Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post- Screening Thread #1 (help after rejection)  
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Posted (6 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8875 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Dear Photographers, dear member of airliners.net,

most of you guys are familiar with the Pre- Screen threads which is a good tool to check if a picture is worth to be uploaded or not.

Recently there are lots of threads about help after the picture was rejected and many users/ photographers asked for advice what to do better and how to re- edit it to make good enough to be accepted.

There are currently quite a lot of threads about it. And to make it easier for everybody we open this thread.

So, everybody, if you have a question or need help with a rejection, then feel free to post it in here and a user/ other photographer/ screener will give you an answer.

Thank you and enjoy.

Regards

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
154 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJGR From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8827 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi,
Rejected only by Dark, it's a contrail & backlit shot taked at the sunrise, for that reason a/c is dark, but I tought to myself that a/c in this picture was not the most important :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ons/big/20080907_IMG_08843z5fd.jpg

Comments ?

Javier



Airbus A380-881 for 1.000 passengers !
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8815 times:

Hi,

I had this one rejected for "blurry":

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...LDV-LFRJ_20080627_IMG_2164_WVB.jpg

I had a similar one accepted recently, and personally, I did not see much difference...but my eyes are probably too tired, I probably need some rest  Sad

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineChuck9941 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8808 times:

great idea. I'm sure this thread will be busy and helpful. I've just had the same photo rejected for the 3rd time. BUT I think I may have fixed everything after the first 2 rejections since the most recent rejection was for category and a bonehead move on my part. Which then again kind of sucks since not only does it not help with the acceptance ration but if the photo is finally of acceptance quality, why reject it because of category only and have to look at the same photo for the 4th time. I marked Private instead of Business. It was my fault for such a simple error but still it just adds an extra photo to the queue.


Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.
User currently offlineMjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8797 times:



Quoting JGR (Reply 1):
Comments ?

Javier,

I like the effect, but the problem may be that the plane blends in with the background too much. It also seems odd that there is no sun on the plane. Did it just pass into the shadows?

Marty


User currently offlineAlphaBravo From Germany, joined May 2005, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8784 times:

Hi,

@WILCO737
Good idea to start this topic.

@all
I have problems to understand the folowing 'level' rejections:

This was the first one:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...5/941445/1152_3239626461363038.jpg

After the first rejection I tried to improve the level (I did some CW rotation)
and uploaded the improved photo:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...5/941445/1152_3635643063373635.jpg

But I get the same rejection reson.

Can someone please help me to understand what I made wrong?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards
Anto


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8780 times:



Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 2):

There is some blurriness in parts of the a/c, bottom of fuselage. There also seems to be a lot of jpeg compression towards the nose and under the wing.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8778 times:



Quoting AlphaBravo (Reply 5):

Looks like you applied too much CW. By looking at it, I'd guess about 1/2 degree? Try something like 1/4 degree.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineUltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2122 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8777 times:



Quoting AlphaBravo (Reply 5):
After the first rejection I tried to improve the level (I did some CW rotation)
and uploaded the improved photo:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...5.jpg

It's still a little bit unlevel.



Midwest Airlines- 1984-2010
User currently offlineUltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2122 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8778 times:

This one didn't specifically get rejected, because I never submitted it, but I did get told it wasn't good enough in the prescreening thread. How can I fix this one?
Big version: Width: 1385 Height: 1094 File size: 751kb



Midwest Airlines- 1984-2010
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8771 times:



Quoting UltimateDelta (Reply 9):

You can't. It'll be a motive rejection.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineWhappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8732 times:



Quoting UltimateDelta (Reply 9):
This one didn't specifically get rejected, because I never submitted it, but I did get told it wasn't good enough in the prescreening thread. How can I fix this one?

Motive, specifically the lack of anything important of the aircraft showing. Its a very bland photograph of an aircraft. If you want to get more general, it doesn't help the cause that you cut off the D of the delta and you have a pylon in front of the engine... let alone the people walking down the stairs in the background. The sun also seems to be coming towards the camera, which is also always a no-no. PM me if you want some better advice, or anything.



