len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:44 am

So I've been quiet for a bit as photography is not my job, career, etc. It's my hobby and passion to take me away from the stress of everyday life. Life for the past 8 weeks has been insanely busy with just a few small breaks for me to get out and spot with minimal time to upload or post. It seems like every now and then the screening team here decides to have a little fun prompting me to speak up and question...

Let's take a look at two recent rejections:
Rejection Number 1
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 434951f9bf
Original rejection: Dark and Soft
Appeal rejection: Blurry, Personal, Quality, Underexposed with the comment of "sorry Len but quite some of your shots suffer from a slight blur like this"

Anybody want to point out the slight blur... especially when the site has a tendency to accept such examples as this: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... /4156055/L Not to mention there are also accepted images that I have in similar conditions here: http://www.airliners.net/search?datePho ... user=39305

Rejection Number 2
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5979063555
Original rejection: soft and underexposed
Appeal Rejection: Blurry, Motive, Personal, Quality, Underexposed with the comment of "motive for clipped stabilizer"

Motive? But how can that be a motive rejection when the airliners.net acceptance guide rules on Motive states:
In this image the horizontal stabilizer is also clipped. However since there is equal space in front of the nose and to the right of the tail this is allowed

Let's take a look at the numbers: The nose to the edge of the frame is 7 pixels. The tip of the antenna on the tail to the edge of the frame is 8 pixels. So how again is this not balanced and therefore NOT a motive rejection? The original screener actually had it right in not putting this as motive. As for the exposure this goes back to a prior statement and topic of how the site wants you to overexpose and alter the appearance of the image from how it appeared when you actually shot the picture.


Input would greatly be appreciated.

And while we are at it, if the "blurry" police wold pay half as close attention to color casts maybe, just maybe we will have some consistency. Just utilize N304JB's arrival into JFK on 2/21 as a clear example.
Len90
 
JKPhotos
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:31 pm

Hi Len,


1.) AA738: Brightness seems okay to me, I personally would not say it is underexposed. As for the sharpness, there is something about the American titles that makes them look soft in my opinion. It might be just from editing though (e.g. working too much on an existing file).

2.) UA738: My first thought was obvious motive rejection for a cut stabilizer on a side-on. I always thought this is a clear motive rejection as it doesn't look properly motivated to be honest. Still having searched for the rejection guide, to my big surprise (and as you stated above) the picture of the Thomson 737 clearly states otherwise.
So either it is acceptable or the guide needs an update. I don't think this point was touched in the last years, still the common sense that was always used in the forum here was that such is a motive rejection.

Sorry if I can't say anything else, but I am irritated as well.

Cheers,
Julien
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:12 am

Thanks Julien for the response.

AA: No heavy work on it. Levels, sharpen, and resize. Equalized to check for dust.

As for the clipped stabilizer, I had a plane on the ground with a clipped stabilizer accepted in early 2016. I don't recall seeing any sort of rule changes in the past year.
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:07 am

Hi Len,

#1: I don't find it underexposed, but the quality looks a bit marginal. The new AA scheme is a PITA to work on, especially the titles. They always get either soft or OS when editing. But there is some sort of slight blur in the front section of the fuselage & titles. Thanks for the A350 link, that photo looks horribly blurry and I will try to get it corrected.

#2: The image does look blurry/soft and quite underexposed. Regarding motive, I guess the Acceptance Guide does support your claim.

Image
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12122
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:39 am

len90 wrote:
As for the clipped stabilizer, I had a plane on the ground with a clipped stabilizer accepted in early 2016. I don't recall seeing any sort of rule changes in the past year.


It depends on the angle of the photo and how it would look with the full stab visible. In my opinion, the clipping in your shot is borderline-unjustified (disregarding the rejection guide). I don't think the photo would have suffered at all from including the stab.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:10 am

Appreciate the responses.

It appears the phantom rejection reasons are continuing....

1. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1f3a85a4a3
Original rejection: Soft/Low In Frame
Appealed: 10 pixel difference between the highest point of the fuselage and the top of the frame vs the lowest point of the fuselage to the bottom of the frame meaning a redo would be 5 pixels most. Also didn't see any soft spots.
Appeal Rejection: Quality and Blurry.

A look at the full size: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 94/sizes/l

2. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fd1385f7fd
Rejection: Dark, Soft, Halos
Appealed due to not seeing anything like what the screener is. Maybe give a benefit of the doubt for slight softness on the tail.
Appeal Rejection: Underexposed and High in Frame. Personal comment: "no halos and sharpness fine"

A look at the numbers now: lowest point of fuselage to bottom of frame 224 pixels. highest point of fuselage to top of the frame 257 pixels. So how exactly is this high in frame? I know the argument from the other side will be the wing, but look at the database and you'll see MANY examples framed this exact same way. As for the underexposed... maybe the only plausible reason and that to me is critical.

3. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a9b0150250
Rejection: Soft, Dark, Halos
Appealed: Same reason as for number 2.
Awaiting Appeal.

4. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3f5b5c3a9b
Rejection: Soft, Dark, Halos
Awaiting appeal queue space

5. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 098ac745be
Rejection: Soft and Dark (at least no halos rejection in this shot).

I think the ironic part here is in both rejections that went through the appeal process none of the original reject reasons were upheld. Instead we probed to find new reasons. The Southwest shot truly baffles me with how a HS wants to label that as a High in Frame when it is the exact same setup as these:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-A ... k9qg%3D%3D
http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-A ... k9qg%3D%3D
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwes ... k9qg%3D%3D
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:16 pm

Hi Len,

1) I agree on blurry/quality. The original photo does look blurry and quite marginal quality.
2) I agree on underexposed, centering is passable for me.
3) -
4) -
5) Looks blurry/soft.
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:57 pm

Kas, appreciate the response. Those two in appeal came back with overshaprened, underexposed, quality and blurry. Was that you? Do you agree?
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:22 pm

That wasn't me, but I am sorry for the results of your latest batch. That's far from fun for me too.

Regarding the 2 earlier photos, I do kinda agree with the result. Thing is, when the images are slightly blurry and then sharpened, it's a short route to being blurry/OS. The exposure can always be fixed of course. It seems your images are usually underexposed/dark, so perhaps that's something to take into account when editing?
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:27 pm

airkas1 wrote:
That wasn't me, but I am sorry for the results of your latest batch. That's far from fun for me too.

Regarding the 2 earlier photos, I do kinda agree with the result. Thing is, when the images are slightly blurry and then sharpened, it's a short route to being blurry/OS. The exposure can always be fixed of course. It seems your images are usually underexposed/dark, so perhaps that's something to take into account when editing?

What does kinda agree mean? Are you on the fence about it? Do you feel it is being a bit on the more critical side?
This batch had that lower sun angle with deeper shadow. I opted to keep it natural as to what it presented with instead of overexposing post processing. I'll bump exposures by like 0.25-0.35???

With that said the original screener was completely wrong. Hopefully that is something that gets looked into on the other end.
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:08 pm

len90 wrote:
What does kinda agree mean?

It means I agree with the rejection.


len90 wrote:
With that said the original screener was completely wrong. Hopefully that is something that gets looked into on the other end.

All screeners get the appeals results in their E-mail inbox. We are expected to look it over and adjust our screening based on the results.
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:47 pm

Where's the blur on this and how can an image be OS if I didn't apply any sharpening?
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6333dc4d53
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:52 pm

The cheatlines are quite jaggy. If you didn't apply any sharpening, then resizing could've been the culprit. As for the blur, it just looks slightly blurry in general.
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:07 am

airkas1 wrote:
The cheatlines are quite jaggy. If you didn't apply any sharpening, then resizing could've been the culprit. As for the blur, it just looks slightly blurry in general.

Here's the full size: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 3/sizes/o/

So what do you do in a case where there is no post processing sharpening and downsizing for the site causes it. It seems lately I have come under more critical screening. My acceptance rate has gone down to basically 0 since speaking up. One can only hope it is a coincidence.

The thing that is funny is I always thought the point of screening is to look to accept not find ways to reject.
Len90
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:47 am

The full sized image does not show jaggies on the cheat lines. Therefore it is likely happening during resizing. Ordinarily I would recommend uploading at a larger image size, but in this case, the full size image shows areas that are blurry (nose and nose gear) and would probably show. You might also try to resize in steps. i.e reduce from full size to say, 1900 pix, then resize again to 1600 pix and finally to 1200 pix. I have found that it can reduce the appearance of jaggies.

