Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3336 times:
Had this one rejected, I like it, I like the prespective and "attitude" of this A310 but I fail to see what's wrong, looking for some opinions to enlight me.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3310 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 1): What was the rejection reason?
I'm looking for unbiased opinions so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s), just look at the image and tell me what can be improved.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 31 Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Quoting Mirage (Reply 2): 'm looking for unbiased opinions so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s), just look at the image and tell me what can be improved.
Don't waste my time. I am not here to second-guess the screeners.
But, since you ask so nicely, your shot is soft in parts and oversharpened in parts.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Hello Luis.
I hope this finds you well.
Okay I am going to have a guess that they didn't like the centring of this image. I can imagine some thinking that the 'centre of gravity' of the image is towards the bottom left.
Is the colouring somewhat less 'vibrant' than you might expect? The red of the 'P' seems a bit muted.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3274 times:
Quoting Mirage (Reply 2): I'm looking for unbiased opinions so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s), just look at the image and tell me what can be improved.
Well for one thing, if the rejection was for motiv, then this thread would be entirely useless as something like that cannot be fixed.
But anyway, something looks strange with the sky. I want to say dirty, but I can't tell if it's just the way the clouds are in the distance.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3266 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 4): Don't waste my time. I am not here to second-guess the screeners.
I agree, but since I rather like the shot:
The 'centre of gravity' is not in the middle but the tailfin provides an excuse for that in my opinion. Maybe it would look better with a little bit more wing, though.
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 8): if the rejection was for motiv, then this thread would be entirely useless as something like that cannot be fixed.
Depends on the original.
As others have said, it looks oversharpened and the colours look flat. The aircraft's butt looks a little dark. A curves correction could improve upon that and the flat colours.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 341 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3178 times:
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3173 times:
Quoting Mirage (Reply 2): so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s),
I think close to every possible rejection reason has been given for this one particular shot.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3163 times:
This is the type of thread in this forum that drives me mad.
I rejected this image and with a brief personal which explained what was wrong. He appealed and the Head Screeners agreed with me.
The personal was.......
colour is off, red cast very evident on sky
The initial reason was personal grainy, colour and common (120 + on db already)
Whilst others have skirted around the colour fault (Paul I am disappointed), no-one has totally got it, but take another look now.
I leave a lot of personals, particularly when I think the contributor might not see the problem. Here it is for all to see - take another look. There is a bluey-red cast which has also resulted in the muted reds as mentioned by Paul.
I have tried to correct it and it is not actually easy, even when the sky is right the colours look flat and horrible so I wonder if the WB was wrong when taking the shot.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3091 times:
Thanks a lot for the opinions, this photo was rejected for:
- quality
- colour
- grainy
- common
I asked your opinions because I don't see those reasons in my monitor, I don't see the grain, I don't see the off colour, I don't see any red cast (it was a dark grey sky, not a beautiful Algarve sunny day) and I think it's sharp and clean. Maybe the problem is my monitor, I used a CRT for 10 years but now I'm using a LCD which is tricky to edit photos. I'm not here to demand my photo to be accepted, just to read opinions, that's one of the purposes of this forum.
Quoting Viv (Reply 4): Don't waste my time. I am not here to second-guess the screeners
If you don't want to waste time, don't reply.
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 14): This is the type of thread in this forum that drives me mad.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3087 times:
Quoting Mirage (Reply 16): What do you mean? Did I do something wrong?
Luis
Yes, you did in my eyes.
I left you a personal which in a few words explained the problem. You appealed and evidently the Headscreenrs agreed with me otherwise they would have changed my decision.
I feel that it is rude, simply bad manners, that you ignored that when you started this thread. I tend to leave a lot of personals whenever I think it will help the contributor and my comment was intended to do just that, help you - I pointed out the cast.
If you would rather take help from the forum rather than the screener in future, please say so. I hope that at least others do appreciate the personals !
Mick Bajcar
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 17): Luis
Yes, you did in my eyes.
I left you a personal which in a few words explained the problem. You appealed and evidently the Headscreenrs agreed with me otherwise they would have changed my decision.
I feel that it is rude, simply bad manners, that you ignored that when you started this thread. I tend to leave a lot of personals whenever I think it will help the contributor and my comment was intended to do just that, help you - I pointed out the cast.
If you would rather take help from the forum rather than the screener in future, please say so. I hope that at least others do appreciate the personals !
