Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejection Assistance  
User currently offlineUA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

Afternoon,

I previously had this image rejected jagged so re worked it and reuploaded.

Today it has been rejected for Quality, Centred, Dark, Common.

If it was rejected for all of these the first time I would not have bothered re editing if I didn't think the quality was there.

I cannot see that the image has gone from just suffering from jaggies to being an image which warrants 4 rejection reasons.

I have never received 4 rejection rejection reasons for an image, especially one where on the initial rejection I received a personal message from the screener advising that they could see jaggies on the titles and I should re edit.

Your thoughts and views would be appreciated.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20060529_9MMPB3LHR08042006.jpg

Regards

Simon


Live every second like you mean it
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Well, I don't know what the first edit looked like, but this one is certainly dark in my opinion.
Should have been given COMMON the first time to indicate extra high
standards are required.
The centering rejection I don't understand.
The distracting building to the left doesn't help the photo though.

Cheers,

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineFlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Just be glad it didn't get motiv as well for the disturbing building on the left. Well, the photo is definitely dark. You can hardly make out the wheels. Common, yes there is a lot of the Wunala livery out there. Quality, I think this one's definitely lacking some of that. Center, I'm not sure, to me it looks alright.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineUA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting FlyingZacko (Reply 2):
Wunala livery

It's Hibiscus and there is not one other ground shot of the aircraft at Heathrow in the database.



Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

Hey Simon,
The engines defn looks dark. Maybe a touch of the shadow/highlight tool might help ya.

I can see some jagginess over certain places. Check the text - "An experience redefined". Maybe that's an quality issue? Other than that, I dont see any quality issue.

Vertical centering is the issue here. See the space from the top of the tail and compare that with the space from bottom to the gears. This 747 sure requires moving down a bit.

Since its a pretty common plane, they expect the pic to be flawless. and that's the reason for Common. Cure all the other issues, and you shld be able to get this accepted.

Cheers!
--Vas

--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineFlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

Quoting UA935 (Reply 3):
It's Hibiscus and there is not one other ground shot of the aircraft at Heathrow in the database.

Sorry for mistaking that, my bad.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1293 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

Quoting VasanthD (Reply 4):
Vertical centering is the issue here. See the space from the top of the tail and compare that with the space from bottom to the gears. This 747 sure requires moving down a bit.

 checkmark 

I would also crop tighter to the nose (equally to the tail, to keep horizontal centering OK) to get rid of that awkward part of that building (this attracts attention away from the plane)!

Good luck with the re-edit!

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
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...
Rejection Assistance - Soft posted Mon Apr 24 2006 13:15:40 by UA935
Rejection Assistance posted Tue Nov 1 2005 22:23:32 by Malandan
Rejection Assistance Required posted Tue Oct 11 2005 11:24:58 by Pumaknight
Rejection Assistance posted Tue May 24 2005 00:16:59 by G-CIVP
Rejection Assistance : VS A340-600 posted Mon May 16 2005 20:54:23 by Airplanepics
Rejection Assistance posted Thu May 12 2005 17:45:08 by Sky120
Some Rejection Assistance, Please posted Wed Jan 19 2005 17:02:02 by Jakbar
Rejection Assistance posted Fri Sep 24 2004 19:57:39 by Flygmolinafmly
Assistance Needed With A Soft Rejection posted Sun Oct 23 2005 08:25:47 by JumboJim747
Bad Color Rejection posted Thu Nov 23 2006 12:25:15 by Tom3