Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejection Views Pls  
User currently offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

Just had a couple back - Appreciate comments to improve etc...

1. 'Soft & Dark'

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...4008233.7059g-tcba-egcc-220512.jpg

Early morning shot, sun just poppin up - pretty much as I remember it. I figured to 'lighten' the shot would take it out of context and probably blow some aspects'

'Soft', well I am struggling with that too and I know its been done to death on here (inc me) but i'm sure its probably justified.

Next

2. 'Colour'

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...15_b1344007761.99239v-swq-egcc.jpg

I use white balance, threshold and levels/curves etc..It would have been useful (to me) if the screener had put a small note on so I can see where its gone wrong - So again any hints/tips/tricks to sort that one appreciated pls?

Cheers T

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9767 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Thread starter):
1. 'Soft & Dark'

I'd agree. Looks a bit soft, and could probably stand a bit of brightening (though not much).

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Thread starter):
2. 'Colour'

No idea.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am far from being an expert here, but perhaps it's undersaturated?

I compare it to this photo of the same aircraft and the colors are more saturated (see the red flag over the wing, for example, and the yellow/orange stripes): http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singa...d=7fadc4c4c64e2793f7d784c9117cd3f1



John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1038 times:

Thx both

Vik, if you get a minute i'd be interested in where you see image 1 soft please?

John, appreciate your feedback, albeit considered a tad bad to compare like for like here. That said, its again down to light at the time. The flag is indeed 'red'

Certain paint jobs react almost dichotomously to light changes giving vibrant to almost flat comparisons - so I guess a valid question to ask is by what 'colour' standard are 'Screeners' judging accept/rejection?

cheers T


User currently offlinejpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I just had a batch rejected for bad color, so I'm far from the expert, but that's what I'm doing now...comparing to other shots of the same plane. Trying to make sure I don't go overboard in my editing and keep it close to other accepted photos in the db until,I get a better feel for a simpler workflow to tweak it just enough, and not too much.


John M - Aussie expat in the US
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9767 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 3):
Vik, if you get a minute i'd be interested in where you see image 1 soft please?

Titles, windows, and tail look a bit soft to me.

Quoting jpmagero (Reply 2):
I am far from being an expert here, but perhaps it's undersaturated?

I doubt it was rejected for that. Also, the lighting in the other shot looks different enough that a comparison probably isn't really valid.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1259 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1017 times:

I'll preface by saying I'm not a screener, and I get my share of rejections for color and soft too, but...

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Thread starter):

I use white balance, threshold and levels/curves etc..It would have been useful (to me) if the screener had put a small note on so I can see where its gone wrong - So again any hints/tips/tricks to sort that one appreciated pls?

I looked at it for a little while and at first could not decide, but I think it's just a little yellow. I took it into photoshop and slightly reduced the green and red in the curves, then pumped up the total curve just a bit. The result:

http://www.airliners.net/uf/120142/phpaOQNsl.jpeg

I would probably not brighten it this far in hindsight.

I don't know if this is necessarily better or if this would push it to acceptable, but it's the direction I would go - the whites seem cleaner, the temperature a little lower, and almost no detail was lost in the highlights.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5):
Titles, windows, and tail look a bit soft to me.

Same here. It was the Thomas Cook logo that first caught my eye, then the titles, particularly near the B757-200 script.

Was it very hot when the shot was taken?


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1010 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Thread starter):
1. 'Soft & Dark'

I would substitute the dark rejection for contrast, which is too harsh. I don't think increasing the exposure will help.

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Thread starter):
2. 'Colour'

I don't see color being an issue with this image.


User currently offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 981 times:

Thanks everyone for the feedback very useful. I seem to be a 'rejection' phase at the moment so I'm gonna have a fresh look.


Dana, do you think 2 is worth an appeal? I've had a closer look and wonder if it needs a bit of contrast?

Quoting cargolex (Reply 6):
Was it very hot when the shot was taken?

very strong rising sun first thing

thanks again T


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 8):
Dana, do you think 2 is worth an appeal?

Might be worth a try, at least to find out exactly what the issue with the color is.


User currently offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 969 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 9):
Might be worth a try, at least to find out exactly what the issue with the color is.

I've put it in Dana, I'm curious to see what the 2nd take on it is

Cheers T


User currently offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 950 times:

Got the appeal back - rejected: 'Nothing to do with colour, a little too high in the frame' Rejection reason now: 'Centered'

So no colour issue, thanks for everyone's help/advice on that one,

T


User currently offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 865 times:

Okay I am gonna put this back in the queue to see what people think.

I'm very open minded but this smacks - You get a rejection which no one seems to understand and appeal based on good feedback then get a completely subjective knock back about 'centre' absolutely nothing to do with the appeal reason as stated.

Are you judging the appeal on the reasons stated or not? Hence, in this case - if the 'color' wasn't an issue on appeal why is it that 'centre ' now is or vice versa?

