DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1022 times:
Quoting Rejection Reasons: These photo(s) appear to have been processed in an unacceptable manner.
This may be due to incorrect use of certain features of the image
processing software, but it may also be due to deliberate attempts to
alter the image, i.e. by digitally removing or adding objects, or by
purposely changing certains items in the image.
Not only do I disagree with the rejection but that's a completely separate thread and one I choose not to fight (and it was rejected upon appeal...), the bold text seems to be a big F--K YOU to a vast majority of people (like me) who don't intentionally make "deliberate attempts to alter the image."
Maybe it's time to be like brand X and have a separate "Manipulation" and "Over Processed" rejection?
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1005 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
It says it may be due to deliberate attempts etc, or to incorrect use of software.
Exactly. I'm not the screener so I don't know, and the fact that I don't know is the problem. Am I being tagged for a deliberate manipulation or am I being told to go easy on the neatimage/shadow-highlight/sharpening? The fact that bad manipulation is hinted at makes me wonder.
Actually no, once the appeal is rejected it's dumped from the system. And manipulation wasn't on the original rejection.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Not really, the bold seems to be for emphasis only not to insult you.
Are we going to argue over symantics again? Rather than adressing the problem that Over Processed and Bad Manipulation are two different reasons for rejecting a photo and should be classed as such?
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 2): Am I being tagged for a deliberate manipulation or am I being told to go easy on the neatimage/shadow-highlight/sharpening?
You know if you did the former, don't you? If you didn't, you're obviously being told the latter (even if you don't agree with that).
The screeners are not clairvoyant. They obviously can't always see whether unacceptable cloning, for example, was the result of deliberate manipulation or clumsiness.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 988 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 5): You know if you did the former, don't you? If you didn't, you're obviously being told the latter (even if you don't agree with that).
So in this case I'm being told the latter and I didn't do any cloning period...great...thanks.
NIKV69 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 56 Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 4): Are we going to argue over symantics again? Rather than adressing the problem that Over Processed and Bad Manipulation are two different reasons for rejecting a photo and should be classed as such?
All you needed to do was post the rejection here and ask the screeners for clarification, they would have cleared it up for you. Without seeing the pic this thead is just going to turn into another tennis match.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 965 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 7): All you needed to do was post the rejection here and ask the screeners for clarification, they would have cleared it up for you. Without seeing the pic this thead is just going to turn into another tennis match.
I've said it twice in the thread but I'll say it again for you: That's impossible.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4085 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 957 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 8): I've said it twice in the thread but I'll say it again for you: That's impossible.
Well no it isn't in the past when you have had an axe to grind... er, point to make, you have had no trouble linking to a photo on your website or you could add the photo in your profile and link it there. Nothing to hide is there Eric?
Having said that I also agree to a point that this particular rejection reason could be split up. I also accept that you are discussing that rather than your particular image.
Regards
Of course old planes are safe, how do you think they got to be old?
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2190 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 864 times:
Are you sure about no cloning out of dust spots??
Because if you equalise that shot, there is a massive dodgy spot in the sky. I don't know if that would be it though. It can only be seen by equalising.
Have you tried emailing the screening team regarding this? It might just pay off to go about it that way.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 848 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 14): Because if you equalise that shot, there is a massive dodgy spot in the sky. I don't know if that would be it though. It can only be seen by equalising.
well uh, if it can only be seen by equalizing, and it's cloning of dust spots, what's the problem?
Linco22 From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Jun 2005, 1369 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 803 times:
Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 16): Big white spot in the sky, clearly visible without equalizing.
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1578 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 795 times:
Yes I see it too, but wouldn't that be more quality rejection? It's just a spot and it should be followed by a personal message describing it in brief.
KS/codeshare
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2190 posts, RR: 22 Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 760 times:
Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 16): Big white spot in the sky, clearly visible without equalizing.
There's your answer right there. That is the problem. Try the shot again, but clone more carefully.
Quoting Codeshare (Reply 18): It's just a spot and it should be followed by a personal message describing it in brief.
It probably would have been the better way of approaching things instead of getting the photographer angry. That's all we need sometimes. A short message.
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 65 Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 623 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Thread starter): Not only do I disagree with the rejection but that's a completely separate thread and one I choose not to fight (and it was rejected upon appeal...), the bold text seems to be a big F--K YOU to a vast majority of people (like me) who don't intentionally make "deliberate attempts to alter the image."
Eric,
We don't mean to tell you how to edit or accuse you of poor editing.... but with the huge queue, we're not going to specifically provide each and every individual with a detailed personal message refining the rejection.
As with all rejection reasons, not all parts of the rejection reasons may be directed at you. We (as screeners) might see something in the image which may lead us to reject under the general reason of "editing".
The light patch in sky points more towards a clone of dirt. That fine - we ask that you remove dust spots, but in a subtle manner.
There is no other rejection reason for this other than the one you received.
Glenn
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Clickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8842 posts, RR: 79 Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 554 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Seems like you got the correct rejection reason. You cloned something out, and did a poor job, and it is visible.
We do have another rejection reason similiar to what you call "over processed." We call it NOA_Editing.
A better question to ask would be how long will it take you to start a thread on Airwhiners calling me an *censored* because I have given you an answer you did not want to hear.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 531 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 22): We do have another rejection reason similiar to what you call "over processed." We call it NOA_Editing.
Isn't that basically what this is?
Quoting rejection reason from above: These photo(s) appear to have been processed in an unacceptable manner.
This may be due to incorrect use of certain features of the image
processing software,...
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 2698 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 521 times:
Eric,
You have had an answer from 3 seperate screeners now and we can also see why they said it and that it is justified as can you.
Is there any need to keep retaliating?
It was a unfortunate mistake on your part, re edit and reupload and the pic will be on soon enough.
Chris
Canon 5D2 + 1D2 with other bodies and lots of L glass.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 515 times:
Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 24): You have had an answer from 3 seperate screeners now and we can also see why they said it and that it is justified as can you.
Yeah, I can see why the rejection was justified, but that wasn't the original point of this thread. I was trying to open up discussions on a particular rejection reason that without explanation is a bit vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways. When I see the line about "deliberate attempts to alter the image," even though in this case, now that I see what's up, that probably wasn't the case, it's still not a fun thing to see in your e-mail when you're trying to hold integrity...or something like that.
26 Clickhappy: NOA_Editing would be for non-cloning issues See this example for NOA_Editing (halo around starboard engine)
27 DLKAPA: Uhhh Royal according to the rejection reasons listed here, the rejection reason I got was NOA_Editing.
28 Clickhappy: I see that I apologize for the confusion. I personally don't use NOA_Editing for cloning issues, I would use a NOA_Personal, with a note to the photog
29 Glennstewart: I appreciate this, but as mentioned by Royal - we can't add new ones just yet. Your post is part of what we use as feedback. Until possible changes c
30 DLKAPA: Personally I think there are times when "photogs" need a slap around because of badmanipulation, but there also cases, such as this one, where the 2n
31 Clickhappy: The downside of that level of service is less screening. So, if we do that you might be happy, but what about all the posts and hate mail wondering wh
32 Newark777: Or Johan could simply add another rejection reason. Or would that make too much sense? Harry
33 Clickhappy: Did you read through the post? Adding new rejection buckets isn't an option right now.
34 Newark777: No, all you said was: And not why it is so hard to simply add a rejection reason. Harry
35 Clickhappy: Hmmm, well even if you didn't understand what I meant, Glenn added I appreciate this, but as mentioned by Royal - we can't add new ones just yet. And
36 Newark777: Such as that system to magically detect cloning? Harry
37 Clickhappy: huh? you need to stop sniffing glue, little shooter.
38 Glennstewart: Actually we've just completed work on a special set of glasses called Rayban Equalizers. They use a HUD like display which draws red rings around CCD
41 Glennstewart: I should share them around.... they're making me go a little crazy
42 Chris78cpr: Always being the funny man Glenn! ; It's good to see good humour in a thread that has been trying to turn bad! Cheers for the laugh mate! Chris
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3014 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8191 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4085 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Jun 2005, 1369 posts, 
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1578 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 2698 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