-Travel now, journey infinitely.
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8727 times:



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 6):
There is some blurriness in parts of the a/c, bottom of fuselage. There also seems to be a lot of jpeg compression towards the nose and under the wing.

Thanks for the feedback! It is a lot easier if pointed into the right direction!

What do you think of this one:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...J_20080627_IMG_2122_WVB_1200px.jpg

Rejected for: quality, contrast, overexposed and color...

Thanks and regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineAmericanAirman From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8701 times:

#1

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...e=20080906_20080901_Clean17221.jpg

Rejected for 'motive' and 'grain.' Any suggestions?
(I know that the bottom tag is duplicated)

#2

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ilename=20080906_RiddleFrontA1.jpg

Rejected for 'contrast', 'level' and 'grain' Once again, rookie here anyone know how I can improve these?


User currently offlineMjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8697 times:



Quoting AmericanAirman (Reply 14):

#1 - For the motive, the question is why you chose to only show half of the plane. I can not see any clear reason. As for the grain, you would have to try running it through a noise-reduction program, assuming that the shot can be fixed to address the motive.

#2 - For the grain, again try NR. Looks like you need some CW rotation to level; the top of the hangar door should be a good guide. My impression of the contrast is that it is too high - the leading edges look a bit blown out, and the tires have no definition.

Hope this helps.

Marty


User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 511 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8670 times:

Motive rejection.

http://www.airliners.net:80/procphot...ain?filename=20080913_IMG_3089.jpg


User currently offlineAmericanAirman From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8634 times:

Thanks that helped a lot.

I couldn't shoot the whole plane in that because it was through a chain-link fence. What do you think about this one?

http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10004920yi0.jpg


User currently offlineMjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8616 times:

A nice shot, but I don't think it would make it here.

Some issues which should be possible to correct are leveling and graininess. I would level based on the horizon.

It also looks like the sun was high, so there is not a lot of definition on the plane. You could try working with the contrast, but maybe that can not be fixed.

I do not think the composition would pass here. In my opinion there is nothing else compelling enough in the photo to include. I'd say you need to fill the frame with the plane, but that may well take away too much quality after you crop.

Marty


User currently offlineWhisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 569 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8606 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi,

I had these two shots rejected:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1782/bgocg5.jpg

for colour. Is it too blue? How can I correct it?

And this one for level (can somebody please give me a hint on how much rotation is needed)

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/2294/epv0003it0.jpg

Thanks  Wink

Stefan



Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8592 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Hi guys,

I got this photot rejected and need your opinion if there is any chance to make it worth re-editing and uploading it again?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080914_D-ABVE_.jpg

It was soft and dark.

I can sharpen it, but dark? If I make it a little brighter, then the nose seems to be overexposed and you cannot really see anymore that it was early in the morning.

And ideas? suggestions?

Thanks

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8578 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Wilco737, I think your main problem is that it is back lit and that makes the fuselage dark.
Too bad, I like the shot. Sometimes I think that images are worthy even though they are back lit, and that sometimes it even looks better than a harsh sun lighting up the side.

Whisperjet, that sky colour doesn't look right, and the lamp post casts a rather hard light. Where is that BTW? 2 SAS birds in the pic  Smile



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8578 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 20):
Wilco737, I think your main problem is that it is back lit and that makes the fuselage dark.
Too bad, I like the shot. Sometimes I think that images are worthy even though they are back lit, and that sometimes it even looks better than a harsh sun lighting up the side.

Yes, it is back lit, but do you think there is way to get it worth for another upload or will it always get a dark rejection? I like the image a lot and I like the angle where the sun shines on the 744. Thanks for the answer.

I made a new edit and uploaded it: opinions?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/D-ABVE_NEW.jpg

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineWhisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 569 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8569 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 21):
I made a new edit and uploaded it: opinions?

Your 2nd edit looks much better but I'm not sure if it will get accepted. The nose and the push-back truck are already slightly overexposed and other parts are still quite dark.
The darker parts are also grainy.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 20):
Whisperjet, that sky colour doesn't look right, and the lamp post casts a rather hard light. Where is that BTW? 2 SAS birds in the pic

Thank you for your feedback. I am not sure about the sky because the shot was taken around midnight with midnight sun... But I will try it again. The airport is Bergen Flesland, hence the SAS (Norway)

My new edit, does it look any better?

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5509/bgofv9.jpg


Stefan

[Edited 2008-09-15 11:33:39]


Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8564 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Whisperjet (Reply 22):
Your 2nd edit looks much better but I'm not sure if it will get accepted. The nose and the push-back truck are already slightly overexposed and other parts are still quite dark.
The darker parts are also grainy.

Alright, thanks for the help. I'll leave it in the queue. if they don't accept this edit, then it is another "cool, but unworthy shot" for me  Wink

Thanks for the help guys.

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 23):
Alright, thanks for the help. I'll leave it in the queue. if they don't accept this edit, then it is another "cool, but unworthy shot" for me Wink

Blurry on the right as well. I'd pull it

Tim



Alderman Exit
25 WILCO737 : Hmm ok. I delete it WILCO737 (MD11F)
26 TransIsland : I like the second, closer, crop better. Can't see the blurry on this - indeed most forgiving - screen, but the first one was certainly soft. I also t
27 Post contains images JohnKrist : Whisperjet, I fiddled a bit with the curves to get a more realistic midnight sky, we don't get real midnight sun where I live but it's not completely
28 WILCO737 : Thanks for all that advice. I will give it another try, but it looks like I won't have any success with that shot - like several other shots recently
29 KaiGywer : Such as most of mine
30 Post contains links Dwitty : Greetings a.net members. I'm rather new around here, and after four submissions I still have not been able to get a picture accepted. I figured I woul
31 Whappeh : Both of those are way too large, as well. While 1600 can be accepted, lower the size of your images down to the smallest acceptable size, that helps h
32 Post contains links Points : The following one is rejected for "info" and "dark". The "Cargo" category was selected. http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...me=20080915_IMG_2519_co
33 Post contains images Bustin : Hi to all: I have this picture reject with two reason: oversahrp and level. I would like some opinion, and specially with level rejection (check verti
34 Chuck9941 : just with a quick glance it looks like it needs slight CW rotation. You can see the runway is higher at the right than the left pretty easily. the ve
35 Post contains links and images Walter2222 : I had this shot rejected for "double": http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._20080730_CRW_11515_WVB_1200px.jpg probably related with this one alread
36 Post contains links Jorge1812 : Hello. Had this one rejected for level http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0080914_D-ABBK_738_AB_100908_7.jpg When I look at the pic in Photoshop u
37 Post contains links and images Marcinnowczyk1 : Hello dear friends I have problem with one photo, it has been rejected because of bad category. Could You help me? What I should mark during upload?
38 TimdeGroot : Doesnt look like a double to me, did you have another in the queue maybe? " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...7.jpg Needs ccw The
39 Post contains links and images Stil : Hi. Can anybody shine a light about this 'center' rejection? I completely fail to see it Thanks. Stil
40 TimdeGroot : I'd like to see the fuselage more in the center of the frame
41 Points : Tim, thanks for the info for Asiana plane. I just found the registration on other pictures i took (HL7604). About "Dark": i am afraid that lightening
42 Stil : Though it means to cut the horizontal stabilizer? Thanks for your fast response, not like mine.... Stil
43 Walter2222 : Thanks for the feedback! No, I had others in the queue, but not of this registration. I will appeal then and hopefully it will get through Best regar
44 Post contains links Atce4 : Hi, Just had this photo rejected as not being level. It seemed OK in Photoshop as the grid lines matched the vertical of the buildings http://www.airl
45 Post contains links Dreamliner84 : Hi all, I'd like to ask you for some advice about a "contrast personal" rejection. The screener told me that it's a good view and suggested me to make
46 TransIsland : More like 20 or 30. and not just on one side of the histogram.
47 Dreamliner84 : What do you mean when you say "not just on one side of the histogram"... do you refer to the shadows level (OUTPUT LEVELS) or to the high lights ones
48 Acontador : Hi, I was one of the screeners reviewing it, and if I remember correctly, you had already 2 shots from same day/side in the DB, both ground close-ups.
