Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Please Help With Quality / Size Rejection  
User currently offlineThe From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4398 times:

Hi all,

The following photo was rejected for quality & size:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0051213_20050222_144111_PH-KCG.jpg

I really like the photo (Little spotter vs. big plane, nice Caribbean sea etc.) and would like it to be accepted. Please help me to improve it...

1) Does the size have to be exactly 2:3? This one was 682x1024, and I think it should have been 683x1024, right?

2) About the quality: What exactly is wrong and how should I try to improve that?

BR, Teemu


the
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

HI Teemu
I personally think your shot is excellent.
Well composed and the lighting is good and the theme is very cool.
Size is fine and i have no idea why it would be rejected for that.
As for quality noone here knows at th emoment what specifically quality may mean but the screener didnt like something about the shot.
Personally i cant see whats not to like but i am not out to find issues.
The crew did say something about flightdeck shots with fisheye's a while ago but not sure if that carries over to general shots.
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 offlineThe From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Hi Darren,

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 1):
I personally think your shot is excellent.

Thanks!

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 1):
The crew did say something about flightdeck shots with fisheye's a while ago but not sure if that carries over to general shots.

You must mean this message. But then it should have been rejected for motive? And IMHO it's quite obvious what I'm trying to achieve with fisheye - The plane is almost straight above me & the little spotter on that photo...

Any other comments / suggestions? How to improve the quality?

BR, Teemu



the
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2730 posts, RR: 41
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

Lovely shot, but horrible Speedos!

[Edited 2005-12-16 18:08:57]


Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineThe From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4319 times:

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 3):
Lovely shot, but horrible Speedo's!

NOA_Motive...

LOL Big grin



the
User currently offlineThe From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

But seriously... Would someone please give me any suggestions for improving the quality? Screeners? Anyone?

Or just say that the photo sucks and has no chance to be accepted, so I can forget it...  Wink

BR, Teemu



the
User currently offlineSA006 From South Africa, joined Sep 2003, 1883 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4273 times:

Hi Teemu.

Great shot I must say. Next time though , replace the guy in the speedo with a woman in a bikini please...  Wink

About the quality. I think this pic is backlit , giving the aircraft a dark look. There is quite alot of grain visible on the aircraft.

Generally I feel the photo is a tad soft. Try some USM but I feel this won't help too much.

Good luck and sorry if I couldn't be of more help!

-SA006  wave 



Proudly South African
User currently offlineDavidu From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 60 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4266 times:

Hi Teemu

When seeing the pic for the first time, my eyes are drawn to the boy looking up at the aircraft and not the aircraft itself. This would suggest motiv for me as previously suggested.

Overall Qual for me also. The image is overall dark and the photo looks softish mainly the a/c from the engines all the way forward to the nose. Factors like that all adds up to Qual / Scan.

The standards at airliners.net are a lot higher compared to a couple of years ago. That what makes us the top site.

This is just my personal views as a screener, but if you feel hard done to, by all means appeal the shot and our respected Head screeners who will look at the shot again.

Sizes:-

For Landscape:-

1000 x (between) 667 and 750
1024 x (between) 683 and 768
1100 x (between) 733 and 825
1200 x (between) 800 and 900
1300 x (between) 866 and 975
1400 x (between) 933 and 1050
1500 x (between) 1000 and 1125
1600 x (between) 1066 and 1200

and Portrait:-

667 x (between) 750 and 1000
683 x (between) 768 and 1024
733 x (between) 825 and 1100
800 x (between) 900 and 1200
866 x (between) 975 and 1300
933 x (between) 1050 and 1400
1000 x (between) 1125 and 1500
1066 x (between) 1200 and 1600

The 'between' sizes apply to the 2 different ratio sizes.

Some of the size rejections may seem at bit harsh, although we do give a bit of come and go. I do reject for size even if the size is not out by miles. But only along with another definite rejection category. This hopefully advises the photographer to watch out for the size guidelines while carrying out the rescan for the main rejection reasons and for future reference.

All the Best
david  camera   airplane 


User currently offlineThe From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Hi David,

Thanks for the clarification. You can be sure I won't appeal, but I'll try to improve the quality with complete rework from the original. Might be (too) difficult, but we'll see...

About the motive: IMHO it's good to have something that draws your attention first and directs you to the main subject. If that would have been a woman in bikini, your eyes wouldn't never notice the a/c and then it would have been NOA_Motive.  Wink

Quoting Davidu (Reply 7):
The standards at airliners.net are a lot higher compared to a couple of years ago. That what makes us the top site.

...and that's why I upload here.  bigthumbsup 

BR, Teemu



the
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

Quoting Davidu (Reply 7):
The standards at airliners.net are a lot higher compared to a couple of years ago. That what makes us the top site.

for some people.

As for this shot,I think this is very high quality and the motive is unique and is a very good use of a fisheye.....


User currently offlineThe From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4215 times:

Ok, here's the same photo after a complete rework from the original:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/20050222_144111_PH-KCG_v2.jpg

Less grain, some more USM and a little bit brighter.

What do you think? Does this one have a chance or should I remove it from the queue?

BR, Teemu



the
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4213 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Teemu

The aircraft looks blurry and neatimages (correct?)

Not really an improvement over the first version.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineThe From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4208 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 11):
Not really an improvement over the first version.

Ok. Thanks!

Removed from queue.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 11):
neatimages (correct?)

No. PSE3...

BR, Teemu



the
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 'quality ' Rejection Please. posted Sun Sep 24 2006 12:30:39 by Nucky
Help With Quality Rejection posted Fri Sep 29 2006 11:38:26 by UnattendedBag
Please Help With Level Rejection posted Fri Aug 25 2006 17:40:05 by OlegShv
Help With Quality And Crop, Please! posted Sun Jan 15 2006 10:22:23 by Frippe
Help With Quality Rejection posted Mon Oct 31 2005 01:43:51 by FUAirliner
Please Help With A Badquality Rejection posted Thu Aug 4 2005 20:49:54 by ElpinDAB
Please Help With Baddirty Rejection. posted Sat Jul 30 2005 23:31:53 by Bigbrokerbo
Help With An Overview Rejection Please. posted Sun Jun 19 2005 05:11:33 by Fiveholer
Aaagh - Please Help With A Badlevel Rejection. posted Sun Apr 3 2005 10:54:20 by Psych
Please Help With This Rejection posted Fri Jan 14 2005 18:57:25 by TheBigOne