D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4313 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:
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4271 times:
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.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4217 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 3): Number one is beautiful and an absolutely harsh example of a rejection... weird.
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, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4204 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.
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.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4079 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.