Mick Bajcar
geez! so many assumptions you're making, hold on please, I'm sorry to say but you're wrong in those assumptions, I'm trying to improve the picture so I want more opinions, that's all, I feel free to ask opinions, I'm not judging the rejection or complaining, no need to get annoyed.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 31 Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3046 times:
I am sorry to say this, but it appears to me that the real purpose of the initial posting was to elicit opinions that would fail to support the reasons for rejection that had been given. This, in turn, would have supported the conviction of the person posting that his shot was of uploadable quality and that the screener was wrong.
There is nothing wrong with posting rejected shots for comments, but the rejection reasons should be stated, in order to give viewers a real basis for comment. Not to do so is unfair to all concerned - not least the owner of the shot, who may be told that his shot is deficient in aspects not even mentioned by the screener - as indeed happened in this case.
It is generally better to post shots for comment before uploading them rather than after rejection.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3041 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 20): I am sorry to say this, but it appears to me that the real purpose of the initial posting was to elicit opinions that would fail to support the reasons for rejection that had been given. This, in turn, would have supported the conviction of the person posting that his shot was of uploadable quality and that the screener was wrong.
There is nothing wrong with posting rejected shots for comments, but the rejection reasons should be stated, in order to give viewers a real basis for comment. Not to do so is unfair to all concerned - not least the owner of the shot, who may be told that his shot is deficient in aspects not even mentioned by the screener - as indeed happened in this case.
It is generally better to post shots for comment before uploading them rather than after rejection.
No, sorry, that's not my point, I wanted more opinions to help me improve the photo, I'm not judging the rejection and I'm not complaining.
Quoting Mirage (Reply 16): I don't see the grain, I don't see the off colour, I don't see any red cast (it was a dark grey sky, not a beautiful Algarve sunny day) and I think it's sharp and clean.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 22): Quoting Mirage (Reply 21):
I'm not judging the rejection
Yes you are. You said:
Quoting Mirage (Thread starter):
I fail to see what's wrong
and
Quoting Mirage (Reply 16):
I don't see the grain, I don't see the off colour, I don't see any red cast (it was a dark grey sky, not a beautiful Algarve sunny day) and I think it's sharp and clean.
Correct, I fail to see what's wrong so I come to the forum asking more feedback, rejection was correct, but I want to improve the picture.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 31 Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3026 times:
Quoting Mirage (Reply 23): I want to improve the picture
Unless the original is in RAW, you will not be able to improve the colour cast.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
25 Mirage: It's RAW, I can send it to you by email if you want. Luis
26 UnattendedBag: believe me, we do!! It is a tremendous help to receive a clue as to why the photo was rejected.
27 Dreamflight: Hi Mick, The personal of a screener is a sign of repect against the photographer. So yes, I really appreciate this. Cheers, Jan
28 SlamClick: Gutsy move, asking for freestyle criticism like that. Reminds me of the woman who stepped out from behind the screen, fully nude and asked the man in
29 Mirage: lol, I've no problem with that, I'm adult enough to accept critics, that's what I asked for. ok, that's your opinion, not my purpose. thanks Luis
30 Shep2: Photo in question - definitely not one of Luis's best... He put a discussion on the table - some bit hard - some bit easy - some take life too serious
31 Walter2222: Much appreciated, Mick!!!! First of all, I learned a lot of it and - for me - it makes a rejection less hard I also do not see the rejection as a neg
32 Scotland1979: Yes, obviously the colour is off Why should I try RAW? It could hurt colour quality to upload - I set camera in large size and it keep colours accura
33 Javibi: Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't. I recommend you read this and then decide: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...rstanding-series/u-raw-files
34 Scotland1979: Thanks Javibi with the link After I read this and I still struggling abit to understand this. Meanwhile I stay with Large version in camera set for no
35 Lamyl_hhlco: wow ,I didn't know we have to be super pro on taking pictures and buying the 1000$ camera to be accepted on this site. I mean you guys reject pictures
36 JakTrax: Maybe so, but it keeps everyone on their toes. We know 99.9% of the time the viewing public doesn't give a **** if it's a millimatre off centre of if
37 Mirage: Belive it or not, I still don't notice the red cast. It was a dark sky, sun was high, day was hazy and cloudy at the same time, we had some rain minu
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2116 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3844 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, 
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