49 Dreamliner84 : Thanks a lot Andrès... more appreciated!!! I Think that I've to decrease my monitor's contrast, in this way I could see it "milky" like you all I th
50 Atce4 : Thanks, Ill give it a go. BTW congratulations on your 2000th photo on a.net[Edited 2008-09-18 06:31:31]
51 Post contains links Radium15 : Hello everybody, What do you think of this? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ns/big/20080918_maks-2007-f-16.jpg Reasons - quality, colour. As fo
52 Walter2222 : Hi Andres, I agree that I have already 2 shots from same day/side in the DB, but these were a tail and a nose close-up. To be honest, I had expected
53 Whappeh : It means that the first screener that looked at it wanted a second opinion from one of the more senior screeners about the photo. Some times your pho
54 Post contains images 777MechSys : Pavel, There is a strong yellow cast to the photo. I have done a very quick removal of yellow cast. Hopefully you can see the difference. -Erick
55 Post contains links Dreamliner84 : I reuploaded my Beluga's shot after having increased the contrast to make it darker like the screener suggested me to do after his rejection. Here's t
56 Post contains links and images Lochgilp : Anything salvageable from this motive reject? Quite liked the DoF...
57 Post contains images Lamyl_HHLCO : Hello, I've had these two pictures rejected due to low quality of the image. Any suggestion would be appreciated.
58 JohnKrist : First one, the car. Why is it there? It doesn't add anything to the pic and it obstructs the plane. Second one, heat haze, and the main subject is no
59 Radium15 : Thank you Erick, I do see the difference! And what about "quality" reason? - Pavel
60 Post contains links JohnKrist : It's a rather artistic shot, but not that interesting IMO, but I suppose for fighter jet fans it is. Maybe a closer crop would help as I think focus
61 Post contains links and images ANITIX87 : Hi, everyone. Had this rejected this morning for Sharpening and Common. Where is it jagged? On my screen is just looks nice and crisply sharp, not ove
62 JohnKrist : There is a halo about one pixel wide on the entire bottom of the fuselage, only jaggies I can see are on the nose gear bay doors, but very slight.
63 ANITIX87 : I thought so too at first, but after VERY careful scrutiny of this shot and others with similar angles, I think it's just the reflection of the cente
64 777MechSys : I'm not on a high quality monitor, but I can see a halo starting at the nose cone. Continuing under the belly and around the engines. I can also see
65 Post contains links and images Points : This one was rejected for contrast and dark: Alternative 1 to re-upload: (disregard "level") Alternative 2 to re-upload: Any comments on the alternati
66 Post contains links and images Chuck9941 : Input please. Rejected for quality and blurry. I submitted this photo about a year ago and it was rejected for size as I had it cropped in more of a p
67 Lochgilp : [Devil's Advocate] What makes a photo of a wheel more interesting? A gun is a vital bit of kit on a fighter so shouldn't that warrant similar accepta
68 Mjgbtv : Alternative 1 looks pretty good to me. Marty
69 JohnKrist : Not saying that, just adding my thoughts, and not discussing what is acceptable or not as that's a road I'd rather not walk
70 Post contains links Walter2222 : ...and I got lucky again it was accepted today!! Thanks screeners for the second opinion! Another one of mine got rejected for motiv (although I like
71 Post contains links Neophyte : Hey guys, here are two pictures wich were rejected. The first by centered and common http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...o.main?filename=20080918_D
72 Lochgilp : I understand that, was just going into devil's advocate mode to ask questions/draw potential comparisons as if you don't ask then answers (or progres
73 Post contains links Jorge1812 : Hi. this time I'm struggling to get that http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...80921_D-AIAL_A300_LH_090908_82.jpg sharpened properly. This was my 2nd
74 Post contains links Atce4 : Hi again, Have just had this one rejected for being overexposed and having some contrast problems http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...s/big/2008092
75 Post contains images 777MechSys : Graham, Put the image in Photoshop (or program of your choice) and look at the histogram. You will notice that it is heavily skewed to the right hand
76 Post contains links Varig767 : Hello all ! I already posted this post in the pre-screening forum, but in fact it is a rejection, so I post it here. Got this one rejected for 'colour
