Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3069 posts, RR: 58 Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3003 times:
I have recently been trying to offer help and advice to Hongyin Huo, who recently became a fellow A.net photographer, based in Toronto. He has recently received a badquality rejection for this photo.
There is no doubt that Hongyin's photography and editing skills have been really developing in a short space of time. He would value some further advice and guidance on this particular photo as we are both somewhat unclear as to the specific reason(s) why this photo was rejected on quality grounds (as opposed to, say, motive).
I know he would value any advice colleagues can offer.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2989 times:
The quality of the photo looks good to me. What is being shown is a bit of an eyebugger. Is it possible to crop closer to the end of the tail from the left while showing more of the ramp? A whole lot of sky with nothing in it! Regardless it's a nice shot. A screener could possibly comment on as to why it was rejected for badquality.
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2981 times:
That is a cracking clear shot mate, one I would be proud of. The only thing I can see mate is a faint, well what appears to be, three dust spots in front of the Air Canada tail, about half way up and about an inch in front of it. But even in Equalize mode they are hard to see.
JAT74L From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2942 times:
I'd like to know for my own reference what the "quality" issue is too. If it's the spots then it should be "baddirty". This shot looks fine to me and I would have submitted it so that's why I'm asking.
I had a few badquality rejections recently and wondered what the parameters were for this particular category (mine WERE badquality by the way!)
I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3069 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2932 times:
That's my issue too. Hongyin asked me for my advice as to why the badquality rejection was given and I was unsure.
I can see some jaggies - primarily on the back Alitalia, but not anything that should be 'fatal', in my opinion. For me, Phil, the Air Canada tail is not a significant issue on my monitor. If that was the only issue I would expect a badjagged rejection, and so I am assuming that badquality was used because the screener felt there was more than one problematic issue.
I suppose I was wondering if badquality gets used as a 'general' rejection criterion when a number of issues come together. But I have read the definition, and it does imply that the image quality itself is the factor, and the quality of this image looks fine to me. You could argue about jaggies, composition etc, but to me that is something different.
Waketurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1303 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2922 times:
JAT74L, I think the bad quality rejection comes from the dirt spots, the jaggies, and the center/cropping issue, all rolled into one bad quality rejection. That's something that I hate the most becasue you could probably fix all of these issues, but if you have no experience then it becomes overwhelming and you don't know where to start.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1197 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2822 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I'm Hongyin Huo. Today I've become a member of this forum. Herein I want to cordially thank you everyone for providing helps on this issue! And also special thanks to Paul for his generous helps to me these days!
I'll take the suggestions, editing that photo again and trying to re-upload it later on.