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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 4 days ago) and read 3392 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 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3365 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3296 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 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3257 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3236 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3111 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, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3089 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3052 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, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3041 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2793 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, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2789 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2756 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, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2753 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2751 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 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2737 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 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2713 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2653 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 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

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

User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2578 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 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2564 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2554 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 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2548 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2520 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2411 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 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

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

User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 24):
The image was rejected for soft; you can disregard the comments, they were not meant to be passed along.

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.
I am receiving messages of accepted photos from screeners and congratulations support without problem.

Best Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

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 rejection. But.....Why the warning?

The first rejection was "tail soft". Then, I processed again the picture of similar way and only added some more sharp in the tail area and re-uploaded. I improved the picture.

Sorry, with all my respect. I can not accept this warning. No reason to it.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...632436.0315120811-0029.91-0388.jpg

Best Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2335 times:

Hi,

I have this two rejection today.

1.- Quality, soft, . But this personal "tail soft & chromatic aberration visible"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...888021.6461100417-0082.05-4098.jpg

2.- Quality, Blurry, soft. Personal "tail blurry & chromatic aberration visible"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...890756.4548120819-0057.92-3902.jpg

I can uderstand blurry or soft rejection...But, after of 2729 pictures accepted, this is the first time I receive "chromatic aberration visible" rejection. Do any screener could explain the significance of this rejection? I can not see any aberration here.

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2331 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 27):
Do any screener could explain the significance of this rejection?

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 your images have very soft/blurry left sides. Your lens is either performing very poorly at the extremes, or has become de-centered. You might want to have it checked out.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Thanks for your advice Dana, But respectfully, I have some objections.

I understand the chromatic problem. Very rarely I have this problem. Although it is clear that in these pictures exist.

I have a Nikkor 70-300ED VR. I think this is a good quality lens.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 28):
why most of your images have very soft/blurry left sides.

Sincereslly I think the problem is more to get correct editing to airliners standards issue than lens quality.

Also. I think it can be cause I can to use incorrect set camera in extreme contrast light conditions. I have not this problems with good light.

In most of the time I accept and respect but I do not agree with these rejections. But I understand that airliners.net screeners have a very particular quality standards. Especially for soft / sharp / blurry.
In many of the pictures I see nothing blurry in the original file. But after are blurry rejected, although sometimes I was able to fix the problem after re-edit the photo.

Anyway, I'm sure when I have time I'll go check out the lens. It is always possible that you're effectively right.

Again Thanks to you good advise.

Regards
Antonio


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 29):
Sincereslly I think the problem is more to get correct editing to airliners standards issue than lens quality.

No, as I stated chromatic aberration and localized softness/blurriness have nothing to do with editing, and are strictly equipment problems.

Quoting bustin (Reply 29):
I have a Nikkor 70-300ED VR. I think this is a good quality lens.

Any lens can have flaws, even a mid-range one like yours. In fact yours has been known to be soft at the edges and have strong chromatic aberration at the long end of the zoom, just as I have indicated above.

See a report on the performance of your lens here. Note how it shows soft corners and strong chromatic aberration at 300mm.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Ok Dana, Thanks.

I will study the matter.

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

Hi

I have this rejection today. Rejection- Compression. Personal: "artifacts in skhy"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ame=x1349731023.769121008-0180.jpg

I can not see any compression problem here. And I don´t know what is "airtfact". This is a knew words for me in screening.

I would like a clarification of this rejection.

Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 32):
And I don´t know what is "airtfact".

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, though it is soft and a bit noisy. Noise can often be misidentified as compression, and vice-versa.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

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 in this time

Regards
Antonio


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1530 times:

Hi

I have this rejection today. Rejection- Distance
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...me=t1350895718.8669121001-0145.jpg

I have see multiples pictures accepted of apron in distance with several aicraft. I only used C-17 register to reference.

For me this rejection no make sense.

I would like a clarification of this rejection before appeal

Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1518 times:

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.

User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1517 times:

I have only distance rejection Dana.

This personal: "distance / motive, A/C need to be closer, "

Distance http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#distance.

How can you show a line of six heavy in apron closing more the plane?

Does worth appeal?

Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 37):
Does worth appeal?

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 your own reasons, and not include such comments as "A headscreener in the feedback forum has the same opinion". It may look like favoritism if I then handle the appeal, and in any case, whoever handles the appeal with make their own decision.

[Edited 2012-10-31 14:41:59]

User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 38):
not include such comments as "A headscreener in the feedback forum has the same opinion".

Sorry Dana. You're right. Will not happen again.
I have appealed. I will wait the decision.

Best Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 38):
but you can appeal the distance rejection if you want.

Appealled and rejected again by distance and motive with this personal ""Motive also, aircraft are part blocked."

Sigh*..... Sorry. I'm really frustrated by this rejection. Especially by the rejection by distance. I do not understand.

And I do not know what part of the plane is blocked.

I only went show the apron full of military heavies.

Thanks..
Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1394 times:

Hi,

I have this rejection. Dark and this personal ""still dark and very poor light"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...544828.4175121023-0016.ec-lkhz.jpg

Sorry.. But,I don´t understand what is dark in this picture. But, more... Why very poor light? This is a nice early morning light picture. Very usual in Airliners.net

I would like some opinion of if is possible fix this picture. Make sense the appeal?

Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 41):
Make sense the appeal?

I thought I already saw this one being denied in appeal?

Quoting bustin (Reply 41):
Why very poor light?

The nose is almost overexposed, while the rest of the aircraft is almost in shadow.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1293 times:

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://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...666789.5325121017-0051.ec-404z.jpg

Second: Grainy, blurry and oversharp. I can not see nothing incorrect here. Where is grainy? And blurry?
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...3666943.3174120924-0054.162400.jpg

I would like some advise to know if this pictures are fixable to re-upload.

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1280 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 43):
Today I have this two pictures rejected.

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 on just the images above, I'd say probably not.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Thanks Dana.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 44):
I can take a look at the originals to tell you if they are fixable, but based on just the images above, I'd say probably not.

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 grainy (No more that another pictures in accepted database). But this is easy to fix.


I know that the light conditions are not the best. But, again, this is not cause for rejection in A.net. I can see many examples of photos with this light accepted.
More, I have a similar photos accepted.

Regards
Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 45):
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 grainy (No more that another pictures in accepted database). But this is easy to fix.


I know that the light conditions are not the best. But, again, this is not cause for rejection in A.net. I can see many examples of photos with this light accepted.
More, I have a similar photos accepted.

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 so sure the original is not blurry, it also seems strange you are not willing to share it to prove what you say.


User currently offlinebustin From Spain, joined May 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 46):
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 so sure the original is not blurry, it also seems strange you are not willing to share it to prove what you say.

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 opinions and advice, especially from you. Only, this time I disagree about the blurry rejection. Nothing more. You say, it's blurry. I see nothing blurry. I think there is nothing wrong (disrespectful) on it.
I have no space to upload the original here. And it's not important. I can try another picture.

Thanks and again I apologize if I bothered with my replies.

Regards

Bustin


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1249 times:

Quoting bustin (Reply 47):
I have no space to upload the original here. And it's not important. I can try another picture.

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, and that the image is not blurry, but I would need to see it first. If that's the case (it's not actually blurry), I can also help you do a better edit. Let me know.


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