Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post Screening - Bustin  
User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3427 times:

Today I have this two pictures with soft rejection. Sinceresly ,I can not see soft areas in this pictures. I used to reference another similar picture accepted.
I would like some adviser to improved the pictures or to if it makes sense to appeal. What area is soft?

Rejected
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...54286.5371120417-0099.05-4093z.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...354143.0353120417-0069.05-4094.jpg

Accepted picture and used to reference.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...d=e4c1facf02863ce00085e14d5008d42a

Regards
Bustin

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3400 times:

They look soft/blurry and oversharpened to compensate.

Quoting bustin (Thread starter):
Accepted picture and used to reference.

Also looks a little soft/blurry, and probably should have been rejected imho.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Hi, Today I have this three rejection. I can understand the rejections because I know the photos are not the best lighting conditions and are difficult to get the right contrast and brightness balance to the standard of airliners screeners. I have trying to improve the brightness and contrast and have re-upload the photos again.

1.- Overexpoxed - contrast rejection. Personal ""harsh contrast/backlit"
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...127062.5722120619-0067.amp-124.jpg
Corrected. Low exposed and corrected contrast.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...797532.1098120619-0067.amp-124.jpg

2, 3.- Contrast - dark rejection . Personal ""low contrast"
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0125047.2588120619-0101.ec-lrm.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0125419.2043120619-0107.ec-lrn.jpg

Corrected. Add bright and contrast.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...0798125.2146120619-0101.ec-lrm.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...0797866.9369120619-0107.ec-lrn.jpg

I would like some opinion if the pictures now look correct now. Or some advice if the photos still look flaw. Are new aircrafts in database and I would like to get the acceptation.

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Light is still pretty terrible on all of them to be honest. If it were me, unless there was something really special about them, I wouldn't bother trying to upload them here. If possible, wait for better weather; if not I guess keep trying, but your chances are never going to be that great.

All three are new? The Vueling will obviously be seen by a lot more people eventually, so that's no advantage, but the first might worth the continued effort, as that will also be a little harder to spot in the future.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

Thanks Dana,

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 3):
Light is still pretty terrible on all of them to be honest. If it were me, unless there was something really special about them, I wouldn't bother trying to upload them here. If possible, wait for better weather; if not I guess keep trying, but your chances are never going to be that great.

Also honestly, I understand that the light in cloudy weather is a handicap to get acceptances to airliners.net, but not a reason for automatic rejection, just more hard to get appropriate balance brightness-contrast.


Quoting dlowwa (Reply 3):
All three are new? The Vueling will obviously be seen by a lot more people eventually, so that's no advantage, but the first might worth the continued effort, as that will also be a little harder to spot in the future.

I can see in the database with hundreds of photos accepted such poor light conditions. I have some similar photos accepted. And I think taking these photos as a reference, I can have good chance to get some acceptance, especially for less common aircraft. It's only a matter of having a little more patience.

Thanks again for your advice

Bustin


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

I have this rejection. Cause "Double". Personal: "too similar to other from same date"

I don´t undrerstand this double. Accepted picture is aircraft taxiing in runway after landing. This picture is aircraft in parking and static.

Accepted
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy...d=e51c455c49062c08c7e3f3ebdd2d69cc
Rejected:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...0899251.0396120208-0059.mm7222.jpg

I added similar example with another two pictures accepted.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy...d=2715a0e84f71b436ac395a858c670c86
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy...d=2715a0e84f71b436ac395a858c670c86

I think appeal is possible. But I would like some opinion before.

Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 5):
I don´t undrerstand this double

It's the same aircraft on the same day at the same location. This is always going to be a double unless one aircraft is in the air and the other is on the ground for example. As both of yours are on the ground showing the same side, regardless of whether one is taxiing or static, double applies.

Quoting bustin (Reply 5):

I added similar example with another two pictures accepted.

One of the others should possible have been given double too?

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Thanks Darren,

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 6):
As both of yours are on the ground showing the same side, regardless of whether one is taxiing or static

Sorry but, I have more pictures how the example accepted with same day, same side taxiing and the another picture static.

