Right. Must say though, looks pretty normal/good to me. I've seen a lot worse accepted. I was really looking around the gear and lower portions of the aircraft.Jump to post
Thanks DL for the feedback. I have tried a smaller edit. Any better? http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/3/7/5121739.jpg?v=v47a993f2324 Also having trouble with this one. Seems a pretty simply sunny side on to me but have had two rejections so far. Here is the latest rejection http://img...Jump to post
Hi all, Had this one rejected a few days ago for '' Blurry Editing Personal Message'' http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/1/2/5085217.jpg?v=v4d8f55a0b70 Screeners message was "CA visible" I'm not sure what that means. Any help? Seems comparable to this one (also rejected and ac...Jump to post
Sorry bout the bad link. Try this one...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OJ-NCz ... sp=sharing
Can I also get some help on this one, rejected for blurry, Overexposed Soft Noise http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/7/8/5065871.jpg?v=v436f701dced Here's the original raw file. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OJ-NCz7Hk0TZyhvW-HmvJziHWb-Rkflb Quality seems good to me. Having a hard ti...Jump to post
dutchspotter1 wrote:RAAF MRTT could use some more contrast.
Thanks for the opinions. I have had another go at the RAAF MRTT. Agree that light is not great, but I have others accepted from this day/time in same light so I think I can make it work. Here's my latest edit http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/2/6/5081625.jpg?v=v4d2be0fe853 Also added s...Jump to post
Hey everyone, I have three more rejects I'd appreciate feedback on before appealing. RAAF MRTT - http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/0/2/5061205.jpg?v=v49f7b5321f1 Rejected for -Overexposed Soft Low in Frame Noise Heat Haze (I see no evidence of any of these issue. Exposure is conssitent...Jump to post
UPS was accepted on appeal.
Hey Steve, - The UPS just always looks off (not just yours, but every photo. The titles are a pain to get right). I would agree that it looks on par with many other UPS photos in the DB. - The AA has a strong line of glare on the fuselage, which is likely the cause for the overexposed rejection. Pe...Jump to post
Thanks for the reply Harry. I've been uploading at 1400 and 1600pxls lately and have had more success than the previous two years uploading at 1200. As Kas said in a post above. With my current camera, I've found that sometimes resizing the photo to a smaller size looks worse than at a larger size. ...Jump to post
Here's the AA link https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 685f633f46
UPS just came back rejected for Blurry Soft http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/9/7/5051791.jpg?v=v4f1c4d7a8ce Not sure what the iffy part is you refer to Kas, but the original does not appear blurry and this edit seems comparable in quality to other additions to the db. Can I also get a...Jump to post
Thanks for the confirmation of os.
I have tried another edit with less sharpening on those areas.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1c4d7a8ce
Would love some opinions on this one. Rejected for overexposed oversharpened. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/3/7/5040731.jpg?v=v4ce55f40e2b I get its bright but that is a true representation of the light at the time. Lowering the exposure makes the dark areas of the tail too dark. S...Jump to post
Thanks all for the replies. Glad to know I'm not missing anything. I have just appealed. Will keep my fingers crossed and let you know.
Hi again, Hoping for some advice on this one. Rejected for Soft Vignetting http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/3/7/5035731.jpg?v=v48b31502b4a Firstly, is the sky so bad? Looks to me just like the sky in other wide angle shots. There are no dark areas in the top corners either. Secondly, ...Jump to post
Yeah both were accpeted last night. Not sure what happened. Neither was marked for priority screening but somehow got picked up with other shots I had in the queue 5027099,5027109 Thanks all for the help getting the QR shot on. What still puzzles me is that it was knocked back for 'blurry' at 1400px...Jump to post
Sorry, second link is wrong. Try this...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 21ee4abadc
Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to provide some feedback. Glad to hear the original is indeed sharp enough. Even after years of uploading here, I still struggle to get the sharpening right. I've had another go taking on Kaz's advice. Any thoughts on this one... http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos...Jump to post
But I agree that it's blurry and OS, I'd probably let it go to be honest. Sorry Kaz but im pretty shocked at that. The original raw file is about as good as it gets for me. Its quality and sharpness on par, or better than many other shots I've had accepted here. Take a look. Here is the original ra...Jump to post
Hi all, Had this one rejected for 'oversharpened underexposed'. I felt the quality matched my other recent acceptances so I appealed. Came back rejected for 'Blurry Oversharpened Motive Personal Message Quality'. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/6/2/5013263.jpg?v=v4f503c0510d Personal...Jump to post
So... I guess I'll try an appeal if there is no other feedback.
Hi all, Looking for some feedback on this one http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/5/8/4909851.jpg?v=v4376a3fe0fb Rejected for blurry and oversharpened. The quality of the original and the editing I believe is on par with these accpeted shots. 4743355,4734565,4750293 Like my other shots f...Jump to post
Seems to be working OK now.
