Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Contradicting Rejection Messages...  
User currently offlinePatroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 12
Posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2057 times:


I am currently a bit confused about two contradicting rejection messages I received for the same photo.

Originally I had uploaded a first version of this night photo of a Luxair ERJ-145 some days ago to airliners.net :


Some days later I received a rejection message with the following reason :

"The angle of the camera does not seem to be straight compared to the horizon. In the future, make sure you always hold the camera absolutely level. This particularly applies to pictures of aircraft on the ground. For shots of aircraft in flight where the ground is visible (take-offs and landings in particular), the general rule is that the camera should be level with the horizon and the aircraft be at an angle. There may be exceptions to this rule if the composition of the picture is unique and having a level horizon would detract from the aesthetic value of the picture (such cases will be rare).

Such problems can often be fixed by carefully rotating and cropping the picture. If you think you have been able to improve the photos, please re-upload them. "

Well, OK.. Besides the fact that you can't see the horizon on this photo I agreed that the lamp pilar looked not completely vertical and corrected the image accordingly by rotating it 0,5 Degrees to the right in order to have the lamp (as only indication of direction) vertical. So I re-uploaded the picture again - and got another rejection message, this time :

"The image quality of these photos are low. This may be the result of several perceived problems happening simultaneously, such as grain, blur, lighting, contrast or color defects, which would lead us to believe that a fresh scan would be necessary, rather than a simple adjustment to the uploaded file."

Well well, so it seems that suddenly the horizon question is ok, but the picture as such is not good enough anymore? (nb : This would have been the only night photo of a Luxair ERJ in the database...).

Anyway, it is a matter of taste if you like this picture or not, but I honestly feel somehow fooled if I am asked to rotate it first, only to get it completely rejected afterwards.

Best regards,


8 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineILS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

I disagree with the tilted image. The ERJs naturally tilt foward. And, it is grainy and the quality is low as well.

User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

Looks as if it was shot while it was raining, might be why it looks a little unclear.


User currently offlineLZ-TLT From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1981 times:


Even if you wanted, you couldn't write something worth going down the tube as this. In fact, the image might look somehow tilted, but not for the reason of the lamp post. Look in the background, the fence creates somehow the illusion, the image is tilted, especially in the area over the ERJ.

As fort "it's grainy and the quality is low as well" - compare this with other night shots posted to airliners.net - do you think they are much more higher quality? THINK, goddamn, THINK!!!!

Also, what you are seeing as "graininess" at the photo can be just as natural in cold evenings night and very humid air. But(excuse me...I just noticed in your profile, you're from a part of the world, where airconditioning is so widespread nobody knows how it can look on a cold, wet winter evening)

User currently offlinePatroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Hi again,

just to clear up any misunderstandings :
The photo I have linked is already the corrected version. The original version was indeed a bit tilted, but a little 0.5 Degree rotation did the trick.

It was not raining while the photo was taken, but a rainshower had just passed by so that there was still a lot of moisture and a light fog in the air. I thought that this would create a special atmosphere on the photo...

But anyway, the purpose of this posting was not to whine that this pic was rejected, I was just a bit confused about the contradicting responses I got for the same picture... but I guess that simply shows that the screeners are also only human beings with different tastes  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Best regards,


User currently offline764er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

LZ-TLT: I think you need a break... OOOH, the evils of air conditioning. Please don't tell me you're one of "those."  Insane  Sad

I think the pic could be a little sharper. I'd say play around with the histogram and unsharp mask and see if there's anything else you can do. You might also think about blurring the sky a bit to reduce some of the graininess.

I also think it looks kind of weird with the planes in the background being lit better than the front one. And there's something strange going on on the top of the aircraft. It looks "splotchy."

User currently offlinePatroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

@764er :

Sure, will play a bit with the image because I really like it. Your hints migt help me to get this one ready for another upload try again...

BTW, the reason why the aircraft in the background are lit better than the one in front is simple : There is no lamp in front of it, so only the aircraft behind it and of course the other side of the front aircraft are properly lit. Maybe I should write a request to Luxemborg Findel airport to add a lamp  Wink/being sarcastic

The "splotchy" look on the top if the aircraft is resulting from the humidity settling on the cold fuselage, it is simply a good amount of dew. Anyway this was not an effct of playing around with Paintshop Pro, it was REALLY there.

Thanks for your comments  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

I have to say, well done for getting the picture backlit, even without any sun!!! Big grin

I think this is the reason for the grainyness on the fuselage, and also if you notice the underside by the cockpit is also a little soft.

Doesn't look that tilted, I fail to see why it would be rejected for that reason.



User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

I just think this pic is not quite good enough. The detail on the fuselage isn't quite as sharp as it should be, and there's not enough light falling on the main subject for it to be a successful night shot. You only have to look at the ERJ behind to see what I mean - see how much better lit it is? If LX-LGY was lit the same as that, you would have a much better shot, and probably no problems in getting it added.

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...
New Upload FAQ And Rejection Messages posted Mon Oct 6 2003 16:41:08 by PUnmuth@VIE
Contradicting Rejection Messages... posted Sun Feb 3 2002 03:06:28 by Patroni
Help With Rejection Messages posted Thu Dec 20 2001 22:11:36 by DerekF
Confusion Over A Rejection Reason posted Mon Dec 18 2006 11:28:47 by EZYAirbus
Triple Rejection For Quality/Motiv posted Sat Dec 16 2006 17:20:55 by Alibo5NGN
Please Some Help With Level Rejection posted Sat Dec 16 2006 16:10:32 by Acontador
Category Rejection! posted Sat Dec 16 2006 13:41:06 by BmiBaby737
Please Help With Soft Rejection Motive posted Fri Dec 15 2006 23:36:57 by Spacejumper
'Info' Rejection posted Thu Dec 14 2006 02:49:28 by Chukcha
Puzzled About "Double" Rejection posted Tue Dec 12 2006 07:00:40 by Walter2222