Help On An Insane Rejection :) — Aviation Photography Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Help On An Insane Rejection :)

797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1821 posts, RR: 26
Posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Hey guys,

I just got the rejection email 11 days after upload time. The shot I'm about to show you I think it has been my best one so far and got insanely rejected. Of course, this is a beginner's opinion, but my eyes don't lie. I'd like to hear you experts on this so I can learn a bit more

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/....main?filename=20070123_UAA320.jpg

This photo was rejected because:

These photo(s) appear to have been either overexposed (too bright) or
underexposed (too dark). This may be caused by incorrect exposure settings
for your camera or scanner.

These photo(s) are slightly or severely out of focus, giving them a blurry
or unsharp appearance.

The main subject of these photo(s) is not correctly centered in the image.
In some cases this problem can be corrected.

On the other hand, I'd like to know if this photo was rejected correctly.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...70123_N200WN-07012007-208-EJPP.jpg

This one was simply rejected because:

These photo(s) appear to have been either overexposed (too bright) or
underexposed (too dark).

Oh well, I'm a bit angry and frustrated and would like to hear from you!

Thanks in advance bros!

Cheers

Enrique

Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!

17 replies: All unread, jump to last

Fiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1009 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Neat shot the first one. Only part I will agree on is the overexposure part. It's obvious what you were going for with the contrail shooting out of the nose. hence, the odd centering. Anyway...the second shot. Yes, overexposed and unlevel.

Danny

Bring back Bethune!

Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

No. 1 looks overexposed. The white upper fuselage is burnt out. The rear fuselage does look blurry to me I'm afraid. I disagree with the centering rejection as I think you had the motive for it, but it's academic given the other problems.

No. 2 is also overexposed.

Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life

Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

Hello Enrique

Don't be angry! I think both shots were rejected properly.

The first one is overexposed. Please take a look at the upper fuselage. The white paint is totally blown out. And some jaggies could be identified on this image which indicates maybe you were trying to give a little bit more sharpening to a slightly blurry photo.

The second one is surely overexposed.

_Hongyin_

LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Enrique,

shot 1 : the whole fuselage is bright white. Too bright...It is also slightly out of focus, not that much, but doesn't meet A.net standards in this sense (that truly are very stricts). The latter rejection reason is the most fixable one.

shot 2 : the image is too bright. I must close my eyes because it has a whitish/bright appearance. Too much contrast in my opinion.

Keep trying.

As always, just my twocents

Regards

Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.

TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2031 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

1. Reasons 1 & 2 are valid, though 2 may be a tad harsh. As far as centering goes... horizontal is ok, given the contrail, but it's too low in the frame. (Still, I love the shot!)

2. Yes, overexposed. Also a bit jagged & oversaturated, maybe?

I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.

CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

As has been said so many times above, both rejections are valid.

It's your call, but calling rejection reasons "insane" probably doesn't help your cause.

B

Halcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

Quoting 797 (Thread starter):

Well, if seems that your main problem is exposure. I noticed that they are both (at least to my terrible art-eye) creative and look good, though, so don't give up. I'd love to see shots like the first one in the database often. Just work on the exposure a bit and you'll probably have it.

Take care,
Lucas

JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Your eyes do lie. The rejections are valid.

Quoting 797 (Thread starter):
this is a beginner's opinion

..that was obvious.

797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1821 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2048 times:

Hehe, well thanks you guys. I am a beginner indeed and am always looking to learn a bit more on this complex photogtaphy world. I became blind because I liked my first shot so bad and that lead for me not to see the over exposed part.

Anyhow, I will certainly keep trying. This is my/our hobby and for sure it's amazing.

Thanks for the help you guys.

Best Regs,

Enrique

Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!

Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

I love that first shot, great catch.

TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

The first shot, if the underside of the aircraft was THE ONLY thing to judge on, great shot! Everything else above it is eh.. and the blur of the a/c leaving the contrail is not going to cut it.

The second shot looks grainy, jagged and a touch blurry in places.

Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

I think your eyes are fine.
Just calibrate your monitor Enrique and I think you are ok.

The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Strange, Willem, the Southwest picture doesn't seem overexposed here...

Regards,
One guy that needs to calibrate his monitor (that is, me)

Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The WN shot doesn't appear overexposed in the traditonal sense of the word, blown out whites, but it is clearly much brighter than it needs to be, and hence overexposed.

NASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3082 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

797...

Great shots by the way, but not great enough for the standards of this board...

Coming from a guy myself who is used to getting photos rejected, and yet to get one accepted I am used to these types of rejections...

Though the first shot is neat - unfortunately your motive was to get that vapor trail with the A320. The aircraft with the vapor trail is blurred - unfortunately you cannot fix that.

The white areas of the United jet is very overexposed - happens to me a lot too. Can happen with white planes. Might be fixable though in photoshop.

The Southwest photo is fixable - make some color adjustments to make the Southwest colors look more natural, seems the blue is too bright. There is slight overexposure, but not as much as the United. I think if you work on the Southwest jet a bit you could make it, but unfortunately the United shot is too far gone.

Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

Hi,

Edited the latter picture up from scratch.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6575/n200wn07012007208ejpp15js.jpg

I think the exposure is better now, but I'm not sure about noise and saturation.

Comments?

David

TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 1718 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 16):
I think the exposure is better now

It's starting to 'pop', but the pylon for the nacelle is still to bright and the white from 'under' the slats is a touch hot too. There are a lot of jaggies, while not dramatic, they are noticable. I hope you get help with this one 'cause it's a really decent motive as far as I am concerned.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: