D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7744 posts, RR: 54 Posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1361 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:
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1598 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1348 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & 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 , 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.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2631 posts, RR: 64 Reply 2, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1319 times:
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.
Beechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 808 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1276 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
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!
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1337 posts, RR: 69 Reply 6, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO 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!
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2190 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1252 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.
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
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7744 posts, RR: 54 Reply 11, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1162 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. 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 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.
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.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2631 posts, RR: 64 Reply 12, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1127 times:
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.
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1704 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1124 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 1999, 7744 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1598 posts, 
, oversharpened: slightly (--> jaggies on tail and winglets); will be hard to save especially with the fence in front (motive!)
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2631 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3562 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3638 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 808 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 2611 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2190 posts, 
Please don't feel snubbed.
From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1704 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