77 Post contains links and images SFO2SVO : Hi, rejected for " quality level soft " I can sharpen more, of course - but how do you level such shot? I thought level does not apply in it's usual s
78 Atce4 : Thanks for the tips Erick, I might try an other upload. Graham
79 Post contains links and images WILCO737 : hi guys, more rejections for me here is one: Grainy and oversharpen for this one. Ok,l in some places I can see the oversharpen, but only very very sm
80 Walter2222 : I am not on my editing screen, but - to me, here on the laptop - the concrete part in the foreground seems a bit too red (I assume it should be a kin
81 WILCO737 : hi Walter, thanks for the reply. It looks that the LH 744 is not worth for a.net. Using neat- Image ruins this picture. I will give the SQ another tr
82 Varig767 : Hello all, I am still doubting if I enhanced the colours in my rejected picture correctly. Would anyone please judge my photo in reply 76? kind regard
83 Mjgbtv : Hi Martijn, The picture still seems a bit dark to me. Maybe that is just the way the light was, but there are pronounced shadows so it appears that i
84 Post contains links and images BaldurSveins : A level rejection I have not often appealed or disagreed with the screeners when they have called out my version of level. This time I have to disagre
85 Post contains links McG1967 : Baldur, maybe a small touch of CW rotation, probably less than 0.5. I had this shot rejected a while back for COLOR, along with a personal message fro
86 Post contains images Spencer : All, Received the dredded rejection mail not so long ago on this one, for centre. On my first upload I didn't mention anything about it being arsty, d
87 TupolevTu154 : I can see where you're coming from, however the trees don't really add anything to the photograph. The tops just happen to be there. If you had the t
88 WestJetYQQ : It is quite a nice shot for the personal collection. As TupolevTu154 mentioned above, the trees don't really add anything. There's a lot of blank spa
89 Post contains links and images UnitedJumboJet : Okay this got rejected for "dark" (if the pic above doesn't work here's the URL) http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...filename=20080930_DLM88cloudsD
90 Post contains images WILCO737 : Hi fellow photographer, I need your help. I got this rejected the other day because of motiv. Can anybody enlighten me what is wrong with the motiv? T
91 JohnKrist : UnitedJumboJet, it is slightly dark but not too bad IMO. It probably is due to shooting "into the sun" and your camera exposed to compensate for the l
92 Post contains links and images WILCO737 : If you check the database, then you see many pictures where you see black screens and some landscape or clouds outside. Just 2 examples here: View La
93 JohnKrist : Wilco, the second example is exactly like yours, less mountains. So then I really have no idea why there was a motive rejection.
94 Post contains links Coxmaster : Hopefully you guys can help me out, since its my first Photo for A.net http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ns/big/20081002_DA-20FinalEdit.jpg Rejec
95 JohnKrist : Coxmaster, the link is broken, you need to post the link to the rejected photo that can be found under Photographers Corner
96 Post contains links and images Coxmaster : Sorry about that. Here is the correct link. So, any suggestions? I do have a much higher res original..
97 UnitedJumboJet : I think the cockpit windows look pretty grainy, along with the shadows.[Edited 2008-10-03 12:22:42]
98 Post contains links and images Coxmaster : Is this any better? I think i fixed some of the quality and grain issues. Sharpening seems better to me too, but that might just be because its differ
99 Post contains links Wunaladreamin : Soft and color? What am I missing? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections...aerolineasargenitnas_lvbmt.jpg Thanks for looking.
100 JohnKrist : Wunala, there is a strong green cast in your image, and it needs a kick of sharpening in USM.
101 Post contains links and images SFO2SVO : Hi, Another Colour for me - which I am still trying to learn to see: Would someone please suggest what cast do I have here? (I don't think there's pro
102 Post contains links and images Dwitty : My latest rejection. "There is a problem with the contrasts in these photo(s). The whites in the image are not pure white, or the blacks are not pure
103 Gliderpilot08 : Hi, Josh, I think that this picture is alot better than your other photo's in this Thread. Some of your other photos you put in this thread were a bit
104 Coxmaster : Thanks for the comments. Good to hear from somebody that it it looking better. Ya, i realized shortly after returning home that i should have gotten e
105 Post contains links and images JohnKrist : Coxmaster, it looks better, but I would also recommend a tighter crop, too much space in front of the aircraft. And it's 1200x700 so you will get a si
106 Post contains links and images Walter2222 : I had this one rejected for contrast, dark and distance: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...LDV-LFRJ_20080627_IMG_1912_WVB.jpg I can understand th
107 Post contains links and images Jid : After starting a new thread then having it deleted I am being pointed here. Personally I thought it warranted a thread but apparently not. So I will t
108 WILCO737 : Dear Jid, for me it looks like the reflection in the window seems to be a problem. I had cockpitshots rejected as well because of some reflection in t
109 Jid : Well just looked through a dozen or so cockpit shots and most have reflections visible, after all it is a cockpit, with windows, which have reflection
110 WILCO737 : I agree with you on the reflections. I had a bunch of cockpit shots rejected because there were reflections visible on the window. I don't know this
111 Post contains links Borut : I had this one rejected for "level": http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...=20081004_Brnik44_vp-cla_borut.jpg This one seems fine to me so I would ap
112 Post contains links and images JohnKrist : Jid, I think it's the reflection on the right seat that is the problem. Borut, it is hard to level a pic like that with no obvious horizon, but lookin
113 Walter2222 : I think it could use a bit of CCW rotation, but not much (assuming the antenna-masts are 100% vertical...). Best regards, Walter
114 UnitedJumboJet : This is from a guy with no pics in the database(Though getting awfully close! My last photo only got rejected for "dark" ), but it looks like your pi
115 ANITIX87 : Yes, the tail is very blurry as well. In addition, there is a small dust spot under the left landing gear. NOT the birds, a separate dust spot. I don
116 Walter2222 : Thanks for the feedback! Unfortunately, those are the only ones I had from the flightline which were not ruined by either heat-haze or jet-exhaust-ha
117 Post contains links Jonwait : Hello people, i got this shot rejected 2 times http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...?filename=20081006_b60762609ac.jpg These photo(s) show a motive
118 JohnKrist : The wheel block rule in this case has clearly been taken too far. Heck, I'm interested in the aircraft, not the Good Years. But, it could be lower in
119 Post contains links and images UnitedJumboJet : Okay rejected again for "soft" and "quality" Okay it looks like it has a slight yellow cast. Any othe problems, and is it savable?
120 Post contains links and images Radium15 : Hi all, rejected for level: How would you level this shot? I used people in front of the aircraft for reference.
121 Lexy : Because the lens distorts the edges of the picture, I would go with the landing gear because they are basically in the middle and level from them. Th
122 Gliderpilot08 : Hi, "Jonwait" Toward the right side of the aircraft, the right engine is "croped" out of the picture in a weird Way. The engine is not even close to b
123 Radium15 : Thank you, Lexy! Yes, that is a strange feeling when you see this beast in the air... and then standing under its wing with those enormous engines abo
124 Radium15 : OK, so I checked people near the front landing gear and the landing gear itself. Seems vertical to me. But appeal had the same result - level. No idea
125 Jonwait : Hi "Gliderpilot08" The crop is just to re-center the aircraft, the original shot is almost like this. with a little too much dead space. I re-uploaded
126 Post contains links Nikog : Hi to all, This photo was rejected because of : quality, grainy and soft http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20081014_IMG_6703_5.jpg The
127 JohnKrist : 1st it does need some extra sharpening as it is soft, even on my tft at work that is very forgiving. 2nd, resize it to 1024 pixels as that will make t
128 Post contains links Nikog : Thanks JohnKrist! Is this one is ok now? http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img6703croppededited2auc5.jpg
129 Radium15 : Anyone? I really need your feedback!
130 JohnKrist : Radium15, I really love your shot but the distortion done by the lens does make it hard to level. I would recommend a tad cw rotation though, if this
