Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Worth Appeal?  
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm a little surprised by these rejections. I want to appeal, but I thought I'd ask for your thoughts first.

1. Rejected for grain. Personally, I don't see a significant amount of grain. I did try this photo a while back, but I thought I had it looking good enough this time around.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1218_WNlandrwy09SANmarch132007.jpg

2. Rejected for blurry. Really?? The only blurry portion of the aircraft I see is the winglet on the far side. Will that alone cause a rejection?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20071218_WNpanSANnov132007.jpg


Thanks.


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

#1 there is no chance of a successful appeal.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Thread starter):
2. Rejected for blurry. Really?? The only blurry portion of the aircraft I see is the winglet on the far side. Will that alone cause a rejection?

IF you appealed, and IF they reversed the blurry decision, they'd probably then nail you for grainy, as the photo is quite grainy.

Sorry, but I don't think it's gonna happen this time.  Sad



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineMongorat From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 165 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Ryan,

I'm looking at these photos from a (cheap) monitor at work. I don't see any grain in photo #1. Photo #2 does look to be blurry. Look at the area above the American flag on the tail, and along what would be the leading edge of the tail near the Southwest lettering. Looks blurry from here.

-Matt


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 1):
#1 there is no chance of a successful appeal.

Because of grain?

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 1):
IF you appealed, and IF they reversed the blurry decision, they'd probably then nail you for grainy, as the photo is quite grainy.

Now I can see that grain. But I thought maybe it was within acceptable limits.

Quoting Mongorat (Reply 2):
I'm looking at these photos from a (cheap) monitor at work. I don't see any grain in photo #1. Photo #2 does look to be blurry. Look at the area above the American flag on the tail, and along what would be the leading edge of the tail near the Southwest lettering. Looks blurry from here.

Thanks Matt. I am looking at the first photo on a third computer now and I still don't see grain. As far as the second, upon closer inspection of the mentioned areas, I see that this shot is indeed blurry. Oh well. I think it's time for some IS. haha



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1903 times:



Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 3):
Because of grain?

Yes, that's why. It's a peculiar type of grain, though. It's like the grain is more fine in texture than most, if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Sorry if I sounded harsh before; that certainly wasn't my intention!  Smile



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1881 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Man, rough day. So far, I'm 0 for 4. Two more just got kicked for blurry and grainy...and they were photos of aircraft standing still. What the...?  frown 


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJobu7282 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Something I that I picked up here is to the ISO on your Camera down around 100 - 200. It has made a big difference to me as I don't get comments about grain anymore. Other problems still that I am working on but grain is the enemy.

User currently offlineShep2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

WOW - both photos above look good to me - but what do I know...

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jobu7282 (Reply 6):
Something I that I picked up here is to the ISO on your Camera down around 100 - 200. It has made a big difference to me as I don't get comments about grain anymore.

Shot #1 was shot at ISO 200.

Shot #2 was at ISO 100

Here are the other two rejections for the day (so far). Both rejected for blurry and grainy. Both were shot at ISO 100. What's going on here? I am baffled...I'm not seeing the blurryness and I'm not sure why everything is getting nailed for grainy. I haven't changed anything in my workflow.  Confused

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20071218_N332AWsanDec42007.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...71218_UAdowntownSDSANnov132007.jpg

I haven't seen a screener respond to any of my threads in quite some time. I don't know, perhaps they haven't enjoyed some of my comments in the forum lately regarding consistency. But anyway, if a screener could help shed some light on the issues above, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Grain on both of them. So if you manage a successful appeal for blur on one of them, they'll just say grainy.

I'm looking at it through the Apple A1081 Cinema Display 20" (a very sharp display).


User currently offlineMetroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1821 times:



Quoting Silver1SWA (Thread starter):
The only blurry portion of the aircraft I see is the winglet on the far side

And the fin  Sad . But both of the SW shots look pretty memorable, even if they're not A.net's cup of tea.

The US 737 looks like your best bet to me. The UA A320 suffers from some quality issues, especially in the area around the cockpit.

All the best,

Toni



Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days ago) and read 1792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm really getting frustrated. Two more were kicked for grain!! WTF? I haven't changed anything and I have never had an issue with grain like this in the past! I was 1 for 7 yesterday...ouch!


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days ago) and read 1760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Silver:

I see chroma noise in the UA's belly blue when I zoom in a lot... What are you shooting with? Are you using a RAW converter? If so, what's your noise reduction settings at?



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 12):
Silver:

I see chroma noise in the UA's belly blue when I zoom in a lot... What are you shooting with? Are you using a RAW converter? If so, what's your noise reduction settings at?

I am using a Canon Rebel XTi with the 18-55mm kit lens and an old Canon basic consumer 80-200mm lens. Not the greatest lenses in the world obviously, but they have worked. I haven't been shooting RAW at all lately as I wasn't benefiting from it much and conversion was just an extra step in the workflow. No noise reduction has been done on any of them.

Like I said, I haven't changed anything with my workflow. I'm afraid the standards may have just taken another leap and I am now finding out I'm behind. Perhaps the screeners' new monitors are a factor. This is exactly what I was afraid of when it was announced they were getting the monitors. To me, these rejected photos don't look much different than my latest photos in the database which makes me wonder...would those photos, some accepted just a month or two ago not stand a chance today?

