Page 1 of 1

wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 4:59 pm
by clickhappy
Just a heads-up, I had a wide-angle image rejected for “inverse vignetting” and “distortion.” Anyone who has ever used a wide-angle lens on a perfect blue sky will know that a uniform sky color is impossible, given a wide enough field of view.

The appeal was rejected within minutes (“Screener rejection correct"), so there was no discussion amongst the HS.

It’s a shame really, as these are my favorite images to take. And I pride myself in not having any banding visible, always a difficult task in such shots.

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 5:05 pm
by JakTrax
Can I see the image, Royal? I too am keen on wide-angle shots...

Karl

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 5:10 pm
by clickhappy
Of course, just not sure on how to link it. Let me try this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tuu08w2v0kgd ... Y.jpg?dl=0

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 5:25 pm
by JakTrax
That's ridiculous! The effect isn't optical or mechanical — it's the way light scatters naturally! Technically there's no such thing as 'reverse vignetting'...

Karl

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 6:39 pm
by dutchspotter1
The sky at the top looks quite dark and the a/c looks way, way out of proportion, so I'd agree with the screeners in this case.

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 6:50 pm
by Crosswindphoto
Personally I can see the banding, but no idea where the vignetting is coming from.

Tim

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 7:23 pm
by JakTrax
When shooting wide angle the sky at the top is going to be darker as the blue light is filtered through less atmosphere. I could understand if the rejection was down to optical or mechanical vignetting (which is down to the lens) but, in this instance, it's a natural and unavoidable phenomenon, attributed to physics rather than the photographer. You can negate it by using filters but it's never been an issue here until now. Quite by coincidence I'm going to use some of the latest HKT beach shots as examples, in which the same effect can be seen in the sky (plus way more distortion of the aircraft).

Seems we've reached a point at which rejections for the stupidest things are commonplace while the really serious issues are being missed. Bottom line: either the screeners are now seeking images that go beyond what's possible with contemporary camera gear, or they are not fully understanding how physics affects light.

Finally, I can see the banding (it's only slight) but, given the other rejection reasons, it's pretty irrelevant.

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 7:35 pm
by dutchspotter1
JakTrax wrote:
...the screeners are now seeking images that go beyond what's possible with contemporary camera gear...

You mean a normal 50mm photo that wouldn't have these issues? ;)

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 7:59 pm
by JakTrax
Even at 50mm on a FF body you can get the 'reverse vignetting' effect in the sky. Atmospheric conditions and the limits of physics by themselves should not be grounds for rejections. There are thousands of images in the database in which the subject is equally or more distorted than in Royal's shot.

Let's look at what this rejection is basically saying: photos shot at less than, say, 35mm will no longer be acceptable due to the way both light and camera optics work. Well I guess that settles the HKT beach shot argument then, because most of them are wide-angle, with 'reverse vignetting' and distortion...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Ai ... Zs2w4W2TGL

Now unless the curvature of the Earth is visible at a distance of only a few miles I'd say that horizon features unavoidable distortion. It would be good to get screener clarification because this has to be either a mistake or a misunderstanding, surely?

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 10:19 pm
by Kaphias


Should be acceptable like this?

Ahh nevermind, motive for blocking the aircraft...

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 11:54 pm
by jelpee
The issue of the dark band of sky with the use of wide angled lenses is under presently under review and discussion by the Head Screening team.
Royal, regardless of the dark band at the top of the frame, your image was also rejected for having a soft nose area. Additionally, while not called out, the image shows visible banding, and if I had handled the appeal, would likely have cited that as a reason as well.

Personally, I agree with the unavoidable nature of the dark band. In some cases however, it is too dark and is distracting. We're trying to establish some boundary samples to help the screeners improve consistency.

In summary, Wide Angled shots such as yours are acceptable, not withstanding other flaws.

Jehan

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 12:18 am
by KPDX
Kaphias wrote:


Should be acceptable like this?

Ahh nevermind, motive for blocking the aircraft...


I don't care what anyone says... that photoshop sums it up majestically.... :spit: :lol:

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:24 am
by JakTrax
Fair point re the soft nose, Jehan, but what would have happened had the nose area been sufficiently sharp, given that the sky in Royal's photo is no more distracting than in Andrew's latest beach shots?

Surely it would have to be pretty distracting to warrant a rejection?

Karl

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 2:04 pm
by len90
JakTrax wrote:
Fair point re the soft nose, Jehan, but what would have happened had the nose area been sufficiently sharp, given that the sky in Royal's photo is no more distracting than in Andrew's latest beach shots?

Surely it would have to be pretty distracting to warrant a rejection?

Karl

The banding in Royal's image is way less than I have seen in the IMHO (In my honest opinion) distracting and annoying beach pose pictures from Andrew.

I really wish the site would enforce the same rules for EVERY photographer regardless of their affiliation, title, name, etc. Seeing things like this is only chasing people away and in turn will decrease any profitability from potential ad revenue.

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 12:07 am
by angad84
There's definitely banding, and possibly borderline "inverse vignetting" (lens correction?) but no more offensive that many, many other shots, as Karl has pointed out. Not just the Phuket ones, but many others have snuck through, I can't imagine nitpicking this. Honestly never noticed the soft nose.

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:45 pm
by clickhappy
Two more wide-angle rejections for "Vignetting."

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 042535.jpg

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 042461.jpg

So yeah, wide-angle images, at least those with a blue sky, are no longer welcome at airliners.net

Good job.

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:46 pm
by dutchspotter1
Try uploading them as "creative image" (Mark for Creative Screening Team).

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:36 pm
by JakTrax
I must admit, the right side in both images (particularly the ER4) does look brighter than I'd expect and my wide-angle lenses certainly control the effect much better. That said, I don't think it should be grounds for rejection.

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:40 pm
by jelpee
Did you consider appealing? The Tri State looks underexposed though.

Jehan

Re: wide-angle images no longer acceptable?

Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:51 pm
by JakTrax
Jehan, the ER4 has a grey/silver fuselage, not white — if you look at the aircraft behind the exposure looks fine.