On a personal note I've got to be honest and say that I am finding hugh inconsistencies with A.Net now

I feel this is important and in need of some candor. Hopefully people will put their heads above the parapet because 'screeners' are not right all the time.

cheers T


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2878 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 860 times:

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 12):
On a personal note I've got to be honest and say that I am finding hugh inconsistencies with A.Net now

You certainly aren't on your own with that. I rarely appealed screening decisions up to a few months ago but find myself appealing quite a few these days with many ending up being accepted. There's a lot of petty rejections in my view at the moment.

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 12):
You get a rejection which no one seems to understand and appeal based on good feedback then get a completely subjective knock back about 'centre' absolutely nothing to do with the appeal reason as stated.

I experience exactly the same just over a week ago. Photo rejected for contrast and grainy, appealed to find the heads agreed contrast and noise were acceptable but was then rejected for centre, with a photo of the same aircraft type taken from the same position with the same angle accepted with the same composition (centring) the day after. Work that one out!

Personally, I think the centring of your photo is fine and it doesn't need to be any lower in the frame. It looks balanced as it is to me with many examples in the database with the same composition. I guess centring is just the thing being cracked down upon at the moment.

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 offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 851 times:

Thanks Darren

I honestly feel people need to be more vocal about this - I've just had one accepted and one rejected 'grainy' in the last 15 mins - Yet I see photos from certain people that are grainy,soft and well...accepted.

I am now of the view its hit and miss with the screener you get. Real shame because theres some super stuff about and I do now wonder what i'm not seeing compared to what I'm being allowed to see.

Hopefully others will chip in

T


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 821 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 12):
I feel this is important and in need of some candor. Hopefully people will put their heads above the parapet because 'screeners' are not right all the time.

We are not, and that's what the appeal process is for, to try and correct the mistakes. Your image should not have been rejected for color, but for center. Mistakes happen all the time, and we do our best to minimize this, and rectify the ones that do occur. No one denies errors are made.

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 14):
Yet I see photos from certain people that are grainy,soft and well...accepted.

A common complaint that we hear all the time "you rejected mine when there are so many other of worse quality being accepted" but is rarely true. Feel free to provide some examples, and I guarantee that for nine out of ten them, what you claim will not be the case. People are just not very good at being critical of their own images, but are quick to find flaws in those of others.

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 14):
Real shame because theres some super stuff about and I do now wonder what i'm not seeing compared to what I'm being allowed to see.

Spectacular or rare images rarely get rejected for minor flaws, but common ones do. You're assumption is based on what you have experienced submitting the latter (no offense). If it is the 150th image of a BA 744 landing at LHR, then yes, standards are going to be extremely strict. If you've got an a2a of a British F-4, then we're going to be much more lenient. Unfortunate for those of us who can't get access to shots like that, but that's how it goes.


User currently offlineSoaring1972 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 798 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15):
Spectacular or rare images rarely get rejected for minor flaws, but common ones do. You're assumption is based on what you have experienced submitting the latter (no offense). If it is the 150th image of a BA 744 landing at LHR, then yes, standards are going to be extremely strict. If you've got an a2a of a British F-4, then we're going to be much more lenient. Unfortunate for those of us who can't get access to shots like that, but that's how it goes.

Nice to hear that! But is it true in reality?

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 13):
I guess centring is just the thing being cracked down upon at the moment.

Well, personaly for me I can not agree with that. But my alltime "favourite" rejection is "needs CW rotation"!


User currently offlineTonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 765 times:

Dana

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15):
People are just not very good at being critical of their own images, but are quick to find flaws in those of others.

- Certainly not my view, nor I suspect most who upload here regularly!

It is important that we are able to debate process and share views.

To be clear my point was A.Net ask you to be specific in your appeal submission, which I was, based on the rejection reason given me by the screener.

Are you saying that each and every appealed photograph is viewed afresh by the Head Screener? If yes, then its useful to know when formulating an appeal that you (Head Screener) will be looking at the whole composition again as well as the specific rejection reason(s).

Re 'high/low in frame my approach is for the overall composition of the shot. I believe Mick summed up centering by screeners in a reply to another question..."We are not looking for precision in centreing but for them to be about right...."

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15):
Feel free to provide some examples

Not something I thought you would advocate but one doesn't need to look far:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-M...d=9a8413e9b9a63a39af84b1433926af71

Its an 'of interest' example given the new airline etc...High? Again, matter of judgement in context.

Thus, I reiterate that to be rejected on appeal for 'centre' seems wrong to me on this occasion, a somewhat subjective category.

All that said, I remain happy to move on having learned something.

Cheers T


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 17):
Are you saying that each and every appealed photograph is viewed afresh by the Head Screener?

Yes, this has always been the case. If I see a dust spot that was missed on originally, I will add it to the rejection, just as centering was missed on yours, it was added by the head screener on appeal. The appeals process is there to correct mistakes made on the first screening, be they rejection reasons that should or shouldn't have been added.

Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 17):
Its an 'of interest' example given the new airline etc..

As I mentioned above, rare, old, and priority images often have more relaxed standards applied to them, so that image of importance, albeit with minor flaws, can be accepted. Again, this is nothing new.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Rejection Views Pls
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