I have spent some time playing with new edits and one thing I tried was using Unsharp Mask instead of Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. A while back I switched from USM to Smart Sharpen because it seemed to give the photos a little more punch. I kept getting either soft rejections or jaggies using USM. One thing I did notice was that with smart sharpen came some minor grain but it was never a problem...until now.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1744 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I use smart sharpen but don't have grain problems. The XTi has a 10mpx sensor that is probably noisier than others.

What settings do you use? I tend to use .3 radius at 50%.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 14):
What settings do you use? I tend to use .3 radius at 50%.

I use .2 with varying %. Sometimes I can get away with 500%, but usually its in the low 200%. I also have it set to Lens Blur.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1731 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Ryan,

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 8):
I haven't seen a screener respond to any of my threads in quite some time. I don't know, perhaps they haven't enjoyed some of my comments in the forum lately regarding consistency. But anyway, if a screener could help shed some light on the issues above, I would greatly appreciate it.

A bit puzzled by your comment, but anyhow let me try to 'shed some light' here  Wink .

I didn't see most of your pictures before, but I think the reason for the grain is a mix of different factors:
- I would only increase ISO on the Rebel XT or XTi at full night, otherwise always keep it at 100.
- Whenever you edit a picture, levels adjustment, saturation, contrast and sharpening, they all increase perceived grain. Accordingly, you should always try to minimize any changes in these settings to the minimum necessary. In other words, if the picture doesn't come out 90-95% correct from the camera, just forget about it for A.net standards.
- Shooting in low light situations will also produce more noticeable chroma grain.
So, in order to really help you we would need to see one original from the rejected ones to see how much of the grain was produced in the camera and how much you introduced during the editing process.
One more thing: sharpening. Using smallest possible radius (I use 0.2) tends to give a more 'smoother' look to the sharpened pictures - anything above 1 will most probably lead to a grainy appearance.

Does this help?



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Andres,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. Your reply does help, however much of it is stuff I have already known. I'm puzzled right now because nothing in my workflow has been a problem until yesterday with that string of 6 rejections all rejected for the same reasons. My acceptance ratio over the past few months has been decent. I had a good string of acceptances there for a while. I figured I was doing something right. I am always very careful and very selective when it comes to choosing photos to upload and edit. When I compare some of these rejections to some of my latest acceptances in the database, I don't really see any differences. That's why I am confused.

Again, thanks.

-Ryan



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Ryan,

No problem at all, glad if I can help.
Now, I think we should start here:

Quoting Acontador (Reply 16):
So, in order to really help you we would need to see one original from the rejected ones to see how much of the grain was produced in the camera and how much you introduced during the editing process.

If you don't want to show an original, then you will have to asses this for yourself.

In any case, whenever you feel that your picture complies with all our upload guidelines and has the required minimum quality, but was not accepted, please use the appeal function, that is exactly the reason why it exists! We are all humans (yes, screeners too  Wink ), and despite all efforts to the contrary, we do make mistakes.
Now, also please note that whenever appealing, please take the time to explain as detailed as possible why your image should be accepted in light of the reasons for non-acceptance. For example (not saying you did), just including a remark saying 'the picture is good' will normally not help you a lot...
I think you have done the correct thing after a rejection, that is to come here to the forum and share your pictures with others as to get as much opinions/different views as possible. This will also give you better arguments in case after all you would like to appeal a picture.



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4814 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Andres,

Quoting Acontador (Reply 18):
Now, I think we should start here:

Quoting Acontador (Reply 16):
So, in order to really help you we would need to see one original from the rejected ones to see how much of the grain was produced in the camera and how much you introduced during the editing process.

If you don't want to show an original, then you will have to asses this for yourself.

Sorry, I haven't been home. I am out of town for a few days and that has only added to my frustration since I don't have access to the originals until I get back.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 18):
I think you have done the correct thing after a rejection, that is to come here to the forum and share your pictures with others as to get as much opinions/different views as possible. This will also give you better arguments in case after all you would like to appeal a picture.

That is exactly why I started this thread. I have appealed two photos so far. Apparently one of them (the US 737) was kicked immediately since it no longer appears under my appealed photos and the other (the first shot in my original post) is still waiting to be screened by the head screeners. I'm assuming it has been "left for Johan".

I'd like to clarify to everyone that complaining has not been my intention. I feel like I'm coming off as a whiner. I was simply shocked by some of those rejections and I'm just trying to figure it all out. Thanks again for your help. I will post an original when I get back to San Diego.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
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...
Worth An Appeal? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 22:06:38 by Prat
Rejection Advice - Worth An Appeal? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 14:40:47 by UA935
Is This Photo Worth An Appeal? posted Sun Jul 9 2006 16:22:14 by AIRBUSRIDER
Motiv Rejection - Worth An Appeal? posted Tue Mar 21 2006 09:01:34 by UA935
Worth An Appeal? posted Fri Nov 4 2005 18:07:26 by MarkJbeckwith
Worth The Appeal? posted Mon Mar 29 2004 13:42:26 by LHSebi
Is This Worth An Appeal? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 20:19:00 by Hpr7
Worth The Appeal? posted Wed May 22 2002 16:04:50 by 747 4-ever
VC-10 Level Rejection- Appeal? posted Thu Dec 6 2007 14:21:32 by Opso1
Level Rejection- Based On Radar- Appeal? posted Thu Dec 6 2007 08:47:41 by Opso1