Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1549 times:
Hi All,
Most rejections I receive I find valid, but this particular one puzzled me.
This photo had been previously rejected for 'soft'. I sharpened it more and resubmitted; this time it was rejected for 'soft-quality-dark'.
It looks pretty sharp to me. Maybe it is not the case on other monitors; could you guys please have a look, I need some advise on (selective) sharpening of it.
Also, do you see any other quality issues? I just don't know what to make of this 'quality' part.
As for 'dark' - this photo was taken in slightly overcast conditions, which is apparent as there is no shadows. Does it, however, looks dark to you guys?
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
Jerome,
Thanks for the reply.
I understand the soft part, but as for the weather - there are photos in the DB taken in all sorts of weather. For instance, there are a lot of photos in the DB from the Avalon airshow - half the time the weather there was 'dull'. Photos have never been rejected on Airliners.net only because of the dull weather or just being backlit.
The way I understand it, 'dark', as far as photography is concerned, is when the colours become dark and and are not represented faithfully, when the contrast becomes low and the whites are gone becoming gray. It is not really the case in this picture. It seems to me that, what makes this particular picture look dark is mainly the contrast between the subject and the white cloud behind it. So, my question is - could it be fixed by carefully brightening up the subject?
Shep2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
Andrei,
Not a bad shot - pretty nice - but you have heard from screener authority - it will not be accepted here. There is another site that is respected - although not as much as Airliners.net... I am sure they would appreciate this photo very much...
What's the name of that site - "Jetpho__s.net". I don't wanna spell it out fore it might be deleted on this thread.
I've put a few photos on that other site after they've been rejected here - and the views and appreciation have been pretty good. Airliners.net is always first choice - but the other site is sometimes the way to go in cases like this.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1452 times:
Terry,
Thanks for your posting. Yes, I have put a few photos on that site, too - mostly those that would be rejected here for 'double', and a couple of those that had been rejected here several times. I must admit - they tend to be more lenient there, but they have their idiosyncrasies as well. For instance, I could never get a backlit shot accepted, while their doubles were accepted here with no problems.
Airimages From Switzerland, joined Feb 2005, 117 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
Andrei,
Of course we accept photos taken in dull weather. The problem is that shots taken in bad light conditions are harder to get accepted.
As you said very well, the problem is that colours become dark and are not represented faithfully (in connection with the contrast). And when I check your picture, I see that this is the main problem.
But I would suggest that you try to brighten it up and sharpen the soft parts. I believe that it can be fixed to be accepted.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
Jerome,
IMHO, quite often, if taken properly, photos in slightly overcast conditions look very nice, with mellower colours and no sharp shadows. The colours may not look as bright, but even in real life colours never look the same to the eye.
Thanks for the replies though, it's always nice to get feedback from the screeners.
As for rejections, currently, there are often two extremities, the nice one, where you get a personal message explaining what is wrong with the picture - I personally don't even get upset about rejections like that; and the not so nice one when you get this generic 'quality' reason, especially when the 'quality' issues are not really very obvious, and trying to figure out what exactly the screener meant by 'quality' turns into a guesswork. Such rejections feel like a slap on the face, a sign of total disrespect to your work.
I understand that writing a personal message every time would be unrealistic, but at least marking out those several problems this 'quality' reason consisted of would be nice. Well, I'm probably just wasting my time writing this - this issue has been brought up many times before.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2005, 117 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
