Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Don't See The Reason Here  
User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3440 times:

Please help me for this rejection please :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...jections/big/20061117_IMG_5090.JPG

Reasons : Quality, Common

Quality, sorry, but i don't see the bad quality here, it's a normal side-shot, sharp enough for the db.

Common, man, what i hat this reason  Smile. It's rare to see a 737-200 in LUX in the 21th century  Smile

Should i appeal ?

Thank you for your help

Emmanuel

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 973 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Hi Emmanuel, well it looks soft here at work and lacking in contrast. As for the 'common' I would of thought the composition with the Cargolux behind would cancel a common rejection but maybe not it seems.

Jid



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3408 times:

Quoting Jid (Reply 1):
i Emmanuel, well it looks soft here at work and lacking in contrast. As for the 'common' I would of thought the composition with the Cargolux behind would cancel a common rejection but maybe not it seems.

Jid

Thank you my friend, i will add a little more contrast and sharpen at home this evening and i will reupload it.

Emmanuel


User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

And one last thing,

Dear Screeners,

When you reject a picture like this, please don't just clic on "NOA-Quality". You certainly see everyday 100 pictures who are more bad than this one (Like cell-phone picture  Smile )

A NOA-Contrast or soft,is more comprehensible, no ?

Just my 2 cents  Smile

Emmanuel


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Emmanuel
I wont comment on the quality as I'm using a laptop screen at the moment .
But if you are going to re upload this pic maybe a smaller size then what you have at the moment would help.
Also the aircraft is not centred in the frame .
Good luck with it
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineInterpaul From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Hi Emmanuel,
I'm not sure if you can fix the NOA_common. There are 99 shots of that plane in the database so you need something really special to get it accepted, I'm afraid.

Cheers
Jan


User currently offlineTom3 From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2004, 240 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Hi

Emmanuel got a common rejection for the ''G-CEAE'' and this guy got 2 pictures from ''G-CEAE'' accepted taken at the same day , that confuse me...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1127559/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1127558/L/


Tom



Tom Mousel - Lap
User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting Tom3 (Reply 6):
Hi

Emmanuel got a common rejection for the ''G-CEAE'' and this guy got 2 pictures from ''G-CEAE'' accepted taken at the same day , that confuse me...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1127559/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1127558/L/


Tom

Yeah, that's really strange.

And i think there is NO pictures of him with a CLX passing behind him in motion blur  Smile

I can understand your frustrationTom. See you in LUX this week-end  Smile

Manu


User currently offlineFlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

Quoting Tom3 (Reply 6):
Hi

Emmanuel got a common rejection for the ''G-CEAE'' and this guy got 2 pictures from ''G-CEAE'' accepted taken at the same day , that confuse me...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1127559/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1127558/L/

Now those are some sharp photos compared to the one in question here. Just compare the sharpness itself to your shot and you'll know why they made it in. Other than that you photo also has a certain flatness to it. Plus, it lacks contrast.
And it's also bad practise to question other photos that already made it into the db.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineTom3 From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2004, 240 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

Quoting FlyingZacko (Reply 8):
And it's also bad practise to question other photos that already made it into the db.

It's not the fault of the photographer , but I can't understand why the screeners accept 2 pictures of the same plane/location when there are nearly 100 pictures in the DB of ''G-CEAE'' and then Emmanuel got a ''Common'' rejection..


Tom



Tom Mousel - Lap
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

I think the issue with Emanuel photo is a combination of lack of contrast, slight softness and common subject. Hence the rejection.

I realise that common is particularly hard for photographers as this aircraft may not be common for you at all but I think common is generally given in connection with other issues.

Daniel


User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 10):
think the issue with Emanuel photo is a combination of lack of contrast, slight softness and common subject. Hence the rejection.

I agree with you at 100%, but than WHY NOA-Qality instead of NOA-CONTRAST and SOFT


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

If it was an exceptionally high quality photo *it is a bit soft and lacking in contrast as mentioned*...you might not have received the common rejection IMHO. Nice attempt nonetheless. I really like the blur.

User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 12):
Nice attempt nonetheless. I really like the blur.

Thx  Smile Me too  Smile


User currently offlineBmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Maybe Common was selected instead of a different rejection reason...?

The photo seems to be very soft, almost as if she is out of focus. Also, if the quality is not as best as others have suggested, try editing the photo to be at a smaller size - 1024x for example.

Bmi


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3190 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I think screeners in such cases include the common rejection just to tell you that there are so many pictures of that very same aircraft already in the DB that yours needs to be of higher quality to get accepted (which in this case unfortunately is not). But then again I have been proven wrong in the past...  duck 


Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3138 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nice shot, one of those I would want to return to to have another look... I personally think it might be salvageable. Definetely needs some careful sharpeninig and contrast adjustment. I also agree that editing to 1024x could help as well.

User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 4):
But if you are going to re upload this pic maybe a smaller size then what you have at the moment would help.

Just what I was thinking.

Surely a blurred 747 in the background makes the shot a fair amount different that the others? If anything it's a good shot to compare sizes of aircraft.

Smaller size, a bit sharper and it could be a go.

Martin


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...
How's The Motive Here? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 23:40:50 by Fiveholer
Info Rejection - Can't See The Problem posted Tue Sep 12 2006 22:17:53 by Norfolkjohn
Don't Know The Exact Helicopter Type posted Sun Aug 20 2006 21:57:06 by GertLOWG
Dummy Question On The Photos Here posted Sun Jan 29 2006 00:42:23 by MarshalN
Pilot Says "Don't Post The Regestration" posted Thu Jan 26 2006 02:24:55 by UnattendedBag
I Don't See It.... posted Wed Jan 11 2006 23:37:23 by AirKas1
Help Us UIO Spotters, Don't Let Spotting Die Here! posted Sun Oct 30 2005 20:48:29 by Airportmanager
I Don't See "badmotiv"... posted Sun Jun 26 2005 23:06:09 by Mario340
I Don't See How This Is Baddistance? posted Fri May 6 2005 23:54:11 by APFPilot1985
The 350D/Rebel XT Makes The Cut Here On A.net! posted Tue Mar 29 2005 19:59:45 by UA777222