131 Radium15 : JohnKrist, thank you for your input! Looks like it is not easy to get accepted shots with unusual composition. OK, i will try to make some corrections
132 Post contains links and images Points : Rejected for “double” and “motiv” I assume the “double” rejection is a sceening error ? Since I’ve only one other picture of this plane
133 Gliderpilot08 : Hi, At first glance, I think it's a really "Creative" shot. However, I do agree with you that the boarding bridge is one of the reasons for rejection
134 Gliderpilot08 : With reference to my last post about the KLM Creative shot, the above two quotes that I made were wrong. These are errors in my last post. Disregard
135 Post contains images Timmay911 : I sent in these two pics for screening. The pictures were rejected with the following reasons: The first picture is the original that was submitted, t
136 Coxmaster : Im not a "respected" member, since i've only got 2 pictures. But i think i can make a useful comment here. The edited first image definitely isn't sof
137 Timmay911 : All I have is Picasa no adobe.. The computer didn't come with even Elements!!! So it's all or nothing I guess... Unless someone knows where to get a n
138 Coxmaster : You could always download the trial of photoshop.. If you want you could send me over the original and i'll see what i can do with it. Im bored, and i
139 Radium15 : OK, finally got that An-225 engines shot accepted! Just a bit CW rotation did it. Thanks to all for help with that one!
140 JohnKrist : Great! It's a lovely shot so it would have been a shame to not have it in the database. Glad to help
141 Post contains links and images EZEIZA : Here's a rejection .... let me start by saying I'm not angry or anything, but I really don't understand the creative rule. I got this rejection for mo
142 JohnKrist : EZEIZA, when it comes to creative it is not so easy to judge, but basically I'd say if the "wow" factor is low it's a rejection. Sorry to say, I kind
143 EZEIZA : Instead of a blurred aircraft I respect your opinion, thanxs for your imput
144 JohnKrist : Yeah, well, don't think there are too many who love that shot, personally I thought wtf, and not only that, it seems silly to reject excellent photos
145 Post contains images Varig767 : Got this one rejected for 'quality' Can anyone explain me why the quality is not good enough? kind regards, Martijn
146 Post contains links LHSebi : Hi all, I haven't had much time to add new photos to the database for a while, but I wanted to have another go, and went to the airport last week. I u
147 ANITIX87 : I am going to treat this as both a post- and pre-screening question to try and help you as best I can. 1) Correctly rejected for all three reasons, a
148 Post contains links UltimateDelta : Quality, motive (what?), category: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=20081021_821moonwinglet.jpg
149 JohnKrist : Motive is probably due to the fact that you have cut off one of the "antennas", and quality is because it's very soft/blurry. Look at the edge to the
150 Lexy : Well one reason could be the airplane in question here is a bit soft overall. The lighting is fine IMO, but the softness is off a bit. Anyone else go
151 Post contains links and images Coxmaster : Reject reason: category oversharpened Reject reason: quality centered category dark I understand everything on both of these, except category. What w
152 UltimateDelta : Yeah, i saw that. Mostly I was wondering about motive.
153 Lexy : That would probably be because more of the wing is not shown. Back out a bit and show more wing and you may get past the motive rejection. Just an id
154 Post contains links Moderators : We ask that you continue the discussion at the following thread Post - Screening Thread Part 2 as this thread is being archived to assist those with s
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...
How Can I Improve A Shot After Rejection. posted Sun Jul 20 2008 23:11:19 by AirMalta
Post-screening Questions posted Fri Jul 18 2008 22:11:21 by Qswags
Re Uploading After Rejection Issue posted Wed Jan 30 2008 11:12:23 by BrianLowe
Help With Rejection. The Meaning Of Contrast posted Wed Jan 2 2008 17:26:59 by Folivaresm
Help Please (rejection) posted Sat Dec 22 2007 06:39:00 by Klintrepid
Help On Rejection For Dark posted Sat Dec 8 2007 15:36:16 by Lanas
Help With A Rejection posted Tue Nov 27 2007 16:55:52 by FighterPilot
Help With A Rejection - Halos posted Tue Nov 20 2007 02:45:50 by Linco22
Help With A Rejection Please posted Thu Nov 15 2007 03:50:07 by TimmyB
Help On A Rejection, Please! posted Wed Sep 5 2007 16:27:03 by Glapira