Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Need Help With Why Photo Was Rejected  
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4710 times:

i thought this was a sort of artsy photo but it got rejected. problem is that in the rejection message (below) it could have been one of several problems and id like some opinions as to what so i can rescan and avoid the problem. thanks for any help. also would appreciate if someone can post the direct link- i dont remember what it is for pics that were rejected/in the que. thanks in advance.
=========================================
- gciva.jpg (British Airways Boeing 747-4...)

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.

It could be caused by the scanner you are using, the way you scanned
your
photos, the (digital) camera, the light conditions when you shot the
photos,
object out of focus, improper photo manipulations or any combination
thereof. Most of the time, the cause is either a bad scanner or that
the
scanner wasn't used properly. If you think this might be the cause,
please
read the documentation for your scanner and find the best DPI and color
settings. Generally a higher DPI and color setting will make a higher
quality image but only to a certain degree and it differs between
different
brands of scanners. Try many different settings until you find the best
combination. If you are using an old or low quality scanner you might
consider investing in a new or borrow one from your
friend/workplace/school.
If you are using a digital camera, check camera settings.

A frequent source of this problem is when the photograph was taken
under
poor weather conditions without appropriate corrective measures (such
as
exposure). Note that making acceptable photographs in poor weather
conditions or at night is quite difficult, and you should perhaps try
to
achieve a good level of expertise and a few successful uploads of good
weather photographs before attempting much more difficult poor weather
photography.

If you think you have been able to improve the quality of the photos,
please re-upload them. Note that we are still very interested in
having these photos in our database, we only ask that you try to
improve
the quality of the digital version of your photos. You can find
examples
of photos with a high quality scanning in out "Editor's Choice"
section linked to from the front page of Airliners.net.


46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4486 times:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=gciva.jpg

User currently onlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4463 times:

Okay Joe your the pro here and Im just a very young novice but if that was my shot I'd up the contrast a little. It just looks a tad "flat".

Martin now turning off Know-it-all mode.  Smile



User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

Well, I've also pushed my 'I know it all'-button, and it seems to me the pictures is a little bit too dark.

That's all...

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4408 times:

'know it all mode on'.

There is alot of black on the underside, and this is very grainy, and it also looks a bit dark. Try increasing brightness/contrast and see if this helps.

'know it all mode off'.

Dan  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently onlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4388 times:

Just each and every one of you who use the KNOW-IT-ALL mode remember that it was ME who invented it Big grin Big grin Big grin

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4389 times:

"HeeEEeey, Joe, where are you goin' with that camera in your hand..." or something like that.

You must hate that joke by now.

I just played with it a little. Saturated the colors and pushed the reds a bit. But I couldn't do anything about the lack of detail in the shadows. I guess those are the K64 Blues.

Pretty shot though.


Charles


User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4371 times:

Oh, Joe has switched to Fuji ?  Nuts

Easy on the saturation Charles!  Wink/being sarcastic
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4365 times:

Any more saturation and you would have a "Taperell Special" Big grin (jk)

LGW


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5059 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4356 times:

Definitely the shadows area killed it.

The sun wasn't at your back. What I'd try if I was standing in that spot is a different kind of shot. Try an extreme closeup of the nose area. It might turn out brighter or more even. right now the sun flare on the tail is tricking your exposure.



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4370 times:

thanks for all the assistance fellows. On the HPS20, shadows and dark spots are sometimes an issue. this shot was taken at 530pm 3 weeks ago- just as the sun was setting for the day. i'll eventually try to fix it and reupload. thanks again for all the help.

Joe


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

It is indeed an "artsy shot" and Charles fixed it up pretty good as far as I am concerned. Still kind of dark in the tone but overall a nice image.

Nevertheless pretty interesting that even Joe P. gets rejections............

Vasco


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

Vasco,
Theres no doubt about it the "minimums" have increased dramatically here and if it means i get a few rejected here or there- in order to have ainet a high quality site, im willing to tough it out- alot of guys i know are getting rejected left and right, some of em are getting very frustrated- but ya gotta roll with the punches i say

Joe


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Tis a wonderful shot.  Big thumbs up

Joe,Have you tried Vuescan?
I find K64 to scan better using that program other than the default S20.

Bo



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4315 times:

Hey Bo,
mclaughlin and borda keep talking about it but im just so comfy with the way i do the s20/photoshop combo now- its only the dark shadows that seem to be a problem, otherwise im ok with the way the scans are coming out for the most part.

Joe


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Joe, why don't you upgrade to a more high quality scanner. I just purcahsed a Nikon coolscan 4000. It is still in the mail, but it produces real nice images.

Take a look at Charles Falk's photographs. Thats what the coolscan 4000 does. It does cost a bit more, but certainly worth the money.

Nice pic Joe, thought all your uploads get accepted, huh guess not.

-Dmitry


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

D,
as my S20 is aging, im looking into other options- the one i want is the nikon one that costs about 1400 bucks- its the LS2000 or something like that- i heard thats what all the field photogs use (or perhaps before digital but digital for me is not an option).
btw- my S20 has been through about 6500 scans- definetely has done an outstanding jobs for that amount of scans.

Joe


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=sunnosun.jpg

ok while we're on the subject here's another one i got rejected too but at the very least its cool to share with all of you hardcore photogs who are in the photogforum- i wanted to share the frustration of setting up for a shot while the clouds hose you and meanwhile another airplane you already shot is basking in glowing sunshine. Now personally, this kind of shot perhaps should be uploaded as it is an illustration shot rather than a one airplane shot- but as always, I obey the law of the land and will not upload these types anymore, just my usual side shots or action shots.

---------------------------------------------------

The following photos were rejected:
(Please read more below)

- sunnosun.jpg (USAir Boeing 757-200)

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.

It could be caused by the scanner you are using, the way you scanned
your
photos, the (digital) camera, the light conditions when you shot the
photos,
object out of focus, improper photo manipulations or any combination
thereof. Most of the time, the cause is either a bad scanner or that
the
scanner wasn't used properly. If you think this might be the cause,
please
read the documentation for your scanner and find the best DPI and color
settings. Generally a higher DPI and color setting will make a higher
quality image but only to a certain degree and it differs between
different
brands of scanners. Try many different settings until you find the best
combination. If you are using an old or low quality scanner you might
consider investing in a new or borrow one from your
friend/workplace/school.
If you are using a digital camera, check camera settings.

A frequent source of this problem is when the photograph was taken
under
poor weather conditions without appropriate corrective measures (such
as
exposure). Note that making acceptable photographs in poor weather
conditions or at night is quite difficult, and you should perhaps try
to
achieve a good level of expertise and a few successful uploads of good
weather photographs before attempting much more difficult poor weather
photography.

If you think you have been able to improve the quality of the photos,
please re-upload them. Note that we are still very interested in
having these photos in our database, we only ask that you try to
improve
the quality of the digital version of your photos. You can find
examples
of photos with a high quality scanning in out "Editor's Choice"
section linked to from the front page of Airliners.net.

These photos appear to have been either overexposed (too bright) or
underexposed (too dark) please change the settings on your scanner or
use a
photo manipulating tool to adjust the brightness of the photos. If you
think you have been able to improve the quality of the photos, please
re-upload them. Note that we are still very interested in having these
photos in our database, we only ask that you try to improve the quality
of the digital version of your photos.





User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Hi!
Looking at the picture I think its not exactly leveld. Just the first pole on the left side. It doesnt seem vertical to me. And theres dust on the slide. Where. In the clouds just straight above the little US flag close to the registration of the US A321. Or are this crows? The excuse my comment.
Peter



-
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

Hi Peter,
i think this is the kind of stuff thats getting people very upset around here- the leveling on the us/ar shot is fine- it may be off .005 or something but its not drastic by any means- certainly i dont think enough for a reject. You definetely lost me on the dust- i dont see it at all and even if it is there- i think that if we're rejecting on those grounds also then we're losing touch with reality on airliners.net -i have a feeling its something other than that also- i am terrified to think that part of the rejection is dust- if thats the case then we're in trouble.

Joe


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

What comes to mind is: What is the subject? The USAir is closer, but is in shadow. The Argentinian is lit up but far away, and is behind a pole. Uninterupted tarmac takes up a full 50% of the picture.

I guess what I am saying is that what you were trying to do with this shot is not easily apparent.

Also, shooting a US Airways jet in shadow is like trying to photograph a polar bear in a blizzard.

Cheers,

Charles


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Yeah the shadow killed it, if only the USAir 757 had sun on it... I shot about 6 rolls of K64 down there in MIA in about a day and a half, only uploaded 31. I had several awsome shots, but the clouds rolled in at the wrong time, I'm not going to bother trying to get them on here.

User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4217 times:

What Joe was trying to "say" in this photo is how difficult airliner shooting really is sometimes. You're looking to shoot something hot or just something you need (ok, maybe not a US 757 but I could probably use the reg.) It shows you that you can be in the right place but not always have something on your side. Just a few hundred feet away the AR 747 is basking in the sun for a perfect shot but the item you're looking to shoot is not. It would be a good shot for a "how to" or "starters guide" but guess not for mainstream a.net.

Joe showed me the slide last night and the 1st thing i thought of was those people who say 50mm side-on shots are so easy to get don't know what they're talking about...yeah, when the 1000 things that can go wrong don't go wrong, maybe it's easy but as you can tell with this shot...well, Murphy has a way of screwing up pretty much everything. Bill Hough knows "Murphy" all too well.

Michael


User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1706 posts, RR: 65
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi guys

Uploaded 34, got 32 accepted overnight last week

check the 2 they rejected, (is sort of blurr and I thought those are pretty cool shot, but nothing special)

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=BKKAYM11.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=NRTCOMAX777.jpg

Shots on 80-400mm VR, no cropping, as full frame as it is on my real slide. No alternation done except dust touch up using rubber stamp and slightly color balance (avoid too blue or green)

I will sharpen them and resubmit. I am using S20/Photoshop combo as well, normally is very good with airliners.net.

Sam--The Green Shooter.  Smile


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4194 times:

Joe get the Nikon coolscan 4000, you can get a super good deal on ebay, and brand new also. I bought the coolscan 4000 for $1360, good price.

-Dmitry


25 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : Joe: I was looking at this picture having my usual rejection reasons in mind (well except the dust, which doent happen to me ) and those where the onl
26 Joe pries : Peter, i was trying to illustrate exactly what mike mclaughlin was saying- like i said, im gonna keep my uploads to things i know will not get rejecte
27 Post contains images Leftseat86 : I like seeing all the reject shots, they are very interesting
28 Post contains images Thom@s : I never wanted a 747 to land on me more in my life. Thom@s
29 Post contains images Da fwog : Joe: the 2 planes shot is a perfect illustration of Murphy's Law (and shooting approaches at LHR today with "scattered cloud" means I'm well familiar
30 Post contains images Joe pries : yeah you're 100% right Chris- i need to upgrade the scanner cause ive got a boatload of very interesting shots that with the current scanner im not ev
31 Post contains links and images Aer Lingus : Can I just ask a simple question here ? Is there really justification on spending 1500 bucks on a scanner, just for uplaoding to here ? I mean most of
32 Staffan : I've had alot of problems scanning K64 slides, they don't come out as well as Fuji when scanned. The main problem is that the dark areas are very nois
33 Joe pries : Martin, for me its more than that- i do consulting work for several companies and they require prints at times so the 2400dpi is ok on the S20 but i'd
34 Post contains links and images Mikephotos : Ok, now it's getting out of control. Just got a photo rejected for: "Michael, look at this scan from a distance. There is a white horizontal band thro
35 Screener5 : Michael, I processed that pic and it's the first of yours I have ever rejected. The white line looked just too perfect (horizontal) to be a contrail,
36 Post contains images Staffan : Add me to that list while you're at it please
37 Post contains images 764er : Hey Mike, funny I was standing next to you but didn't have that problem. Maybe you should try digital. Err... (praying this won't show up as a red X)
38 Post contains images Mikephotos : Actually, Leigh. I do see a bit of that contrail in your AA 757 shot but maybe not. Not all of the slides from that day show the contrail, cause I'm a
39 Post contains images 764er : Mike, yeah I know it's there. Just messin around... But the AA was taken about 30 minutes before AeroMexico showed up. So I guess it was around for a
40 Post contains images Ghost77 : How did she got rejected?? Really nice baby!! Anyway I see the contrail on AM´s picture, but also for the AA 757 contrail is a bit visible! Nice shoo
41 Planeboy : um- can a measly guy like me speak? hummm - ( coughing ) and a little nervous... I think I see a "white horizontal band" of light kinda fusing togethe
42 Planeboy : was speaking of the photo posted by Mike...
43 Post contains images Rindt : Yes PLANEBOY, that's called "SUN-GLARE"... -Rob
44 Post contains images Mikephotos : Hey..rather have a bit of sunglare than shoot in cloudy weather Never heard sunglare called "White Horizontal Band" Is that a new rock group? Michael
45 Dazed767 : First glance you can see it's a contrail. But hey, we all make mistakes... JC (still laughing over the white horizontal band)
46 EGGD : looks very 'impure' for a horizontal white band, but as Justin said, we all make mistakes!!! I like sunglare on pictures, and reflections. Add charact
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...
I Need Help With Arcsoft Photo Studio posted Fri Dec 27 2002 15:42:15 by Jcs17
Need Help With This Photo posted Thu Dec 27 2001 12:28:34 by BA777
Need Help With Rejected Photo (badsize) posted Mon Nov 8 2004 23:26:31 by Gust
Need Help With A Photo posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:25:40 by AirKas1
I Need Some Help With This Photo posted Tue Oct 17 2006 16:35:21 by Bio15
Need Help With Rejected Shot. posted Mon Nov 15 2004 10:58:13 by Crank
My Photo Was Rejected, Please Help! posted Sat Jan 10 2004 22:43:33 by BDLGUY
Need Help With Two Rejections posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:14:35 by B076
Need Help With Camera Choice posted Fri Nov 24 2006 01:07:31 by DeltaGator
Need Help With Pre-screening, Please! posted Sun Sep 10 2006 00:19:12 by Frippe