Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejection Input Please.  
User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2004 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
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

I think the quality can be a little better, but I can't see the grain at all.

So no, don't appeal.


User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1990 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  Wink

Yep don't appeal, it is not worth with this shot...

regards
Björn


User currently offlineDiezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

The crop could also be a bit tighter.

Roel.



Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting KLM772ER (Reply 2):
There is a lot of grain visible

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
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1970 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Spencer

There are currently 72 images of this aircraft in the database.

Unfortunately the quality of your upload is a little under par. Some grain and titles look oversharpened, compensating for blur possibly?

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Quoting Spencer (Reply 4):
Bit of originality and it gets knocked for quality/grain/whatever

 checkmark  have to agree here.. Got this photo rejected for being oversharpened..

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 682 File size: 516kb


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...

regards
Björn


User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1965 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.

So this isn't a side-on? Big grin

Grts,
Giovanni


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

Quoting Granite (Reply 5):
There are currently 72 images of this aircraft in the database.

Unfortunately the quality of your upload is a little under par. Some grain and titles look oversharpened, compensating for blur possibly?

Beat me too it. There are a ton of pics of BA with that type. Has to be a little better quality.


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8):
There are a ton of pics of BA with that type.

Type does not matter in any way, because

Quoting Granite (Reply 5):
There are currently 72 images of this aircraft in the database.

means there are 72 images of this particular registration in the database.



-
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1901 times:

Quoting KLM772ER (Reply 2):
There is A LOT of grain visible

Yeah sure.... never seen a ASA 200 shot on film then...  Embarrassment

I can see that the quality is not really good though, better luck next time Spencer  

[Edited 2007-06-21 17:12:22]


Jet Visuals
User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting INNflight (Reply 10):
Yeah sure.... never seen a ASA 200 shot on film then... Embarrassment

The grain intensity of a ASA 200 picture is definitely higher than in this shot (and yes I have seen them  Wink )

I would have better said there are a few places where you can see some grain in that shot.. thats what I meant....

Björn


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1868 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
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...
A Little Rejection Help Please! posted Sat Jun 16 2007 20:59:35 by PMN
Some Rejection Help Please posted Mon Jun 4 2007 09:46:17 by DerekF
Yet More Rejection Advice Please posted Fri Apr 20 2007 20:05:22 by 747438
Rejection Help Please, What Can Be Done? posted Sat Mar 3 2007 22:42:35 by EDDL
Quality Rejection Help Please posted Sat Feb 17 2007 11:05:10 by Kukkudrill
Rejection Help, Please posted Mon Jan 8 2007 22:37:33 by Futterman
Blurry Rejection Help Please posted Mon Dec 4 2006 18:19:13 by Kukkudrill
Motive Rejection..clarification Please? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 14:40:46 by BrianW999
Info Rejection Help Please posted Mon Nov 27 2006 18:00:22 by Kukkudrill
Blurry Rejection Advice Please posted Sun Oct 22 2006 19:58:16 by INNflight