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
JKPhotos
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:08 am

Such a livery with some small waivy lines will always show jaggies upon significantly resizing the shot. And yes generally the smaller you go the worse it gets.
So you can try to reduce it by resizing in steps or selectively applying some gaussian blur to these lines.It should help to reduce it.
You can't fully avoid it though.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:11 pm

Hi Len,

Just saw the Gulfstream in the DB, nice! The current version does not look jaggy, what turned out to be the issue in the end?
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:13 am

airkas1 wrote:
Hi Len,

Just saw the Gulfstream in the DB, nice! The current version does not look jaggy, what turned out to be the issue in the end?

Setting with resizing on photoshop. Worked with Manny. Also tweaked a few things on the routine used for editing.
Len90
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:08 am

Does anybody see this as being a noisy sky? My main display this week is a Retina so tough to see true pixels for noise. I've looked on my phone and iPad and did not see noticeable noise in the sky as well. Another thing is there was some faint snow falling at the time of the arrival so I wonder if that is what is being taken as noise by the screener.

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 74d2859ee0
Len90
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:13 am

len90 wrote:
Does anybody see this as being a noisy sky? My main display this week is a Retina so tough to see true pixels for noise. I've looked on my phone and iPad and did not see noticeable noise in the sky as well. Another thing is there was some faint snow falling at the time of the arrival so I wonder if that is what is being taken as noise by the screener.

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 74d2859ee0

Well, i didn't see any remarkable noise here too. It's ok for me.
Cheers,
Harry
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
JKPhotos
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:07 pm

Hi Len,
I am sorry to say but yes the sky is noisy (in terms of a.net standards).

Julien
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:33 pm

Julien what's the suggestion then to reduce the noise in the sky....
Select the plane, invert the selection and then do noise reduction or is there something better?
Len90
 
JKPhotos
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:15 pm

Hi Len,

yes I usually do it exactly in this way.
Should be an easy fix for your shot, as the noise is really not very prominent.

Cheers,
Julien
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:51 pm

So in the past few weeks things had gotten somewhat better but over the past two weeks I have been 5/5 on appeals. 5 wrongful acceptances is a bit many and I would definitely like to bring this forward to the screening team's attention. Would I be better just emailing screeners@ or is posting here sufficient.

I have these two that I am still looking at and want some more opinions on.

soft: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... eba66e464d
- I was thinking maybe borderline on the titles but really not sure.

soft/blurry: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 76ed6dd2df
- everything else that was rejected from this date has been accepted on appeal. This seems similar.
Len90
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:01 am

Hello Len ,
As you said , the first one's Title seems very soft. And the second one i think the title and the tail seem soft too and the windows seem blurry i guess .
Cheers,
Harry
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:22 am

len90 wrote:
So in the past few weeks things had gotten somewhat better but over the past two weeks I have been 5/5 on appeals. 5 wrongful acceptances is a bit many and I would definitely like to bring this forward to the screening team's attention. Would I be better just emailing screeners@ or is posting here sufficient.


Not sure what you mean by 5 wrongful acceptances. Did you mean 5 wrongful rejections? FYI, the screeners get notified of all appeal decisions. I used it for feedback in screening judgments.

len90 wrote:
soft: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... eba66e464d
- I was thinking maybe borderline on the titles but really not sure.


Front half of the a/c looks soft, but passable IMO. However, with some selective sharpening, your chances of getting this one accepted would be higher than trying an appeal.

len90 wrote:
soft/blurry: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 76ed6dd2df
- everything else that was rejected from this date has been accepted on appeal. This seems similar.


Looks blurry to me in the titles and tail insignia. You might try this at 1024 pixels + some selective sharpening.

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:37 am

jelpee wrote:
len90 wrote:
So in the past few weeks things had gotten somewhat better but over the past two weeks I have been 5/5 on appeals. 5 wrongful acceptances is a bit many and I would definitely like to bring this forward to the screening team's attention. Would I be better just emailing screeners@ or is posting here sufficient.


Not sure what you mean by 5 wrongful acceptances. Did you mean 5 wrongful rejections? FYI, the screeners get notified of all appeal decisions. I used it for feedback in screening judgments.

len90 wrote:
soft: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... eba66e464d
- I was thinking maybe borderline on the titles but really not sure.


