Spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1624 posts, RR: 19 Posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1194 times:
Just had this one rejjed for quality/grainy. I honestly believe it's good enough to be added; do you guys think it's worth the appeal function? Should we really have to squint our eyes 3 inches from the screen to see if there's a lack in quality?? Come on....... http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...jections/big/20070621_GEUPAsjw.jpg
Spencer.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1180 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 1): but I can't see the grain at all.
Just have a look at the blue at the bottom of the fuselage... especially in front of the wing. Or the bottom of the wing..
There is a lot of grain visible
Yep don't appeal, it is not worth with this shot...
Well you've better eyes than me then as I can't see it! Back to the squinting then I guess! Perhaps I shoud've uploaded a nice side on of this a/c.... Bit of originality and it gets knocked for quality/grain/whatever. Cheers.
Spencer.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week ago) and read 1160 times:
Quoting Spencer (Reply 4): Bit of originality and it gets knocked for quality/grain/whatever
have to agree here.. Got this photo rejected for being oversharpened..
It appeared this way right after downsizing in steps... and is not sharpened at all, in fact it is even a bit blurred at the wings
Still a bit cheerless about it, but happens...
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week ago) and read 1155 times:
Spencer,
Sorry to say it is grainy under the wings, and the quality is not there (parts soft and titles oversharpened) most likely due to heat haze.
No need to appeal this shot.
Quoting Spencer (Reply 4): Perhaps I shoud've uploaded a nice side on of this a/c.... Bit of originality and it gets knocked for quality/grain/whatever.
Spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1624 posts, RR: 19 Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1058 times:
Thanks for the input. FYI she was banking out of 09R/LHR and left the gear down to cool the brakes. I thought it was a pretty neat shot but it goes to show even after 25 years passionately shooting aircraft I've still got things to learn when it comes to this site! Go figure! Seems we're all being turned and moulded into something, at least me anyway, I wasn't originally! The scrutinising eyes of the screeners, (on whose guidelines they follow, I don't know!) pick the tiniest (if there are any at all) inconsistencies and reject an image at the drop of a hat. The site definitely has and is becoming more and more confined with regards to uploading. Am I moaning? Yeah! So, take it however you want. I'm probably speaking for the majority of the uploaders out there when I say there's been some real crap added lately, that basically gives me every right to query a rejection.
Spencer.
Venting.
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1624 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
have to agree here.. Got this photo rejected for being oversharpened..
From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
