Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Combined Rejections, We Don't Get It.  
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4599 posts, RR: 51
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1816 times:

Hey all,

recently Kas and I got some pics rejected (mainly me) and we just don't see it. We hope you guys (girls welcome too) can point us in the right direction.

My RJ-100 (quality)
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejec...821_HB-IYS_RJ100LX300706ZRH_JR.jpg

Kas' A321 (quality)
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...20060823_G-EUXE_AMS_06-02-05kj.jpg

And the high hitter, my 717 (quality, overexposed, contrast), it is bright, but in my idea not overexposed
http://airliners.net/addphotos/rejec...819_EC-HUZ712AeBal300706ZRH_JR.jpg

Thanks for your help!

Jurgen & Kas


For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1801 times:

HB-IYS: Very grainy sky / engines look over-exposed - whites look blown.

G-EUXE: I like it and can't see anything wrong with the quality apart from the tower might need some anti CW rotation.

Quoting JRadier (Thread starter):
my 717 (quality, overexposed, contrast), it is bright, but in my idea not overexposed

There is definately something not right though with those whites. It also looks badly framed (a bit low in the frame).

User currently offlineCJA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Jurgen

The 717 is definitely overexposed (unless my monitor is way off) and my guess is that this is the cause of the other comments on this pic.

I will let others comment on the remaining two photos.

User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

1. Unlevel (CW) and grainy, but not too bad...
2. Oversharpened & unlevel (CCW)
3. Grainy, (slightly) overexposed, jagged titles

E

User currently offlineAirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3853 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Thanks for the clarifications E.

-Kas


Life is short, swim naked
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

Quoting AirKas1 (Reply 4):
Thanks for the clarifications E

Yeah just ignore everyone else's comments...  Sad

User currently offlineAirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3853 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

Quoting 9VSPO (Reply 5):
Yeah just ignore everyone else's comments...

I'm really sorry Ian  ashamed  . I value everyone's comments!


Life is short, swim naked
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1480 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1731 times:		 Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting IL76 (Reply 3):
1. Unlevel (CW) and grainy, but not too bad...
2. Oversharpened & unlevel (CCW)
3. Grainy, (slightly) overexposed, jagged titles

 checkmark  checkmark 

I am sorry but I see it the same way. Nice to see other people also have probs to meet A.net standard  Wink Keep trying, everybody has to get better.

Robin


ABC
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

Quoting Rotate (Reply 7):
Nice to see other people also have probs to meet A.net standard

Makes me feel good too!! But who know's with a re-edit. They are nice shots.

User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

My humble opinion:

HB-IYS: Grainy for starters, but also I find the backgruond quite distracting (the building at least). Am I the only one? I know it may not be a reason for rejection, it was just an impression of mine.
G-EUXE: Jagged on some parts of the livery. Would say it need a little CCW rotation after reading the previous posts, but I didn´t notice it when I first saw it.
EC-HUZ: Jagged titles for sure, and definitely bad centered. Overexposed and too grainy in the background.

I like the LX livery. I hadn´t noticed it before.

Regards,
Lanas.-


"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
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...
What We Don't Want To See In Real Life! posted Mon May 1 2006 14:11:40 by 7E7Fan
I Don't See It.... posted Wed Jan 11 2006 23:37:23 by AirKas1
Victoris Secret Plane....someone Please Get It! posted Wed Nov 10 2004 19:08:27 by JFKTOWERFAN
10D - Get It Now? posted Thu Sep 16 2004 20:48:48 by BREmer
900 On Db But I Still Don't Get This Badscan! posted Fri Nov 14 2003 14:58:48 by Cosmicwind
Scanners: How Do You Guys Get It So Sharp? posted Mon Jul 28 2003 14:18:57 by Thom@s
Just Saw A G3 For 150,- Dollars - Should I Get It? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 00:03:20 by CPH-R
If Film Is Confiscated, Can You Get It Back? posted Thu Jul 25 2002 18:45:07 by 727LOVER
The New Way Of Screening Photos - I Dont Get It! posted Wed Feb 13 2002 15:36:36 by LGW
Will It Get The Dreaded "Motive" Rejection? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 07:43:59 by Cosec59