Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TropicalSQ744
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:17 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:24 am

My first upload was rejected because it was too dark.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20081117_HL7740_cabin_rev1.jpg

Here's my attempt at making it brighter.
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k18/tropicalsq744/DSC01854.jpg

My second upload was rejected for motive, too soft, and grainy.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...g/20081117_HL7736_cabin_1_rev1.jpg

Any opinions? I don't think the second upload can be saved.
 
kentauta
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:19 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:06 am

Hello all,

I have got the following pic rejected for level with a personal message
"Clockwise rotation needed."

I tried looking closer and I feel it rather needs CCW rotation.

Could anybody please judge?

Thank you!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/3042006685_8770a00ed2_o.jpg
 
ruudb
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:21 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:18 am

I think you need to get the red/white pole in the background as a vertical. Not look at the horizontals.
 
kentauta
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:19 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:50 am



Quoting Ruudb (Reply 102):

Thank you. That makes sense. It seems the picture needs very very slight CW rotation
if we use the red pole as a reference.
 
r12055p
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:34 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:56 pm

For Tropical:
The seat backs on the image appear to soft. The blur from the movement of people's heads in the background also adds to the softness on the image. I would also recommend that the next time you shoot from inside an aircraft take the photo from a higher vantage point, this might negate the motive rejection. Finally because of the low light conditions on the aircraft, coupled with the difficulty of setting up a tripod in an aisle, the photo is a little blurry, especially noticeable on the no smoking light above the seats and on the monitor on the forward bulkhead.

Keep trying and Regards,
Ross
 
NSMike
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:38 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:35 am

Maybe someone can explain to me why this photo:

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 356kb


warrants a double rejection.

This one, taken on October 21, is in the DB.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Durning



I uploaded one of it returning a few hours later on 3 engines which was rejected for double. Then I uploaded one of it on approach with the same engine out, taken on November 13 (the photo in question). Rejected again for double... the screener even accused me of falsifying the date and that I'd be banned if I did it again. I think a photo of an aircraft on approach with an engine out is sufficiently different motive than the one in the DB.
 
777MechSys
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:49 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:48 am



Quoting NSMike (Reply 105):

Michael,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You uploaded 2 shots, of the same airplane, on the same day, at the same angle. One, probably the second one in queue, was rejected as double. The first rejected image is not being shown to us because... ? I assume you appealed and it was rejected again. Then you upload a third shot of similar motive. This shot gets rejected and the screener gives a warning. You again appeal and the image is rejected.

Let's look at this from the screeners view. Here are some simple facts that should be considered. First, the screener can see the number of times a registration was rejected for a photographer and they can see the rejected image. Second, when an image is appealed and rejected it is gone. Deleted. Not to be seen again. Third, the rejected images the screener sees is gone because of the appeal and re-rejection. No image. Just the date, airport, photographer, registration, and comments.

Here is the point. The third image you uploaded, the one that got you the warning, had the exact same comment as the one that was previously rejected. The screener sees you had this registration rejected and checks on it. All they see is the data with no image. In this data they see the exact same comment word for word. Several photographers leave screeners comments. "Reworked for RAW" "Previously rejected...." Did you leave a comment for the screeners?

I do not have specific dates on the photos I upload. If there is the slightest chance that one of my shots could be viewed as a double I would leave a comment to the screener. In fact I have. I would provide them with an exact date and the reason for not having it in the upload.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to understand where the screening team is coming from. We do the best job we can with the tools we have.

Regards,

Erick
 
NSMike
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:38 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:17 am



Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 106):
Here is the point. The third image you uploaded, the one that got you the warning, had the exact same comment as the one that was previously rejected. The screener sees you had this registration rejected and checks on it. All they see is the data with no image. In this data they see the exact same comment word for word. Several photographers leave screeners comments. "Reworked for RAW" "Previously rejected...." Did you leave a comment for the screeners?

I didn't leave a note for the screeners because it was a different date, which I explained in the appeal, I said it wasn't the same date, just the same situation... an aircraft with the gear down and an engine out on approach, hence the same comment. I think the motive was sufficiently different from one which just took off with the gear up and all props turning, others may disagree. The upload rules say you can upload a landing and takeoff shot from the same day which is why I appealed in the first place. I can find plenty of examples of those...

Anyway I'm done with this... I don't want to butt heads with the screeners and I understand what you're saying but I thought accusing me of falsifying the date just to get a photo on here was going a bit far.

Mike
 
osu_av8or
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 10:15 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:42 pm

Hey everybody, I just had these rejected for Quality and Soft.

Should I sharpen more? If so, how much before it is too much. I applied the USM until I saw the lines turn jagged and then backed it off just a tad.

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...lename=20081122_N29BA_jlc2_m18.jpg

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...filename=20081122_N39BA_jc_m18.jpg

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
 
gliderpilot08
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:06 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:11 pm



Quoting OSU_av8or (Reply 108):

Funny, in the second picture, I thought Bad Croping of the right wing would have been a rejection reason. Other than that, I cant see all whats wrong with it.  Confused (quality and soft)

Luke
 
alasdair1982
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:47 pm

 
NWA783
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:11 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:01 pm



Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 110):
Rejected for being "blurry"

Looks like heat haze to me.

- Josh -
 
alasdair1982
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:07 pm



Quoting NWA783 (Reply 111):
Looks like heat haze to me.

Affecting the 747 though? :S
 
User avatar
nikog
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:56 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:56 am

Hello to all.
I have this photo rejected both for quality and softness.
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...?filename=20081122_IMG_8004_1b.jpg
What can be done to make photo acceptable?
Is the resizing to 1024 will help?
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:51 pm



Quoting Nikog (Reply 113):
Hello to all.
I have this photo rejected both for quality and softness.
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...?filename=20081122_IMG_8004_1b.jpg
What can be done to make photo acceptable?
Is the resizing to 1024 will help?

Doesn't look bad at all, resizing to 1024 will definitely help.

Ivan
 
User avatar
nikog
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:56 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:48 pm



Quoting Fly747 (Reply 114):
Doesn't look bad at all, resizing to 1024 will definitely help.

Ivan

Ivan, Is this photo soft?
If i continue to sharpen i start to see jaggies at line connecting wing and fuselage.
Thanks
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:19 pm

You can create a duplicate layer and sharpen it some more and when the jaggies appear you can simply erase them.

Ivan
 
tweetdriver
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:14 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:54 pm



Quoting TweetDriver (Reply 84):
I had this pic rejected today for dark and level.
I tried my verybest to level it with the vertical lines closest to the center of the picture but obviously I was wrong, so what do I need to do.

Since nobody except Ruud via mail (thanx Ruud) seemed to have an idea I ask again, to what should I have levelled the pic???

Here a link to what I worked with: http://picasaweb.google.de/talon4henk/Enjjpt#5271942811448863170
 
ingo
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:28 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:55 pm

Hi,

I don't really see a difference between the following 2 photos.

First accepted:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/SkyEu...Airlines/Boeing-737-76N/1427132/M/

The other one rejected for quality, oversharpened, soft!
https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...in?filename=20081123_2300omngg.jpg

Thx!,
Ingo
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:23 pm

I'm struggling to understand the "motive" rejection on this one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CMVH/EGLF_200706_FWWOW_DSC_0643Arej.jpg

I have seen lots of similar images uploaded recently. It was rejected on appeal for motive as well without any comment so I don't know what is wrong with the "motive".
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Head Support
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:19 pm



Quoting TweetDriver (Reply 117):

Judging from those lines it needs a little ccw rotation, and also there is a large dustspot on the upper edge of the image.

Quoting Ingo (Reply 118):

Well, I kind of agree, but the rejected one is softer on the nose than the accepted one, and also there some slight jaggies on the edge of the left wing. And I think that the second one probably was a close call as it looks slightly soft as well.
 
tweetdriver
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:14 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:53 pm

That dust spot had not been there on the pic uploaded but what did make you think that it needs rotation?

I did a slightly bigger blowup of the lines and I see them on the vertical lines.

http://picasaweb.google.de/talon4henk/Enjjpt#5271989242092838914

If you use the magnifying glass function it will be clearer I think.

[Edited 2008-11-23 14:54:27]
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Head Support
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:09 am



Quoting TweetDriver (Reply 121):

If you look really close you'll see that the distance between the line and the doors edge grows at the bottom, it aint by much. Personally I think it's level enough, but Anets standards differ from mine  Smile
 
Jetfreak
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:45 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:49 pm

Hi,

my photo was rejected for not being centered. Is it too high in frame?

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ename=20081124_jetfreak_ur_gaj.jpg

Thanks in advance,

Bernhard
 
osu_av8or
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 10:15 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:58 pm

Jetfreak,

I think it looks a tad high in the frame, but that's just me.

nice shot.
 
Jetfreak
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:45 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:21 pm

ok. thank you very much.
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:20 am



Quoting DerekF (Reply 119):
I'm struggling to understand the "motive" rejection on this one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CMVH/EGLF_200706_FWWOW_DSC_0643Arej.jpg

I have seen lots of similar images uploaded recently. It was rejected on appeal for motive as well without any comment so I don't know what is wrong with the "motive".

Anybody at all?? The quote box isn't showing the whole image - see reply 119.

Is it the lampost, the heads in the foreground?
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:41 am



Quoting DerekF (Reply 119):
I have seen lots of similar images uploaded recently. It was rejected on appeal for motive as well without any comment so I don't know what is wrong with the "motive".

IMHO, it would look better if the shot would show the people completely (i.e. standing on the ground), not only the heads... In this case, it looks like foreground clutter, whereas if people were shown in full, it would be a picture of a scene.

Best regards,

Walter
 
sfb26180
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:48 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:00 pm

Rejected for Soft. Any advice?

http://flickr.com/photos/zondar/3058271001/sizes/o/

Thanks on advance.

Sebastian Fernandez
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Head Support
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:40 pm



Quoting Sfb26180 (Reply 128):

Nice shot! applying 90%, 0.3 radius and 3 levels treshold in Unsharp Mask looks a tad better, if you have PS that is  Smile
 
sfb26180
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:48 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:02 pm



Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 129):
Nice shot! applying 90%, 0.3 radius and 3 levels treshold in Unsharp Mask looks a tad better, if you have PS that is

Thanks John!

I will try this in PS, and i will try uploading again.

Regards

Sebastian Fernandez Bielkiewicz
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Head Support
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:08 pm



Quoting Sfb26180 (Reply 130):

Post the edited image in this thread so we can have a look  Smile
 
sfb26180
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:48 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:14 pm



Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 131):
Post the edited image in this thread so we can have a look

There he goes:

http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ecicreditfv9.jpg
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:30 am



Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 127):

Quoting DerekF (Reply 119):
I have seen lots of similar images uploaded recently. It was rejected on appeal for motive as well without any comment so I don't know what is wrong with the "motive".

IMHO, it would look better if the shot would show the people completely (i.e. standing on the ground), not only the heads... In this case, it looks like foreground clutter, whereas if people were shown in full, it would be a picture of a scene.

Best regards,

Walter

Thanks for your thoughts Walter - I guess the reason for the motive rejection will remain one of life's mysteries
 
radup70
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 am

Quality Motiv Centered Soft Dark Common

Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:52 pm

Posted by Radup70 ([email protected])

Hi,

this is the first time I try to upload a picture on airliners.net.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ansportation_20081009__MG_3950.jpg



The rejection reasons were: quality motiv centered soft dark common .

While I can understand the "common" part and to some degree the "centered" and "dark" I need some help understanding the "soft" and "quality". I'm not sure about the "motive" either.

Thank you for your comments.
Radu
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Head Support
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:38 pm



Quoting Radup70 (Reply 134):

Motive=Cut off wingtip in a way that does not look good.
Soft, yes it is soft, especially apparent on the titles and the edge between the sky and the fuselage.
Quality, the image is grainy, and some of the softness might be blur.
And also, a very good tip is to keep the size down. There is no need for a 1400px image. Downsize to 1024 and some of the minor flaws will be "invisible". And sharpen it, lighten it using levels, and downsize! Not sure it will help, but you can always try.
 
bustin
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:44 am

Hi:
Today, I have this picture reject with double aircrfat pictures reason. Really, I have other picture of this aircraft (new reg. in airliners.net) but is a flying picture and this is taxiing in ground. Another time I has not problem to uploaded the same aircraft and same day with aircraft flying and static or taxiing.

I woul like some opinion about this new rejection rule.

Reject:
Big version: Width: 1209 Height: 818 File size: 375kb

Accepted:
Big version: Width: 1367 Height: 923 File size: 219kb

Regards

Bustin
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Head Support
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:01 pm



Quoting Bustin (Reply 136):

Should not be a double rejection unless "This rejection might also occur if you have similar photos in the upload queue that are still awaiting final screening."
Also it states "One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error." And if I remember correctly this also applies for landing-taxi, landing static and so on.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:24 pm



Quoting Radup70 (Reply 134):

All things considered, not bad for a first attempt given the other first attempts I've run across here. As for the rejection reasons and you not understanding them - they are all valid. A lot of your questions can be answered by taking a look at Thierry's Illustrated Guide to Rejection Reasons (IGRR) at http://www.planecatcher.com/IGRR.htm. He also has links to a few Adobe Photoshop workflows that might be of use.

Good luck, and welcome to Airliners.net!

Chris
Atlanta, GA
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:49 pm



Quoting Bustin (Reply 136):

Did you appeal? This rejection seems to go against the established rules regarding doubles. I'd definitely appeal.
 
NSMike
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:38 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:34 pm

Rejected for color:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...eltaConnection_CRJ_N588SW_6813.jpg

I don't see a color cast... and I just recalibrated my monitor. I used the white blade antenna on top of the fuselage to check the white balance.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:21 pm



Quoting NSMike (Reply 140):

Michael,

Looks a bit red to me.
 
aviamil
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:04 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:27 am

HI,


Just had these rejected, any tips on trying to improve them gratefully received.

Thanks
Marc



Big version: Width: 1280 Height: 863 File size: 505kb


soft/blurry



Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 709 File size: 210kb



dark


Big version: Width: 1200 Height: 852 File size: 323kb


soft/motive
 
points
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:28 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:18 am

Hello,

This chemtrail picture, correctable according to the screener,

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...in?filename=20081129_chemtrail.jpg

is rejected for: borders, oversharpened, grainy. The screeners didn't mention “centered” (horizontally)

Borders and center are easy to correct.

W.r.t.
- oversharpened: I think I see the dark blue line at the frontfuselage is oversharpened
- grainy: I think the lower surface of the plane is grainy, possibly caused by the 200 ASA setting and the PS shadow/highlight function.

I like to have this one on anet but I don’t like the laboratory work, possibly followed by another rejection. So, to be honest, I need some pep talk. Can you help ?
 
bustin
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:23 am

Hi:

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 139):
Did you appeal? This rejection seems to go against the established rules regarding doubles. I'd definitely appeal.

I have appealed, but again rejected with double reason. Really, I don´t understand.

I post the picture again
Reject:
Big version: Width: 600 Height: 406 File size: 195kb


Accepted:
Big version: Width: 600 Height: 405 File size: 99kb

Thanks
[Bustin

[
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:56 pm

Quoting Bustin (Reply 144):

Sorry to hear that. These rejections are most definitely going against established rules regarding doubles.

Quoting the IGRR:

Quote:
One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.

and...

Quote:
A small note concerning sequences: you may distinguish 3 different sequences: landing, on the ground (taxiing) and take-off; as a 4th sequence you might add fly-pasts but apart from airshows you'll rarely have one of those. According A.net rules you may only upload ONE photo from each given sequence and rarely you'll get more then 2 shots from the same a/c at the same airport and date accepted even if they are all from different sequences. For the "on the ground" sequence you might get 2 photos of this sequence accepted if they show really different motives like a close taxi by and some interesting (un-)loading action.

That, or a new set of rules needs to be released to the photographers with this new apparent change in thinking. It's not really fair to you in this case. For example, I have two shots of G-VIIT in the database, both on the same day.

Taxiing:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christopher Weyer - AirTeamImages

...and on takeoff roll:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christopher Weyer - AirTeamImages



Might want to email the screeners directly with this concern.

[Edited 2008-11-29 05:07:02]
 
points
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:28 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:10 pm

Even a nose shot on day 1 and a "side on" on day 2 are considered as double.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:30 pm



Quoting Points (Reply 146):
Even a nose shot on day 1 and a "side on" on day 2 are considered as double.

I take if you've received such a rejection? If that's the case it would appear not all screeners are on the same page on this particular category. I emailed them, hopefully someone will chime in here to clarify.
 
points
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:28 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:03 pm



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 147):
I take if you've received such a rejection?

Yes.

Quoting Aviamil (Reply 143):
Just had these rejected, any tips on trying to improve them gratefully received.

The soft/blurry rejection: Add sharpening. But i doubt it can be corrected.

The soft/motive rejection: the stairs in front of the plane are not allowed.
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: Post - Screening Thread Part 2

Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:09 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 147):
hopefully someone will chime in here to clarify.

I am not a screener, but I do have some experience with doubles... Recently, I also had a rejection for double because I had already two shots of that aircraft (same day) in the database. My argument was that the motive was completely different (one was a tail-shot, the other one was a nose-close-up (canopies closed) and my third one was again a nose-close-up (this time canopies open), but from the other side). My argument was followed by the head-screener after appeal  


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel





On the other hand, I also had a double reject in the past for a similar front nose-close-up of a Norwegian F-16, shot on the same day but it had a different registration... it looked indeed very similar, but it was a different aircraft. My argument here was, if someone would look for a head-on close-up for this specific registration, it could be added. For this type of shot, the screener could, however, not distinguish the registration. After all, I didn't mind (one more or less doesn't bother me).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel




Looking now at the double rejection from Bustin, I can only assume that the screener(s) think that for the viewers, there is not much difference between the two pictures: same side, about identical light, wheels down, props nearly identical,... Just my thoughts, and trying to explain, I like both shots! Hope this helps  

Best regards,

Walter

[Edited 2008-11-29 07:13:22]

[Edited 2008-11-29 07:18:50]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos