Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
4 (harsh?) Rejections - Screener Comment Please  
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11208 posts, RR: 52
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6184 times:

Actually, I'd like any comments. I think these rejections are EXTREMELY harsh. They are harsh to the point where I have to wonder if I'm getting screener reprisals for questioning them earlier this week. Any comments are appreciated, but I would especially appreciate the screener that decided to reject ALL of my uploads this week. Here are the shots:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...1111_n770UW_DCA_102906_DSC6713.jpg
Rejected for blemish. WTF?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...1111_n807MD_DCA_102906_DSC6908.jpg
Rejected for oversharpened and dark.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...1111_n823MD_DCA_102906_DSC6924.jpg
Rejected for Quality. I *really* would like to know what's wrong with the quality of this one.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...11_N912DL_DCA_102906_DSC6683_2.jpg
Soft. Really?

Thanks,

Damon


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2069 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6171 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...1111_n770UW_DCA_102906_DSC6713.jpg
Rejected for blemish. WTF?

Didn't know there was a NOA-blemish rejection. Magnificent background but the plane looks a little dark; maybe some shadow highlighting could save it?

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...1111_n807MD_DCA_102906_DSC6908.jpg
Rejected for oversharpened and dark.

Dark  checkmark , oversharpened: slightly (--> jaggies on tail and winglets); will be hard to save especially with the fence in front (motive!)

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...1111_n823MD_DCA_102906_DSC6924.jpg
Rejected for Quality. I *really* would like to know what's wrong with the quality of this one.

It's dark again and the plane looks somewhat washed out (did you use a grain reduction tool?)

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...11_N912DL_DCA_102906_DSC6683_2.jpg
Soft. Really?

Yep, slightly soft (especially the tail section)

I guess N°1 + 4 could be saved with some good editing.

Good luck,

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6142 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Damon.

I think we have here some good examples of the very high standards that are required of us all now to get photos accepted on the site.

#1 - I don't see any obvious dirt, other than something in the dark grey cloud above the crane on the right. But that could well be a legitimate cloud-related thing. However, I would say that the aircraft itself could be slightly sharper - e.g. the No.1 (left as we look) engine area and the nose/flightdeck.

#2 - unfortunately this kind of lighting does generally risk a dark rejection. No surprise to me. I think the oversharpening comes from some jaggies in areas such as the leading edge of the tailplane and the horizontal stabiliser.

#3 - Some nice lighting effects on the fuselage here, though I would agree that there are some artifacts in the photo. Take a look at the No.1 engine again - the cowling looks undersharpened and grainy. The lower fuselage doesn't look quite 'right'.

#4 - I think this is correct. If you look at the empennage/tail area that does look soft and a critical eye will be drawn there.

It is very frustrating when rejections flow, and sometimes very hard not to take things personally. I hope this feedback is of some use to you. If you would like an alternate attempt with an edit feel free to get in touch.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Number one is beautiful and an absolutely harsh example of a rejection... weird.

I can see why the other three have been rejected though.

Good luck Damon,
Flo



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why is the first harsh if there's a dustspot left of that church.

The others are marginal in terms of quality and they are dark.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6099 times:

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
They are harsh to the point where I have to wonder if I'm getting screener reprisals for questioning them earlier this week

No, we don´t work that way.

cheers,

Denis



That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6088 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting INNflight (Reply 3):
Number one is beautiful and an absolutely harsh example of a rejection... weird.

Florian
Totally disagree about the harsh rejection. At a glance it is a nice image but closer insepction shows it to be soft too.
Look at the Capitol Building in the background and you will see that it is bitingly sharp. Now look at the front of the aircraft, the nosewheel and as Psych pointed out, particularly the left side of the photo. All are soft to very soft.
Capitol building sharp, aircraft not....depth of field problems, which should not be a surprise to any experienced photographer.
A perfectly valid rejection as are the others!

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6086 times:

As others have said, all of the shots have defects.

Relax (the screeners are not out to get you) - and better luck with the next batch. Be careful about exposure and depth of field.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6075 times:

Somethings that I noticed on a very quick glance are...

The MD's rear third is very blurry.

The "objects" near the church don't look like dust but more like something in the sky. Seeing that they are causing issues, just clone them out. Easy fixed.

Rework second shot. Check histogram before uploading that one. Doing that and a little less sharpening and it could be a winner.

The second US Embraer, I have to agree. The left engine (looking at the shot) is soft, grainy and looks like its been too edited. There are parts of the aircraft which seem grainy when really shouldn't be. The quality is evident in the cheat lines. They are grainy also and just not sharp. I'd check colour levels on this too, as I'm seen a colour cast.