Front half of the a/c looks soft, but passable IMO. However, with some selective sharpening, your chances of getting this one accepted would be higher than trying an appeal.

len90 wrote:
soft/blurry: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 76ed6dd2df
- everything else that was rejected from this date has been accepted on appeal. This seems similar.


Looks blurry to me in the titles and tail insignia. You might try this at 1024 pixels + some selective sharpening.

Jehan

Jehan... I meant 5 rejections that were accepted upon appeal so 5 incorrect rejections.
HarryLi wrote:
Hello Len ,
As you said , the first one's Title seems very soft. And the second one i think the title and the tail seem soft too and the windows seem blurry i guess .
Cheers,
Harry

Thanks

This one also got the blurry/soft: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 497fe02930
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:01 am

len90 wrote:
So in the past few weeks things had gotten somewhat better but over the past two weeks I have been 5/5 on appeals. 5 wrongful acceptances is a bit many and I would definitely like to bring this forward to the screening team's attention. Would I be better just emailing screeners@ or is posting here sufficient.

Hey Len, you can use headscreeners[at]airliners.net if you want to forward something like that.

Regarding your other 2 photos:
United: Tail logo bit blurry/soft, otherwise passable for me
Swift Air: passable
 
User avatar
jelpee
Screener
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:04 pm

Len,

Re. the UPS B767, the front half of the image looks blurry to me.

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu May 04, 2017 6:19 pm

Appreciate the responses and Kas for looking into things.

Just had these two:
United 739: Blurry
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5c29a3a775
- Maybe window line or is it more the conditions that makes it look that way?

NetJets Citation: Blurry, Soft, Noise, Vignette
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d438367ab3
- This one hit with four reasons is troubling me. I don't see any issues with soft, noise, or blurry. The vignette I'm assuming is the top left corner.
Len90
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri May 05, 2017 1:06 am

United 739: Blurry
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5c29a3a775
- Maybe window line or is it more the conditions that makes it look that way?

Regarding to this one, i think the window line seems blurry.

NetJets Citation: Blurry, Soft, Noise, Vignette
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d438367ab3
- This one hit with four reasons is troubling me. I don't see any issues with soft, noise, or blurry. The vignette I'm assuming is the top left corner.

And this one , the vignette indeed appears on the top left corner. And the tail and engine seems a little blurry i guess. But i don't consider that it has Noise problem.
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri May 05, 2017 1:34 pm

UA: Not that blurry, I would probably give you a pass on that one.
CJ: I don't see much obvious noise. Blurry, not that bad. Soft, maybe a litt, but the cheatlines are jaggy (OS). Vignetting I do see, left and right side of the frame, most noticeable in the upper left corner.
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri May 05, 2017 3:03 pm

Thanks Kas! For the United 739 would I be better off appealing that one or going with this angle: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 204861b282 I think that second angle would still need a little bit of brightening looking at it again

This one was hit for a vignette after a HQ1... will recheck it over the weekend with equalizing unless someone else can give it a glance. Doesn't look like much to the naked eye, especially with the lighting being so bright (sunshine + snow). http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e5d969c5c5
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri May 05, 2017 3:41 pm

RE: UA 737, that's entirely up to you. I agree with you that the second photo would need a bit more brightness.
The CL30 looks quite nice.

Did you get new gear or something? Please don't take this the wrong way, but the quality of these photos looks much better than what I've seen from you in the past.
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri May 05, 2017 11:57 pm

CL30 being appealed then.

No new gear. My lens was at Canon a few weeks ago for a tweak of the focus but all of these pictures are from before that was done. I worked with a screener who is a friend on tweaking my post processing. There was one or two changes to some settings in photoshop that fixed it up.
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat May 06, 2017 6:21 am

CL30 accepted.

len90 wrote:
No new gear. My lens was at Canon a few weeks ago for a tweak of the focus but all of these pictures are from before that was done. I worked with a screener who is a friend on tweaking my post processing. There was one or two changes to some settings in photoshop that fixed it up.

Nice, glad it paid off!
 
User avatar
Kaphias
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:29 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat May 06, 2017 12:59 pm

len90 wrote:
There was one or two changes to some settings in photoshop that fixed it up.

I'd be curious to know what these were Len, if you don't mind sharing– always looking for anything that could help my photos!
Matthew
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 3:22 pm

Thanks Kas!

The two changes I made were resizing before sharpening and it is now bicubic for the sampling. Sharpening now in masks to only selectively sharpen areas that need it.

Three more rejections today:
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d6f90cec04
Dark, low contrast, low in frame
- I personally don't see the low in frame or contrast to be too bad. Dark looks the most plausible of the three reasons given

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8c3ce0f95c
Low contrast; this one will most likely be one I appeal given how similar the contrast is almost identical to this one: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Saudi-Me ... vqJMMVA%3D

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 349ba0b40e
Low contrast, colour, personal (magenta cast and low contrast)
- not too sure on this one

Regardless, all three are not far off.
Len90
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 3:41 pm

Hi, Len
In my opinion, the contrast and the exposure of the above photos are fine. But regarding to the first one, it seems indeed a little low in frame but not very serious. And the color of the last one seems ok for me actually. Maybe the cloud seems a little magenta but .... i think is ok.
Cheers,
Harry
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 4:26 pm

HarryLi wrote:
Hi, Len
In my opinion, the contrast and the exposure of the above photos are fine. But regarding to the first one, it seems indeed a little low in frame but not very serious. And the color of the last one seems ok for me actually. Maybe the cloud seems a little magenta but .... i think is ok.
Cheers,
Harry

The low in frame: looks to be around 10 pixels difference from top most part of tail to top of frame vs the bottom of nose gear to bottom of frame.
Magenta cast: tending to agree with you on the cloud making it look that way. Color similar to this accepted one: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... LR/4346143
Contrast on that image looks to be similar to this one: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... -8/4342643

Appreciate the quick reply
Len90
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 4:53 pm

len90 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
Hi, Len
In my opinion, the contrast and the exposure of the above photos are fine. But regarding to the first one, it seems indeed a little low in frame but not very serious. And the color of the last one seems ok for me actually. Maybe the cloud seems a little magenta but .... i think is ok.
Cheers,
Harry

The low in frame: looks to be around 10 pixels difference from top most part of tail to top of frame vs the bottom of nose gear to bottom of frame.
Magenta cast: tending to agree with you on the cloud making it look that way. Color similar to this accepted one: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... LR/4346143
Contrast on that image looks to be similar to this one: http://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... -8/4342643

Appreciate the quick reply

If according to your method ... it seems ok ... not very sure now .. :beady:
But i think others can have a try to appeal .... ~
Best wishes,
Harry
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 5:07 pm

Hey Len,

All 3 look passable.
Snow on the ground, correct?
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 6:11 pm

Correct, taken the day after a snowstorm. Assume contrast can only be judged in these by the tires and maybe windows?
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 7:17 pm

Yeah, I usually go by the tires in those cases.
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 07, 2017 9:41 pm

Thanks Kas. Saw the first two were added. I'll do an appeal on the third (CR2).
Len90
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 14, 2017 1:19 am

Two more today:

soft
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 51d222ba25
- maybe windows around the titles?

blurry
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5fb544e4bf
- only thing that is burry to me are the props which is supposed to be unless you shoot ridiculously high shutter to freeze them and the plane looks like it is gliding
Len90
 
User avatar
HarryLi
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 14, 2017 4:50 am

Hello Len,
The sharpness of the first one seems ok. Regarding to the second one,seems ok for me.
I am a Guangzhou Spotter. My photos are here : http://www.airliners.net/search?user=20 ... =viewCount :D
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 14, 2017 8:17 am

A320: Looks ok to me
DH8A: Looks ok to me

We do not reject for blurry prop blades.
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun May 14, 2017 1:50 pm

airkas1 wrote:
A320: Looks ok to me
DH8A: Looks ok to me

We do not reject for blurry prop blades.


Thanks so I'll put an appeal on both.
Len90
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat May 20, 2017 1:34 pm

Was on a really nice stretch this week with the one rejection being nicely explained.

Got these 4 rejections today:

Underexposed:
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4f3c0273da

Dark:
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0aee6203f7
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1e4c520b15
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1404c3bb46

All screened at about the same time.
Len90

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos