I haven't uploaded for a while but is this really low contrast? Underexposed?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 882369.jpg
airkas1 wrote:We don't usually tell people how much degrees is needed, since that requires a lot of extra manual work. So that's not unusual at all. But since you ask, I would probably use 0.2-0.4 degrees.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/0/6/5325605.jpg?v=v45c28691e28 I don't believe this image was screened properly. And it was rejected after appeal for CCW rotation. Help would be appreciated as I am trying to understand this. and even after appealing it, they did not tell me how many...Jump to post
I appealed 3 rejections within the last 2 weeks and all 3 were accepted into the database. In fact one of the photos gained 2K views in 24 hours. You need to train your screeners better. Good thing the appeal function works properly then. Also, in the past 2 weeks you're 3/5 in appeals, not 3/3. Th...Jump to post
I had this photo rejected for being underexposed: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f0b149a037
and this one for "blurry": https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b71d38b569
I realized I took a photo of C-GWEA an aircraft that crashed and it makes me feel spooked. Anyone else?Jump to post
Not seeing over sharpening, but definitely blurry and also overexposed. Jehan I'm not showing those either. And my appeal was accepted. Screening so hit and miss here. So apparently three screeners in total have looked at this photo. The first one thinks it should be rejected, the second one disagr...Jump to post
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9a7c4cb190
I'm not seeing either
vikkyvik wrote:It could be a little brighter, but I'd say borderline at worst, and easily acceptable at best.
Contrast seems fine.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e09d969a82
Had this photo reject for underexposed and low contrast. I don't see that issue with it but I was wondering for a second opinion?
Are there any visible jpeg artifacts in this photo?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8fa50a198d
Potential photo of the aircraft in question according to Flightradar24 data
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Westwind ... 00/4556591
The lighting at the airport has the yellow tint
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 52e0324f5a
its not the brightest but i have seen at least one rather dark photo accepted here recently
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cywg/ ... -0100Z.mp3
ff to 4:30 and that's me calling ground. I was nervous. Aside from calling twice (I couldn't understand his first response) how did I do?
The lack of quality control in the screening department on airliners.net has become so bad it's not worth using the site anymore. Airliners.net = waste of time. Don't bother with it and don't listen to any advice the screeners give, because they're almost always wrong.Jump to post
It's hilarious how all you people are so used to getting photos rejected by icompentent, careless screeners that you find my situation normal.
[Edited 2015-06-17 12:30:48]
I had a photo rejected for soft and appealed it and the head screener rejected my appeal and said it was oversharpened! I have never dealt with such a corrupt and broken system. This website has really gone down hill fast. Oh my god how are they going to explain this one. This mail is sent to you to...Jump to post
Yesterday I had an image rejected and I appealed the rejection. When the head screener reviewed the photo they denied my appeal and added yet another rejection reason. What kind of gesture is that? That is completely uncalled for. How about showing some appreciation to photographers that help get th...Jump to post
<a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/APPEAL_20150419_w1428877334.792c-fwsy.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...20150419_w1428877334.792c-fwsy.jpg</a> Had this shot rejected for being too high in the frame and over sharpened. I'm not sure I agree with either! ...Jump to post
I was wondering your opinions on this shot?
Good afternoon. I added more sharpness. Does it look alright now?
I was wondering if the sharpness is acceptable for the image above?
Make sure you set sharpness to zero and turn off the D-lighting feature on your Nikon camera. There are several autofocus modes on that camera, which one are you using? Also what settings are you shooting at? It would help to know the aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings. Make sure <acronym titl...Jump to post
<table border="0" align="CENTER" width="95%" class="quote"><tr><td><font size="2" face="ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva" color="#9A9DA0">Quoting <a href="/profile/dazbo5" class="quote" target="_blank">dazbo5</a> (<a href="#1" class="quote">Reply 1</a>):<br/><i/></font></td></tr></table> Awesome... Thanks D...Jump to post
Just wondering if a shot like this would work for the site.
<table border="0" align="CENTER" width="95%" class="quote"><tr><td><font size="2" face="ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva" color="#9A9DA0">Quoting <a href="/profile/alevik" class="quote" target="_blank">alevik</a> (<a href="#13" class="quote">Reply 13</a>):<br/><i/></font></td></tr></table><table border="0" ...Jump to post
You know what, I bet if I just re upload the image it would be accepted. Because that's what happened with my most recent upload. It was rejected for blah blah blah and I just re-uploaded the exact same image and it was accepted. What kind of a joke is that.Jump to post
<a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APPEAL_20141129_j1416844448.3342c-ftah.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0141129_j1416844448.3342c-ftah.jpg</a> This photo was rejected for reasons that are not true. I know you guys must get pictures taken on cell ...Jump to post
First of all, my age category was last updated when I made my account which was in 2009. If you have nothing better to do than update your age category every 4 years that's a little sad. Certain screeners are clearly on a power trip. Other sites have no issues with my photos. There is something seri...Jump to post
Who is doing the favour here? This site is run like a communist country. Photographers should not have to kiss butt to get a perfectly good photo added to the <acronym title="Brit Air (France)">DB</acronym>. This site clearly does not want your photos, after all, they have too many! Everyone I have ...Jump to post
Wow, I didn't think it was possible to rack up so many rejection reasons with the photo below. <a href="http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=j1416844448.3342c-ftah.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ilename=j1416844448.3342c-ftah.jpg</a> j1416844448.334...Jump to post
I appealed a photo about a week ago and my appeal was rejected because I didn't include a reason for the appeal. The reason I included was the photo was accepted on another website that screens almost the exact same way as a.net. Why is that not an acceptable reason? Instead I got a rude response: "...Jump to post
Hey Vik, angad84, and others, I think I've shown you this shot before and I think you said it looked noisy in the shadows. It was indeed rejected, but I think I've fixed it up now. Do you think it's good to go now? <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/b1416422751.8582westjet.jpg" ta...Jump to post
Hey guys, So I removed the noise reduction in the sky and applied more sharpening. However I'm not sure if the windows would be acceptable. Maybe I'm just being too picky? <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/g1416246332.521westjet_winglet.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.n...Jump to post
Thanks Vik & angad. The photo was rejected for several reasons, one of the reasons was the crop. This site just doesn't like any cropping of the tails which other websites don't have a problem with. oh well... Do you think this picture would be okay for 1600 pixels? The only thing I'm having a p...Jump to post