Regard

Bustin


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 7):
Sorry but, I have more pictures how the example accepted with same day, same side taxiing and the another picture static.

My interpretation of the upload rules would be they shouldn't be accepted but if you have history of them being accepted, then appeal with your explanation as to why you feel it was wrongly rejected.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

I have this dark rejection. This personal ""still backlit - not fixable."

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3060980.9577120703-0029.ei-exb.jpg

Sorry, I hope not to bother anyone . After see pictures in Faiford and Farnborough this year. I have not understad this dark rejection.

I have pictures accepted with this light conditions.

I would like some opinion

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2824 times:

Bustin,

I think this is another case of the dark rejection not really being accurate, and it's not truely backlit as the screener has suggested either. The lighting is harsh and is strong from the upper right of the frame. The photo itself is fine on my screen, but the lighting isn't great making it not for a.net. If the sun had been less strong, you'd probably have got away with it but as is it, you haven't.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

I have this soft rejection. This personal "heat haze affecting quality".

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...232619.9595120413-0093.amp-123.jpg

The pricipal next aircraft (AMP-123) is in flight. No hate haze affected. I have hate haze rejection is no correct here.

I go to appeal. But before I would like some opinion.

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 11):
I go to appeal. But before I would like some opinion.

I would agree the aircraft is soft and I think the screener has got the reason for that softness correct, heat haze is effecting the quality.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 12):
I would agree the aircraft is soft and I think the screener has got the reason for that softness correct, heat haze is effecting the quality.

I understand the soft. But I am not aggre about the heat haze. ¿Where is hate haze in the aircraft?

Thanks Darren


User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Clearly heat hazed, you can see the 'waves' coming off the ground.. and they do not dissipate immediatly thereafter  


Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Maybe it's because I'm tired and my eyes aren't at their best, but I'm not seeing much if any heat haze on the aircraft itself. However it is indeed a little soft. Nice shot anyway!

[Edited 2012-08-03 19:04:12]


Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

I have this overexposed rejection.

I can not see nothing overexposed in this picture.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3378398.9342120531-0035.d-aleh.jpg

I go to appeal. But before I would like some opinion.

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

Exposure looks ok, but the overall light is poor, and it looks a little soft.

User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2613 times:

Hi, I have this soft - dark rejection. I can understand the soft. But, is impossible to me understand is dark and backlit.

What is defined for the screener as backlit? Is fixable?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3844937.5176120703-0022.ei-exb.jpg

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 17):
Exposure looks ok, but the overall light is poor, and it looks a little soft.

Dana, After of see the poor light conditions in Faiford this year. I think poor light of this picture is even more correct And I understand even less the rejection.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3378398.9342120531-0035.d-aleh.jpg

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 18):
What is defined for the screener as backlit?

Light is coming from the other side than you are on, and/or the background is significantly brighter than the subject. In this case the former, as you can tell by looking at the vertical stabilizer.

Quoting bustin (Reply 18):
I think poor light of this picture is even more correct And I understand even less the rejection.

I'll stand by my comments the light is not that great, but you may be able to fix it by adjusting the levels, as it's also not completely terrible.

Quoting bustin (Reply 18):
Dana, After of see the poor light conditions in Faiford this year.

Yes, there were probably some poor-light images accepted, but in general the subjects were likely less common.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Thanks Dana,

I will try improved the pictures.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 19):
Yes, there were probably some poor-light images accepted, but in general the subjects were likely less common.

I understand that only the less common aircraft have acceptation options in cloudy poor light conditions? Any new reg. in the database (especially military) would also be applicable in this case?

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 20):
I understand that only the less common aircraft have acceptation options in cloudy poor light conditions? Any new reg. in the database (especially military) would also be applicable in this case?

Any new reg. will have slightly lower standards applied, but only slightly. Anything, blurry, unlevel, or in your case strongly backlit, etc.. will still be rejected.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

Hi, I have another dark rejection with "backlit" personal.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3986460.9579120208-0071.mm7224.jpg

I used this accepted pictures to reference.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy...d=2ae67ee086d8f25580d6d5f2fc476751
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy...d=2ae67ee086d8f25580d6d5f2fc476751

I would like because this difference of screenner criteria to some backlit rules. Is fixable the picture adding more brightness?

