Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted
Wed Dec 26 2007 03:57:36 UTC (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3502 times:
Sorry, but I can't see any quality issues there. Looks my eye. But then again, I get rejections like they are going out of fashion so what the hell would I know.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 5037 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted
Wed Dec 26 2007 04:10:41 UTC (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3498 times:
I don't see quality issues either, but I can see some slight halos appearing around CHINA EASTERN, B-2334 and the logo on the tail of the plane. Those would be classified as over-sharpened I think.
That's all I can see. It's not exactly a very common plane in the database, for it only has two pages of photo listings.
Chris. [Edited 2007-12-26 04:14:05]
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1198 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted
Wed Dec 26 2007 06:28:23 UTC (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3470 times:
The main problem of this image is the plane looks slightly blurry. You tried to give more sharpening to compensate the blur, thus some jaggies appear in places, such as, titles, but not too serious. These tiny issues could sum up to a "quality" rejection.
By the way, this photo was rejected not only for quality, but also for other reasons.
DeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted
Wed Dec 26 2007 06:28:42 UTC (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3470 times:
Yep, there are definitely some quality issues here. Most of it looks to be some kind of compression or pixelation. Maybe you cropped too closely and lost some quality.
Very nice photograph; unfortunately, those quality rejections are quite easy to come by.
"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
Henryike From China, joined May 2007, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted
Thu Dec 27 2007 07:22:10 UTC (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3419 times:
Right, now I know what caused the "quality" rejection, thanks for all the replies !