Post- Screening Thread #1 (help after rejection)

wilco737 · Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:11 am

Dear Photographers, dear member of airliners.net,

most of you guys are familiar with the Pre- Screen threads which is a good tool to check if a picture is worth to be uploaded or not.

Recently there are lots of threads about help after the picture was rejected and many users/ photographers asked for advice what to do better and how to re- edit it to make good enough to be accepted.

There are currently quite a lot of threads about it. And to make it easier for everybody we open this thread.

So, everybody, if you have a question or need help with a rejection, then feel free to post it in here and a user/ other photographer/ screener will give you an answer.

Thank you and enjoy.

Regards

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

jgr · Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:00 pm

Hi,
Rejected only by Dark, it's a contrail & backlit shot taked at the sunrise, for that reason a/c is dark, but I tought to myself that a/c in this picture was not the most important :

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ons/big/20080907_IMG_08843z5fd.jpg

Comments ?

Javier

walter2222 · Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:49 pm

Hi,

I had this one rejected for "blurry":

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...LDV-LFRJ_20080627_IMG_2164_WVB.jpg

I had a similar one accepted recently, and personally, I did not see much difference...but my eyes are probably too tired, I probably need some rest Sad

Best regards,

Walter

chuck9941 · Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:53 pm

great idea. I'm sure this thread will be busy and helpful. I've just had the same photo rejected for the 3rd time. BUT I think I may have fixed everything after the first 2 rejections since the most recent rejection was for category and a bonehead move on my part. Which then again kind of sucks since not only does it not help with the acceptance ration but if the photo is finally of acceptance quality, why reject it because of category only and have to look at the same photo for the 4th time. I marked Private instead of Business. It was my fault for such a simple error but still it just adds an extra photo to the queue.

mjgbtv · Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:56 pm

Quoting JGR (Reply 1):
Comments ?

Javier,

I like the effect, but the problem may be that the plane blends in with the background too much. It also seems odd that there is no sun on the plane. Did it just pass into the shadows?

Marty

AlphaBravo · Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:33 pm

Hi,

@WILCO737
Good idea to start this topic.

@all
I have problems to understand the folowing 'level' rejections:

This was the first one:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...5/941445/1152_3239626461363038.jpg

After the first rejection I tried to improve the level (I did some CW rotation)
and uploaded the improved photo:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...5/941445/1152_3635643063373635.jpg

But I get the same rejection reson.

Can someone please help me to understand what I made wrong?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards
Anto

TransIsland · Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:51 pm

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 2):

There is some blurriness in parts of the a/c, bottom of fuselage. There also seems to be a lot of jpeg compression towards the nose and under the wing.

TransIsland · Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:53 pm

Quoting AlphaBravo (Reply 5):

Looks like you applied too much CW. By looking at it, I'd guess about 1/2 degree? Try something like 1/4 degree.

UltimateDelta · Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:53 pm

Quoting AlphaBravo (Reply 5):
After the first rejection I tried to improve the level (I did some CW rotation)
and uploaded the improved photo:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...5.jpg

It's still a little bit unlevel.

UltimateDelta · Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:55 pm

This one didn't specifically get rejected, because I never submitted it, but I did get told it wasn't good enough in the prescreening thread. How can I fix this one?

Big version: Width: 1385 Height: 1094 File size: 751kb

TransIsland · Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:07 pm

Quoting UltimateDelta (Reply 9):

You can't. It'll be a motive rejection.

whappeh · Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:03 pm

Quoting UltimateDelta (Reply 9):
This one didn't specifically get rejected, because I never submitted it, but I did get told it wasn't good enough in the prescreening thread. How can I fix this one?

Motive, specifically the lack of anything important of the aircraft showing. Its a very bland photograph of an aircraft. If you want to get more general, it doesn't help the cause that you cut off the D of the delta and you have a pylon in front of the engine... let alone the people walking down the stairs in the background. The sun also seems to be coming towards the camera, which is also always a no-no. PM me if you want some better advice, or anything.

walter2222 · Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:57 pm

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 6):
There is some blurriness in parts of the a/c, bottom of fuselage. There also seems to be a lot of jpeg compression towards the nose and under the wing.