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Hi,

I have this soft rejection and this another rejection "Double check no working".

I understand and accept the soft rejection. But.....

How I still no received rejection messages from screeners. I do not understand which means this rejection.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...488261.8009120819-0028.91-0370.jpg

I would like some clarification of the screeners.

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

The image was rejected for soft; you can disregard the comments, they were not meant to be passed along.

25 bustin : Thanks Dana!!! Still, I am not getting rejection messages from the screeners. But, I am sure Airliners.net crew is working on resolving this problem.
26 Post contains links bustin : Hi, I have this soft rejection and this another rejection "You are warned for re-uploading an unchanged photo. "I understand and accept the soft rejec
27 Post contains links bustin : Hi, I have this two rejection today. 1.- Quality, soft, . But this personal "tail soft & chromatic aberration visible" http://www.airliners.net/pr
28 Post contains images dlowwa : Look at the blue outline around the engine nozzle and tail fins. This is a sure sign of a problem with your lens, and is also probably why most of yo
29 bustin : Thanks for your advice Dana, But respectfully, I have some objections. I understand the chromatic problem. Very rarely I have this problem. Although i
30 Post contains links dlowwa : No, as I stated chromatic aberration and localized softness/blurriness have nothing to do with editing, and are strictly equipment problems. Any lens
31 bustin : Ok Dana, Thanks. I will study the matter. Regards Bustin
32 Post contains links bustin : Hi I have this rejection today. Rejection- Compression. Personal: "artifacts in skhy" http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ame=x1349731023.769121008
33 Post contains links dlowwa : Jpeg artifacts are the visible result of too much compression. Artefacto de compresión. I actually don't see too much compression in the above image
34 bustin : Thanks Dana, I will re-edit the picture and I willl try improved soft an the bit noisy. Although, honestly, I do not really agree with this rejection
35 Post contains links bustin : Hi I have this rejection today. Rejection- Distance http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...me=t1350895718.8669121001-0145.jpg I have see multiples pic
36 dlowwa : Only distance? I'll admit the angle is not the best, but you've filled the frame with aircraft, so that shouldn't be an issue.
37 Post contains links bustin : I have only distance rejection Dana. This personal: "distance / motive, A/C need to be closer, " Distance http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reaso
38 dlowwa : I see a few minot quality issues, but you can appeal the distance rejection if you want. Edit: and in the future, you should argue your appeal with y
39 bustin : Sorry Dana. You're right. Will not happen again. I have appealed. I will wait the decision. Best Regards Bustin
40 bustin : Appealled and rejected again by distance and motive with this personal ""Motive also, aircraft are part blocked." Sigh*..... Sorry. I'm really frustr
41 Post contains links bustin : Hi, I have this rejection. Dark and this personal ""still dark and very poor light" http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...544828.4175121023-0016.ec-l
42 dlowwa : I thought I already saw this one being denied in appeal? The nose is almost overexposed, while the rest of the aircraft is almost in shadow.
43 Post contains links bustin : Hi, Today I have this two pictures rejected. First: Soft and grainy rejection. I can not see what is soft and of course I don´t see grainy. http://ww
44 dlowwa : Sorry, the quality is quite poor for both of these. If you would like, I can take a look at the originals to tell you if they are fixable, but based
45 bustin : Thanks Dana. I have take a look to original F-18 picture. The picture is no blurry. Here, I have been very careful about blurry. Still, I no see grain
46 dlowwa : Ok, but I'm not sure why you are asking for advice if you are just going to refuse the feedback you receive, as well as the offer of help. If you're
47 bustin : Sorry Dana. I did not want to be disrespectful to your advice. Possibly my bad English, again, gave you that impression. I appreciate all the opinion
48 dlowwa : There is no need for you to upload it here; my offer was for you to contact me directly so I can have a look. I would be happy to admit I am wrong, a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Post Screening - Bustin
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format