Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 975 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3492 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.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
Pitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3478 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.
Thank you my friend, i will add a little more contrast and sharpen at home this evening and i will reupload it.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3417 times:
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
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.
Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
Tom3 From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2004, 240 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3379 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..
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3321 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.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3260 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...
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1991 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3208 times:
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.