Thanks for the feedback! It is a lot easier if pointed into the right direction!

What do you think of this one:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...J_20080627_IMG_2122_WVB_1200px.jpg

Rejected for: quality, contrast, overexposed and color...

Thanks and regards,

Walter

americanairman · Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:46 am

#1

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...e=20080906_20080901_Clean17221.jpg

Rejected for 'motive' and 'grain.' Any suggestions?
(I know that the bottom tag is duplicated)

#2

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ilename=20080906_RiddleFrontA1.jpg

Rejected for 'contrast', 'level' and 'grain' Once again, rookie here anyone know how I can improve these?

mjgbtv · Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:12 am

Quoting AmericanAirman (Reply 14):

#1 - For the motive, the question is why you chose to only show half of the plane. I can not see any clear reason. As for the grain, you would have to try running it through a noise-reduction program, assuming that the shot can be fixed to address the motive.

#2 - For the grain, again try NR. Looks like you need some CW rotation to level; the top of the hangar door should be a good guide. My impression of the contrast is that it is too high - the leading edges look a bit blown out, and the tires have no definition.

Hope this helps.

Marty

McG1967 · Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:07 am

Motive rejection.

https://www.airliners.net:80/procphot...ain?filename=20080913_IMG_3089.jpg

americanairman · Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:45 pm

Thanks that helped a lot.

I couldn't shoot the whole plane in that because it was through a chain-link fence. What do you think about this one?

http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10004920yi0.jpg

mjgbtv · Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:24 am

A nice shot, but I don't think it would make it here.

Some issues which should be possible to correct are leveling and graininess. I would level based on the horizon.

It also looks like the sun was high, so there is not a lot of definition on the plane. You could try working with the contrast, but maybe that can not be fixed.

I do not think the composition would pass here. In my opinion there is nothing else compelling enough in the photo to include. I'd say you need to fill the frame with the plane, but that may well take away too much quality after you crop.

Marty

whisperjet · Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:52 am

Hi,

I had these two shots rejected:

for colour. Is it too blue? How can I correct it?

And this one for level (can somebody please give me a hint on how much rotation is needed)

Thanks

Stefan

wilco737 · Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:54 pm

Hi guys,

I got this photot rejected and need your opinion if there is any chance to make it worth re-editing and uploading it again?

It was soft and dark.

I can sharpen it, but dark? If I make it a little brighter, then the nose seems to be overexposed and you cannot really see anymore that it was early in the morning.

And ideas? suggestions?

Thanks

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 pm

Wilco737, I think your main problem is that it is back lit and that makes the fuselage dark.
Too bad, I like the shot. Sometimes I think that images are worthy even though they are back lit, and that sometimes it even looks better than a harsh sun lighting up the side.

Whisperjet, that sky colour doesn't look right, and the lamp post casts a rather hard light. Where is that BTW? 2 SAS birds in the pic Smile

wilco737 · Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:10 pm

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 20):
Wilco737, I think your main problem is that it is back lit and that makes the fuselage dark.
Too bad, I like the shot. Sometimes I think that images are worthy even though they are back lit, and that sometimes it even looks better than a harsh sun lighting up the side.

Yes, it is back lit, but do you think there is way to get it worth for another upload or will it always get a dark rejection? I like the image a lot and I like the angle where the sun shines on the 744. Thanks for the answer.

I made a new edit and uploaded it: opinions?

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

whisperjet · Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:23 pm

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 21):
I made a new edit and uploaded it: opinions?

Your 2nd edit looks much better but I'm not sure if it will get accepted. The nose and the push-back truck are already slightly overexposed and other parts are still quite dark.
The darker parts are also grainy.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 20):
Whisperjet, that sky colour doesn't look right, and the lamp post casts a rather hard light. Where is that BTW? 2 SAS birds in the pic

Thank you for your feedback. I am not sure about the sky because the shot was taken around midnight with midnight sun... But I will try it again. The airport is Bergen Flesland, hence the SAS (Norway)

My new edit, does it look any better?

Stefan

[Edited 2008-09-15 11:33:39]

wilco737 · Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:28 pm

Quoting Whisperjet (Reply 22):
Your 2nd edit looks much better but I'm not sure if it will get accepted. The nose and the push-back truck are already slightly overexposed and other parts are still quite dark.
The darker parts are also grainy.

Alright, thanks for the help. I'll leave it in the queue. if they don't accept this edit, then it is another "cool, but unworthy shot" for me Wink

Thanks for the help guys.

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

timdegroot · Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:30 pm

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 23):
Alright, thanks for the help. I'll leave it in the queue. if they don't accept this edit, then it is another "cool, but unworthy shot" for me Wink

Blurry on the right as well. I'd pull it

Tim

wilco737 · Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:42 pm

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 24):
Blurry on the right as well. I'd pull it

Hmm ok. I delete it cry

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

TransIsland · Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:44 pm

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 21):

I like the second, closer, crop better. Can't see the blurry on this - indeed most forgiving - screen, but the first one was certainly soft. I also think colour/contrast are slightly off, and I'm not sure about the level. Your two edits are levelled differently; I think it needs more CW.

A little more curves adjustment to make it a little brighter still, and then you have the grain. Sad

It's a great shot, and I'd love to see it here, but I think you need to re-work from scratch.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:45 pm

Whisperjet, I fiddled a bit with the curves to get a more realistic midnight sky, we don't get real midnight sun where I live but it's not completely dark for more than 2 hours in the summer, so this is rather close I think. Not sure of the rest of the light though, it gains some yellow.

Big version: Width: 1280 Height: 853 File size: 1193kb

Wilco, the image is lighter but has also lost the beauty of the early morning glow in your first image. But the only burnt out white is the sun reflecting in the dome, other white areas are border line, but no triple 255's. Also the red "wire" in the landing gear is too sharp in colour as it steals focus. I hope you can get it in, but I'm afraid it won't make it

Personally I prefer the first one.

[Edited 2008-09-15 11:46:51]

[Edited 2008-09-15 11:49:09]

wilco737 · Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:09 pm

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 26):
It's a great shot, and I'd love to see it here, but I think you need to re-work from scratch.

Thanks for all that advice. I will give it another try, but it looks like I won't have any success with that shot - like several other shots recently. The back lit is just a problem here and the picture is fom 2005, and I haven't had a very good camera back then, so the options are limited here.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 27):
Wilco, the image is lighter but has also lost the beauty of the early morning glow in your first image. But the only burnt out white is the sun reflecting in the dome, other white areas are border line, but no triple 255's. Also the red "wire" in the landing gear is too sharp in colour as it steals focus. I hope you can get it in, but I'm afraid it won't make it
Personally I prefer the first one.

Thanks as well for your input. I cannot make it any brighter, the nice sunrise light would be gone and then it doesn't show the atmosphere anymore. I am pretty sure it will never make it. cry

Sometimes there are pictures you like a lot, but aren't just made for a.net Wink

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

KaiGywer · Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:26 pm

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 28):
Sometimes there are pictures you like a lot, but aren't just made for a.net Wink

Such as most of mine Silly

dwitty · Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:20 am

Greetings a.net members. I'm rather new around here, and after four submissions I still have not been able to get a picture accepted. I figured I would heed the advice of the screeners and ask the community for assistance.

The first pic is a British Airways 747 I captured landing at PHX. I particularly like the shot as it captures what I believe to be the destination of the departure pictured here (dunno if it was the final destination or just a stop along the way). The fist submission of this picture was rejected due to distance. I have cropped it down a bit, but would like feedback on what else I can do to improve the picture, or if it's a lost cause...

The second picture is one I captured at DVT. This aircraft has been sitting outside of the Honeywell building for a couple of weeks now. I have submitted a few different pictures of it, but this is the one I like the most. It was rejected due to color cast, digital noise/grain, and being too dark. There was not much post production on the shot other than levels correction and slight sharpening. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

whappeh · Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:53 am

Both of those are way too large, as well. While 1600 can be accepted, lower the size of your images down to the smallest acceptable size, that helps hide some faults, and generally makes it easier to get photos accepted. However, Dwitty, both of those images are unsalvageable in terms of usability for this website. There is too much grain in both of them, the 747 is for sure a distance, and any subsequent crop will likely give it a motive rejection, plus quality (it seems to be lacking in quality, especially in the back half of the aircraft).

points · Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:44 pm

The following one is rejected for "info" and "dark". The "Cargo" category was selected.
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...me=20080915_IMG_2519_copy_anet.jpg
What "info" should be corrected ? Can "Dark" be corrected ?

bustin · Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:08 pm

Hi to all:

I have this picture reject with two reason: oversahrp and level. I would like some opinion, and specially with level rejection (check vertical lines of publicity tower and runway white lines), I have very much pictures accepted with this level references and I don´t understand that now this level is incorrect.

Big version: Width: 1362 Height: 908 File size: 1001kb

Also, I have match the picture with other accepted pictures and, I think the picture is not oversharp and meet the airliners.net standards.

Regards

Bustin

chuck9941 · Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:22 am

Quoting Bustin (Reply 33):

just with a quick glance it looks like it needs slight CW rotation. You can see the runway is higher at the right than the left pretty easily. the verticals also look like they are leaning slightly to the left but it's a little more subtle to see.

I just had one rejected for being slightly out of level on the vertical as well and after a hard look I was able to see it before using the grid.

I can see jaggies in the gutters above the doors and also in the gap between the left aileron and wing.

walter2222 · Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:54 am

I had this shot rejected for "double":

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._20080730_CRW_11515_WVB_1200px.jpg

probably related with this one already in the database:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel

I thought, however, that showing the different sides (which have a different artwork on the air intake) was allowed, even if it was shot on the same day. Further, the one in the database is with closed canopies, this one has the canopies opened. What are your thoughts?

Best regards,

Walter

jorge1812 · Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:42 pm

Hello.

Had this one rejected for level
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0080914_D-ABBK_738_AB_100908_7.jpg

When I look at the pic in Photoshop using the helping-lines (don't know how they call it in english) the pic appears totally level to me. What do you say?

Thanks!

georg

marcinnowczyk1 · Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:15 pm

Hello dear friends I have problem with one photo, it has been rejected because of bad category. Could You help me? What I should mark during upload?

timdegroot · Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:19 pm

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 35):
I thought, however, that showing the different sides (which have a different artwork on the air intake) was allowed, even if it was shot on the same day. Further, the one in the database is with closed canopies, this one has the canopies opened. What are your thoughts?

Doesnt look like a double to me, did you have another in the queue maybe?

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 35):

Had this one rejected for level
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...7.jpg

Needs ccw

Quoting Points (Reply 32):
The following one is rejected for "info" and "dark". The "Cargo" category was selected.
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...me=20080915_IMG_2519_copy_anet.jpg
What "info" should be corrected ? Can "Dark" be corrected ?

The reg is visible on the nose and should thus be listed. If quality can take it lighten it.

Stil · Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:59 pm

Hi.

Can anybody shine a light about this 'center' rejection? I completely fail to see it

Thanks.

Stil

timdegroot · Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:13 pm

Quoting Stil (Reply 39):
Can anybody shine a light about this 'center' rejection? I completely fail to see i

I'd like to see the fuselage more in the center of the frame

points · Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:14 pm

Tim, thanks for the info for Asiana plane. I just found the registration on other pictures i took (HL7604). About "Dark": i am afraid that lightening it up will harm the reflections and the contrast of it. But will give it a try.

Stil · Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:24 pm

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 40):
I'd like to see the fuselage more in the center of the frame

Though it means to cut the horizontal stabilizer?
Thanks for your fast response, not like mine....

Stil

walter2222 · Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:34 pm

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 38):
Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 35):
I thought, however, that showing the different sides (which have a different artwork on the air intake) was allowed, even if it was shot on the same day. Further, the one in the database is with closed canopies, this one has the canopies opened. What are your thoughts?

Doesnt look like a double to me, did you have another in the queue maybe?

Thanks for the feedback!

No, I had others in the queue, but not of this registration. I will appeal then and hopefully it will get through Smile

Best regards,

Walter

atce4 · Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:23 pm

Hi,

Just had this photo rejected as not being level. It seemed OK in Photoshop as the grid lines matched the vertical of the buildings

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ons/big/20080917_Chopper_ZA670.jpg

Any comments and suggestions to improve it are most welcome.

Thanks

Dreamliner84 · Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:04 am

Hi all,

I'd like to ask you for some advice about a "contrast personal" rejection. The screener told me that it's a good view and suggested me to make it darker increasing contrast, look that:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...080917_Anet_TRN08092008_F-GSTB.jpg

The shot was taken at sunset, in this case I think that the more you make it darker the more the details of the shot could be lost (for example the ones inside the opened nose of the aircraft). What do you think about that?? Do you think that a contrast increasing of +2 or +3 using the "level function" of Photoshop should be right??

But I've also noticed the shot is right on my computer and clearer on other computers... Smile

so I think that probably I've to adjust the frequency of my screen and after upload the shot again...

Do you think that this shot should need other adjustments??

Thanks a lot in advance.

All the comments'll be appreciated!!! Wink

Andy.

TransIsland · Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:40 am

Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 45):
Do you think that a contrast increasing of +2 or +3 using the "level function" of Photoshop should be right??

More like 20 or 30. and not just on one side of the histogram.

Dreamliner84 · Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:28 pm

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 46):
More like 20 or 30. and not just on one side of the histogram.

What do you mean when you say "not just on one side of the histogram"... do you refer to the shadows level (OUTPUT LEVELS) or to the high lights ones (INPUT LEVELS)?

An increasing of 20 or 30 is too much in my opinion... you may run the risk to have the photo rejected for "dark reason" or similar... Wink

Andy.

acontador · Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:47 pm

Hi,

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 35):
I had this shot rejected for "double":

I was one of the screeners reviewing it, and if I remember correctly, you had already 2 shots from same day/side in the DB, both ground close-ups. At least in my opinion, to accept a third ground close-up, even from a different side, would be a double, and it seems another screener agreed with me.

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 36):
Had this one rejected for level

This one needs a bit counter clockwise rotation, just have a look at all background verticals.

Quoting Marcinnowczyk1 (Reply 37):
it has been rejected because of bad category. Could You help me?

It helps a lot if you would say which ones you did include in the first place. If this aircraft flies, then it should be prop and classic, if it doesn't, then prop, classic and preserved.

Quoting Stil (Reply 39):
Can anybody shine a light about this 'center' rejection? I completely fail to see it

You just need to move your crop more to the right. On the left side cut just after the left stab, and thus move the fuselage more to the center. If it still looks unbalanced, then maybe think about cropping the stab, although I am not in favor of doing so when you have it in the original.

Quoting Atce4 (Reply 44):
Just had this photo rejected as not being level.

Again background verticals, needs a bit counter clockwise rotation. And since you need to do afresh edit, this one is very bright, almost too much.

Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 45):
The screener told me that it's a good view and suggested me to make it darker increasing contrast, look that:

Suggest you have a look at the histogram in the levels adjustment in PS, it will tell you instantly what to do in case you really don't see it in your monitor. Also, if the contrast looks good on your monitor as it is, suggest you calibrate it because on our monitors it looks very 'milky'. Try to move both the shadows and highlights slider more to the middle such as to have them where the curve ends (no flat lines on both sides).

Dreamliner84 · Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:58 pm

Quoting Acontador (Reply 48):
Suggest you have a look at the histogram in the levels adjustment in PS, it will tell you instantly what to do in case you really don't see it in your monitor. Also, if the contrast looks good on your monitor as it is, suggest you calibrate it because on our monitors it looks very 'milky'. Try to move both the shadows and highlights slider more to the middle such as to have them where the curve ends (no flat lines on both sides).

Thanks a lot Andrès... more appreciated!!! Smile

I Think that I've to decrease my monitor's contrast, in this way I could see it "milky" like you all I think... and I'm sure that It could help me to act with shadows and highlights levels... I'll made it soon and reupload it... Are there any other wrong things that you notice in my shot??

Thank you all so much for your kindness and support!!! Wink

Regards!!!

Andy.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net