Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, RR: 35 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2021 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
Pitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2007 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.
Pitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1996 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 )
A NOA-Contrast or soft,is more comprehensible, no ?
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1946 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
Interpaul From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1945 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.
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
Tom3 From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2004, 236 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1908 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..
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3482 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1893 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.
Pitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1878 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
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1850 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.
BmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1635 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1803 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.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1789 times:
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, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1737 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.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1718 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, 
. It's rare to see a 737-200 in LUX in the 21th century 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, 
From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3482 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1635 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
