1. it is not centered (too much empty space around?)
Do they want me to cut it back to 16:9? But ok, I see. The aircraft is probably a bit lower than center. No worries, I can correct that. Where I am not sure is how important is that the pic stays at 4:3? I personally don't like 16:9 pics - so where is the limit in cutting empty space off?
They said the screener is in training and if I have any concerns that he is not doing his work properly I should contact blablabla....
But I don't want to bitch around and anyway, at first I have to find out where the problem with this picture is. Maybe it is true that it is a s*** photograph? I didn't think so, I liked it.. but anyway, I'm looking forward to your answers!
The plane is a little bit low in frame that's where "centered" rejection came from. If you carefully look at the blue sky and belly fuselage, you could see graininess. But I don't see any grainy problem in Andrei's image. And under such sunlight condition (coming from top) the harsh contrast makes the whole image look dark.
And please bear in mind that it is inappropriate to post other photographers' images to criticize in your thread. If you have any concerns to the photos taken by others, please write to firstname.lastname@example.org.
So, I suggest that you downsize the image to 1024 wide, and carefully adjust contrast, then apply sharpening to it.
Quoting Extrabine (Thread starter): They said the screener is in training and if I have any concerns that he is not doing his work properly I should contact blablabla....
I am not a screener-in-training. So, hopefully my comments could help you! And there is nothing really "blablabla" in the rejection email. If you don't agree with this rejection, the appeal link could always be found in the email. Click the link, and our head screeners will take a look at it.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4223 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3062 times:
It's a good photo, but it does have some small issues for a.net acceptance.
1. The aircraft is indeed slightly too low. There's also a bit too much space in front and behind it for a.net, although the proper rejection reason for that would be DISTANCE I believe.
Dimensions should be anything between 4:3 (16:9) and 3:2. However, 3:2 is preferred for a shot like this because there wil be less empty space. You can even get a rejection for that in rare cases.
2. You'll make things easier for yourself if you upload photos 1024 pixels wide or so. Things like grain will be less visible. And, photos will be of less use to picture thieves.
3. Yes, the undersides can be lightened up a bit.
Hope that helps
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Well, the screeners try to be helpful by listing all the rejection reason so that you have all info when trying to improve the shot. I cannot judge on the quality issues, since I am working on my laptop, but the centering is indeed off (too low in the frame).
As a newbie, it is generally considered better to start uploading with limited size of 1024px wide (smaller pictures show less detail but also less faults...).
Here is a good read about all possible rejection reasons (put together by Thierry Deutsch):
Extrabine From Germany, joined Jul 2008, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3042 times:
Quote from tah Email I received:
These photos were screened by a screener-in-training. If you have any
objections please do not hesitate to use the appeal function linked to
lower down. "
Anyway, thanks for your comment. Btw. I didn't mean to criticize his photograph - I like it. I just used it for comparison.
If I apply any sharpening on it, the graininess will get worse - and especially if I brighten up the contrast to make the dark spots brighter. That's not gonna make it any better...
I will think about posting it again or just deleting my account. It is not quite possible that I can turn ISO down anymore, using 400 mm...so all my photographs are probably too greasy anyway and I don't want to waste any time uploading a single picture, waiting weeks to get it rejected, correcting it and probably get it rejected again.
I can't find anything funny or cool with that. I'm probably just the wrong character for A.net..
Thanks anyway for screening..
EDIT: Oh, it took me too long to write my post.... there are three more answers!
Hey thanks guys! I thought the bigger, the better.. but if you say it like this, I understand what you mean.
Mmh.. I'm a bit more motivated now to just try it again. I'm not looking forward to another 2 weeks waiting.
SFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2981 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 2): Dimensions should be anything between 4:3 (16:9)
4:3 is not the same as 16:9 (it is 16:12). While 16:9 is becoming more popular as photo format because of the new TV screen ratio, it is not accepted here (yet?)
Quoting Extrabine (Reply 4): It is not quite possible that I can turn ISO down anymore, using 400 mm.
You should always try to use lowest ISO possible. My D70s does not produce anything useful (for a.net anyway) above ISO 320. Things are different, of course, with newer cameras - but still, lower ISO is a good idea.
Relic From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2966 times:
Lovely photo,but as in previous posts the grain ,lighting and centering are quite apparent and also the tail area looks a bit soft.
As i was told what seems many moons ago by alot of photogs...100 ISO and F/8 whenever you can.
Just a little fine tuning and you are going to have some great shots im sure