Oct 17 2002 13:01:15 by Sabena 690