Yeah, I can't upload either
''Oops! An Error Occurred
The server returned a "500 Internal Server Error".
Had this one rejected....
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 852cd01fda
for BlurryOversharpenedCommonHigh in Frame
Would love help pinpointing the blur and oversharpening. Also the framing seems OK to me but would appreciate thoughts.
airkas1 wrote:The lower windowline and titles just seem too marginal on this one. It could indeed also be brighter by at least +0.20.
Hi again Hoping for some help pinpointing blur, compression and oversharpening on this one. Also rejected for underexposed. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/9/0/4848095.jpg?v=v4da525053ff I am comparing to this shot below which was taken same day location and shows a similar angle. 47...Jump to post
Thanks Kas. I didn't see your post till after the Qatar was screened. Here is the shot so others can see. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/0/4824061.jpg?v=v4537d45aa72 Rejected for 'Compression Oversharpened High Contrast'. Still hoping to learn how to better spot compression issues...Jump to post
Sorry, forgot to add the link!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f00bac4726
Looking for advice on another one.... Rejected for Blurry Soft. Just trying to pinpoint the blur. Sharpness looks aceptable to me and seems consistent to these recent accepted shots of mine (taken same day) 4755517,4729281 .. but I have no confidence judging sharpness! Any thoughts? Would still appr...Jump to post
Thanks Harry. Slightly soft along windows... but no blur. Would love a screeners thoughts on where the blur is. Blur seems to be getting used a lot lately. After many years in the hobby, and much improved photography/ editing skills and equipment, I have more shots rejected for blur than ever before...Jump to post
Thanks Chris and Julien.
Sorry here is the second link...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7b15f3330a
Hi again all, Can I get some opinions on this one... http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/4/8/4813847.jpg?v=v4a260922dba Rejected for Oversharpened Noise Underexposed. Sharpness seems on par with other Emirates A380 shots I've seen accepted lately. Noise and exposure I don't think are kil...Jump to post
No worries. Thanks for the explanation and feedback both of you.
Thanks Harry and Vik.
How about the framing on the EK shot? Is that low in frame a killer?
Hey Steve, Comparing both photos side-by-side, the rejected one has sharper titles. The quality is about the same though. Oversharpened titles? or within acceptable tolerances? I have a few more rejections for feedback. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/3/2/4782231.jpg?v=v471c47ca08b ...Jump to post
Just had a similar Qantas A330 shot accepted...
Thanks for the replies Vik and Chris. I do appreciate the feedback. Chris I may take you up on that offer. I'll try a smaller 1080 edit first and see how it looks. I appealed the Qantas A330 and Embraer. Both rejections upheld. A330 - BlurryOversharpenedQuality Embraer - Blurry Quality What a joke! ...Jump to post
Happy new year all, Hoping for some feedback on these rejections.... http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/3/8/4762831.jpg?v=v442b2c5c7f5 Rejected fo rOversharpened Noise Heat Haze. To me seems on par with these... 4761751,4734565,4746571 http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/5/4...Jump to post
Thanks Julien and Kas. Etihad was accepted on appeal. Will rework the Korean. Nice to know 'not great' shots still have a chance! I have another question about a cropped stabilizer. This one was done for BlurryOversharpenedCommon. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/5/8/4730857.jpg?v=v41...Jump to post
Thanks Harry, I adjusted the contrast and it was accepted a few days ago. Here's another few for consideration. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/6/5/4734567.jpg?v=v4f8c9436e3d Common Sof tNoise Heat Haze http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/6/5/4734565.jpg?v=v49efd625923 So...Jump to post
Hi again, Scratching my head at this one. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/6/4/4719469.jpg?v=v4b215a7b135 Rejected for ''Personal Message High in Frame Low in Frame'' Personal message was "Needs more contrast based on lighting. Also, this image is high in the frame and needs cent...Jump to post
Thanks for the feedback all. Second edit was just accepted on appeal.
Just had two more rejections. This http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/7/8/4665877.jpg?v=v42fd51c88b0 Rejected for Oversharpened Common Noise Underexposed Again, these seem harsh to me... but I would appreciate your thoughts as always. Steve So I brightened the mid tones slightly on the...Jump to post
Thanks Kas. Appreciate the heads up. I would say though that HIF and colour cast were not mentioned in the rejection of previous edit, or the first rejection of this (now accepted) edit. I guess if we all look hard enough, we can always find a reason to reject, I am just appreciative of the fact tha...Jump to post
Thanks for the feedback Harry and Paul. I have made adjustments based on your feedback and submitted to the queue. Will let you know how they go. Paul, I too am struggling to get a sufficient explanation/indication for compression. I started this thread in the hope of being able to learn more about,...Jump to post
Just had two more rejections. This http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/7/8/4665877.jpg?v=v42fd51c88b0 Rejected for Oversharpened Common Noise Underexposed and this http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/6/4/4667465.jpg?v=v4ad69b1ea81 rejected for Common Soft High Contrast Noise ...Jump to post