I may be guessing here but a few of these have evidence of a very wide f-stop/high shutter speed being used, causing some parts to be very blurry. Work with different settings and check results. You'll soon see what works and what doesn't.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6031 times:

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
Rejected for blemish. WTF?

Yep big dust spot. Could be my eyes but looks like it could use a little CCW rotation too. Look's like it leaning ever so slightly.

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
Rejected for oversharpened and dark

Jaggies up the tail and dark, yep. The rest are dark and the last one is soft. Looks like a great spot to shoot from but next time shoot with better light.

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
They are harsh to the point where I have to wonder if I'm getting screener reprisals for questioning them earlier this week

Yep! Probably.   

[Edited 2006-11-12 13:56:58]

User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6021 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
Yep big dust spot

  

LH side mid-way up next to green tower.

The rest seem dark.

[Edited 2006-11-12 14:06:54]

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11208 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5985 times:

Everyone,

I greatly appreciate the comments! Thank you. I'd respond to every great comment, but you guys wouldn't want to read them all.  Smile Please don't feel snubbed.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 1):
It's dark again and the plane looks somewhat washed out (did you use a grain reduction tool?)

I used CS2's noise reduction tool on the solid surfaces of the lower fuselage, but not on any color edges. Is this not okay?

Quoting Psych (Reply 2):
#2 - unfortunately this kind of lighting does generally risk a dark rejection.

That's unfortunate. Non-blue sky days are often the most visually interesting.

Quoting Psych (Reply 2):
The lower fuselage doesn't look quite 'right'.

Is this better?

Quoting Timdegroot (Reply 4):
Why is the first harsh if there's a dustspot left of that church.

Thanks, Tim. I looked at that many times, and assumed it was a steam plume from one of the buildings over there that I often see because I didn't see that spot on any of the other shots. I had to ramp up the contrast on a shot I didn't upload before I could find it. I'll reupload it with that fixed.

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 5):
No, we don´t work that way.

I sure hope you're right, because I feel like from some screener responses (or lack of responses) that I've somehow pissed some of you off.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
Looks like a great spot to shoot from but next time shoot with better light.

This spot only really works when there is very windy weather. National hardly ever uses the cross runways for jets, and this spot is not good for RWY1-19.

Quoting Viv (Reply 7):
better luck with the next batch. Be careful about exposure and depth of field.

Will do, but for the record, I shot all of these at f/6.3, 7.1, and 8 only. If the Capitol is sharp, it's because I sharpened it. I wanted to make sure that it was accented in the background.

Another re-edit.

Again, thanks all for the comments!



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello again Damon.

Just on those two new edits:

#1 - I am afraid that I would have to say it is still not there. But I do like the reflections. Seems like a sharpening issue is going on here - was the original cropped a lot? What sharpening settings are you using?

# 2 - Now with this one I think you have gone too far the other way. This one is too light and so lacks the appropriate contrast. In between the two will be better - though that fence is somewhat obtrusive, but those are a subjective call.

All the best.

Paul


User currently onlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2042 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5947 times:

#2 - With that fence, I reckon you're lucky they didn't throw in "motive," too. I agree with oversharpened and dark, might be fixable, but watch the sky.

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
I *really* would like to know what's wrong with the quality of this one.

dark, heat haze & grain, as well as a small halo around the horizontal and vertical stabilisers.

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
Soft. Really?

Yes.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
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...
Screener Comment Question As To It's Meaning posted Thu Oct 19 2006 14:13:25 by A340Spotter
Screener Explain Please! posted Sat Aug 27 2005 15:34:49 by VIAF
Rejections, Some Help Please. posted Wed Aug 24 2005 10:09:18 by Sulman
Badquality, Your Comment Please posted Sun Mar 20 2005 17:02:53 by Skyline
Christmas Rejections - Some Advice Please posted Fri Dec 24 2004 03:02:50 by Blackbird1
Screener Request: Please Enter Cn When Uploading posted Sat Apr 24 2004 14:06:20 by TZ
More Rejections. Haha. Help Please. posted Mon Mar 15 2004 21:07:21 by Vaman
Rejections - Advice Needed Please posted Thu Oct 17 2002 13:01:15 by Sabena 690
Rejections - Advice Needed Please posted Sat Aug 10 2002 10:09:59 by Sabena 690
Level Rjxn - Screener/general Comment Requested posted Sat Nov 18 2006 19:33:41 by D L X