bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:22 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:55 pm

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:22 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:43 am

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:32 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:57 am

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
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:36 pm

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:36 am

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
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:22 pm

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:35 pm

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
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:03 pm

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:14 am

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
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:01 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:10 am

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
 
Tomskii
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:42 am

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:42 pm

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
 
darreno1
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:58 am

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:03 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:22 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:59 am

Exposure looks ok, but the overall light is poor, and it looks a little soft.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:57 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:48 am

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:13 am

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:26 am

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:31 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:37 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:36 am

The image was rejected for soft; you can disregard the comments, they were not meant to be passed along.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:16 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:46 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:40 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:21 pm

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:11 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:45 pm

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:51 pm

Ok Dana, Thanks.

I will study the matter.

Regards

Bustin
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:13 am

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:50 pm

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:59 pm

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:56 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:08 pm

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:26 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:34 pm

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]
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:28 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:29 am

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
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:10 am

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:21 am

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:40 am

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:46 am

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:03 am

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:24 am

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.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:32 pm

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
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Post Screening - Bustin

Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:11 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest