Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
All Of A Sudden Im Getting Everything Rejected  
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Well after i got me new equipment and learnt PS i had turned round my rejection rate from about 50% pass to 90%.

All of a sudden im getting everything rejected. Out of the last 5 all 5 have been binned. Now i self screen everything and im pretty hard on myself so im very surprised.

Can any of you guys confirm why for example this got bad quality. Im a bit baffled.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r.../LH-CRJ-DACPB-26032005-LHR-SJC.jpg

Cheers
Simon C
 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
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2595 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

what happened to crane on tail????


When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offlineNorfolkjohn From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 251 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

Simon,

Apart from the tail can I suggest you check the histogram in levels. The shot looks a bit washed out but if you check in levels there is quite a bit of flat line at either end of the histogram.

Just my thought.

John



One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning.
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

Simon,

Although I did not see this shot, I did reject some of your shots because they were quite oversharpened. Everything contrasty had a heavy "silver lining" around it. I think I put a personal message in the rejection of those (GA-aircraft).
Looking at this CRJ on a very soft CRT-monitor in my office, I still see artifacts of sharpening, especially around the engine, wing and titles.
My advice would be to try to go easier on the sharpening with your next uploads.

Cheers,
Eduard


User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2572 times:

Tomislav,

The Crane is still there, but obscured by the engine. What youre seeing is the radio antenna above it:-


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anders Presterud



Rez
 Big grin



Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offlineSfilipowicz From Netherlands, joined Jul 2002, 327 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

Hi Simon,

Also on my screen looks pretty oversharpened.

Good luck!

Steven.


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

Quoting 9A-CRO (Reply 1):
what happened to crane on tail????

Its behind the engine. I checked the unedited pictures to make sure. Its just the angle.  Smile

Quoting Norfolkjohn (Reply 2):
Apart from the tail can I suggest you check the histogram in levels. The shot looks a bit washed out but if you check in levels there is quite a bit of flat line at either end of the histogram

Checked the Histo and all is ok. For my edit's i prefer not so much contrast. I just prefer that style. Its not been a problem in the past and i have hundred of other pictures edited this way. I feel it brings out more detail in the shadow etc etc..... As i said it's not been a problem in the past. For example.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Curtis
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Curtis



Sorry to be a pain in the butt everyone but im on 5 days holiday now and HAD planned a mega edit/download. So i need to sort this out otherwise my reject % is going to go through the floor  Sad


Simon C



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 offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Thanks guys..... So its kick the USM down a bit. I have to admit i do try to get images pin sharp.... Maybe im overdoing it a bit.. Maybe one less kick off 100.

Eduard : Yes i did get the message Big grin All this lot were already in the que though. I was more worried in general. Most of the rejects have been badlevel,jaggies etc etc.... But all of a sudden i was getting the dreded "Badquality"...

Cheers all
Simon C  Smile



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 offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2457 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Simon

Oversharpened.

Did you also place a mask around the aircraft? Strange effects around the wheels looking as if some sort of enhancement did not quite work out all the way.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Thanks Gary. From everyones comments im now cutting a sweep of USM from my normal workflow....

Regarding the Mask. Not that i recall. My normal trick when screwing up a picture is using layers for sharpening then forgetting to flatten them before changing contrast/brightness etc etc. I normally notice it before any upload though. Maybe i did it this time on the wheel. Oh well its one to go into the re-edit folder !!  Smile

Simon C



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 offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Hey Simon,
Totally take this as a compliment, but it is so nice to hear good photographers complain about having problems with rejections. It makes me feel not alone, and more proud every time one of my photos is added. Good luck in the future, keep up the good work.
-Matt Big grin



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Quoting LHRSIMON (Thread starter):

Can any of you guys confirm why for example this got bad quality. Im a bit baffled.

one of Gary's 500 random rejects...his dog screened this one.


User currently offlineVIR380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2246 times:

Quoting LHRSIMON (Thread starter):
All of a sudden im getting everything rejected. Out of the last 5 all 5 have been binned

Im afraid its one thing you'll have to get used to ... your not on your own , i keep getting asked by people " whats going on at AN ? "

I dont have the answer im sorry ...

You may think im out of line here but the way i see it is there is none if very little input or feedback from anyone ... not sure if the crew have been given orders or not but i see a vast difference from when i was screening.

Gone are the days when you'd get any help or positive response for any rejection , as an example ... i just got a reject fair enough for bad category .... but ... when i was screening and i saw something like that i would change it simple enough ... the request on appeal subsequently was ignored and the appeal rejected too ... ahh well life does after all still go on

I think its just one of those simple things in life we have to ignore and get on with things

Now im not asking that i for example should have preferential treatment in any way shape or form .... but there SHOULD be a little more reality in the screening process after all 2 seconds or so added to screening a picture will not cause a massive backlog.

Im seeing a lot of negativity here which should not be happening ... but to be honest i can see why  Sad

that really is it from me

Regards all Tony


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Tony,

They're between a rock and a hard place though, aren't they? There's pressure from contributors for the waiting time (therefore the queue) to be kept to a minimum.

I think the general stance is "We'll screen the pictures, you're big enough and smart enough to figure out what's wrong where we reject them."

That being said, most screeners will offer specific help if you ask, in my own experience.

The only frustration I get is that the standards do sometimes feel like a moving target.

Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VIR380 (Reply 12):
Gone are the days when you'd get any help or positive response for any rejection

I think that's a little unjust, given that two different screeners have offered positive assistance in the early replies to this thread.

I think we're all agreed that (some of) Simon's shots need the shadow areas to be darker, and a little less sharpening.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

Agree with Tamsin on Tony's comments.

There is a horrendous amount of stuff, good and bad, being uploaded and personal rejection reasons take time. All screeners are encouraged to add comments (as Tony will confirm) but this cannot happen 100% of the time.

Screeners are working flat out but have to say the number of uploads per day far outweight the amount being screened. We cannot go any faster.

Comments have been made about Simon's image and he has taken those onboard.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

I have to be honest and say i have found the screeners very helpfull.  Smile Though i do know of a few people who have requested help and not been so lucky. As others have said its all down to time. Screening hundreds of photo's means you cannot answer all of them.... Its just the badquality rejection that does my head in , as it tells you nothing. If i had got bad contrast + bad jagged i would have been find and understood the problem.

Im a bit happier today as i got a couple into the DB with just a rejection which was this one.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...BD-A321-GMIDL-26032005-LHR-SJC.jpg

I have to say i thought this one was a bit of a hard rejection also... But oh well  Smile

Simon C



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 offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Simon

Same with the last image.......oversharpened and some fringing.

What camera are you using again?

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Simon,

Did I read somewhere that you are now using L glass?

When I upgraded from 75-300 to 100-400L, I started getting loads of rejections for oversharpened, although I was using the same PS settings as for the 75-300.

Had to back off on PS unsharp mask a bit. Probably guilty of trying to get them TOO sharp with the new lens.

regards



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

I've found with the 70-200 F4 & the 100-400 that in terms of pound-for-pound sharpness that these lenses can achieve, they're not that different to a consumer model.

However, where they really shine is in consistency, contrast and colour. It's easier to get nice results with them.

The 70-200 2.8 and 300mm F4 do seem something else though..very nice results.


Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LHRSIMON (Reply 16):
I have to say i thought this one was a bit of a hard rejection also... But oh well

Again, a lack of contrast here, which also makes sharpening more difficult.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

I would say oversharpened and a little flat. Try to give them some more pop and a little less sharpening pass! Big grin

Good luck!

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

Sorry guys. I had been out taking a few photo's at Elstress & Stapleford.  Smile

Quoting Granite (Reply 17):
What camera are you using again?

Hi Gary. Im using a 20D. BTW i never use auto. Alway try to get between 1/320 & 1/500. ISO 100 OR 200. F/8.0 if possible.

As for all the other replies. They all seem to confirm that i need to cut down on USM and a little more + on the contrast..

Cheers all
:D



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 offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Simon

Definitely something wrong with your post processing.

I'd love to see the original  Smile

Regards

Gary


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...
New To All Of This, Any Tips? :) posted Sun Oct 2 2005 16:50:56 by Bticehurst
Another One Of My Rants...This Shot Rejected posted Thu Sep 30 2004 21:18:20 by Kaddyuk
My Photo Of WOA MD-11 Was Rejected - Help! posted Thu Apr 22 2004 02:14:25 by BDLGUY
Im Getting The Canon 100-400mm Is! posted Fri Jan 30 2004 00:47:25 by Maiznblu_757
Did All Of You Give Permission? posted Sat Apr 20 2002 11:37:16 by Aircanon
Sell Pictures For All Of Us! posted Fri May 4 2001 13:33:19 by George
Is Confidence Getting The Best Of Me? posted Mon Sep 11 2006 00:32:38 by San747
Does This Pic Have A Chance In Hell Of Getting In? posted Wed May 24 2006 06:10:47 by CYEGsTankers
Help! 1st Shots Of New Airline Go! Rejected. posted Tue May 9 2006 06:24:10 by Phxplanes
The Question Of All Time: Best Camera? posted Wed Apr 19 2006 21:54:50 by Schreiner