Post - Screening Thread Part 2

flynavy · Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:15 pm

I understand that it basically comes down to the shot's merit. But I think some more specific guidelines not open to interpretation would benefit everyone (not to mention cut down on queue wait times in some cases).

walter2222 · Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:31 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 150):
But I think some more specific guidelines not open to interpretation would benefit everyone

Hi Chris,

I understand, but the more rigid the rules become, the less room there is for interpretation. In my case, I was very glad that the head screener could make this interpretation (this acceptance of this special c/s F-4F...) and for this acceptance I am prepared to have some other "double" rejections.

PS: On the other hand, I also would like to have more freedom - within the existing rules - for special c/s.

Best regards,

Walter

MarkyMc · Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:59 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 145):

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 145):
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:

Accepted:

Thanks
[Bustin

Quality was also an issue with the rejected shot - "double" wasn't the sole reason for rejection here if I recall.

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

The key word in this sentence is "generally". The rejected shot shows the same side of the aircraft, taken on the same day, and is pretty much the same angle to the shot already in the database. If the shot on the runway showed the other side of the aircraft, or was perhaps a head-on shot, it would not have likely received the double rejection reason. Hope this helps.

gasgh · Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:39 am

I am trying to get two of my recent Phoenix photos accepted.... both of these were rejected for "Level" issues. I checked both.... thought I had it right and appealed, both were rejected again. Neother the original screener nor the "head screener" left any info or guidance as to why they rejected beyond the boilerplate comment.

Both are taken at Phoenix Sky Harbor, crossing the mid field taxiway southbound at around 2pm - 3pm on cloudless days. Photos are taken from the Terminal 3 parking garage, facing east. This taxiway is most certainly not level - it peaks where it crosses the main roadway linkng the terminals. I would also argue that the Terminal 4 parking garage floors in the backgrond are not level either, each floor appears to slope ever so slightly downwards away from the center.

The Frontier A319 was levelled using the lamp posts over the front of the "O" and over the "R" in the titles.

The AeroMexico 737-700W was levelled using the lamp posts just behind the winglets, and the one on top of a small building to the right of the winglets.

Someone suggested earlier that I use the vertical lines in the bridge facings in the foreground. I checked these.... Frontier was "off" by 0.1 degree, and AeroMexico by less than that.

So.... I am asking someone (and a screener's comments would be hugely helpful!) as to why I am getting the 'level' rejection, and by what means should I re-level the photos. By that I mean what do I look at top judge level.... not how to do it (that I know!).

The original images:

Big version: Width: 648 Height: 432 File size: 279kb

Frontier Airbus A320 N945FR at PHX October 26th 2008.

Big version: Width: 648 Height: 434 File size: 286kb

AeroMexico Boeing 737-700W XA-CYM at PHX October 26th 2008.

My images adjusted slightly using the bridge facings in the lower foreground. I think I see an improvement in the Frontier.... but the AeroMexico still confuses me!

Big version: Width: 648 Height: 432 File size: 306kb

XA-CYM, re-levelled using the bridge panels in the foreground.

Big version: Width: 648 Height: 432 File size: 301kb

N945FR, level adjusted using bridge panels in foreground.

If you think these second two are still not level, please let me know WHY you think so. To all, thanks very much for your help!!!

nikog · Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:08 am

Hi to all.
I need help with this one
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...tions/big/20081129_IMG_8077_1b.jpg
The photo rejected both for quality and compression.
What is wrong with quality?
I really don't understand what is wrong with compression.The original image was 3888x2592,after cropping 2812x2109 and uploaded one 1280x960.What is wrong?
Thanks

Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:54 am

Quoting Nikog (Reply 154):

Compression has nothing to do with image size. Compression means you didn't save the image in it's highest possible jpeg quality setting, in PS it's 12 as an example.
Also, as I have said to many before, keep the image size down to 1024px wide as that hides some minor flaws and a 1024px image will almost never be over the file size limit when saved at max jpeg quality.

Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:01 am

Quoting GASGH (Reply 153):

As you can see it's far from level. I have added lines so you can see they are not level. If that was a pool table your pool balls would fly straight in the corner pocket as soon as you removed the triangle Wink

Big version: Width: 648 Height: 432 File size: 154kb

nikog · Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:30 am

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 155):
Quoting Nikog (Reply 154):

Compression has nothing to do with image size. Compression means you didn't save the image in it's highest possible jpeg quality setting, in PS it's 12 as an example.
Also, as I have said to many before, keep the image size down to 1024px wide as that hides some minor flaws and a 1024px image will almost never be over the file size limit when saved at max jpeg quality.

Thanks, i will check it

Psych · Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:10 am

I have a lot of sympathy here for Russell.

Johnny - I could equally say from the same example below that you can see it is leveled correctly:

Big version: Width: 648 Height: 432 File size: 168kb

Is it level?

I have marked what I see as four examples of the verticals in the car park behind which are correctly leveled (I would forget lamp posts, which are notoriously unreliable).

This issue has been debated so many times before, and I would still argue that when in doubt - and you have verticals in the shot - those should be used for reference, not horizontals. The verticals are less likely to be leaning than the horizontals are to be sloping.

I have never been to Phoenix, so why should I not believe Russell when he says that the taxiway here is in reality sloping as it appears in his shot? To my eye the background car park looks right, and to level according to the horizontals pointed out by Johnny's red lines makes everything else look definitely wrong. Have a go - those 'horizontals' require something in the order of one degree CW rotation - surely many would agree the whole of the car park then looks to be leaning to the right?

Paul

gasgh · Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:25 am

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 156):
As you can see it's far from level. I have added lines so you can see they are not level. If that was a pool table your pool balls would fly straight in the corner pocket as soon as you removed the triangle

Hi Johnny,

A.net is quite specific on the subject of "level ground" vs "level airplane". We are specifically told to level the terrain (if indeed it is level to begin with!), and let the airplane line up however it does. For reasons of water drainage, the taxiway is deliberately sloped so that it peaks above the access road that runs underneath (when it does rain here.... we can get 2" in an hour). It's for the same reason the parking garage over terminal 4 (and behind these two shots) is ever so slightly sloped away from the center.

Thanks, however, for taking the time to look and comment!

flynavy · Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:34 am

Quoting Psych (Reply 158):

I recently encountered a rejection at the "other" site stating that this shot below was unlevel. They preferred the shot be level to the obviously downward-sloping taxiway vice to the terminal in the background. It was accepted here with no problems.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christopher Weyer - AirTeamImages

I personally prefer the shot to be leveled (as it very well should be) to the verticals.

whisperjet · Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Hi,

I had this shot rejected for colour a while ago. Can somebody please give me a hint on how to improve it?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081115_D-ALPF.jpg

Thanks!

Stefan

Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:40 pm

Quoting Psych (Reply 158):

Quoting GASGH (Reply 159):

Well, you said you levelled with the bridge panels in the foreground, and my levels are made from them, I didn't check the background verticals at all, my mistake.
But, verticals are often skewed from lens distorsion, so I rarely level that way, but in this case they look straight as arrows. I stand corrected.

walter2222 · Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:37 pm

Hi there,

Since most of my rejects are for soft, I am trying to "overdo" it a little bit. Now, I got two rejects for "oversharpened". Have I gone too far?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...J_20080627_IMG_1957_WVB_1200px.jpg

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...S_20081028_IMG_5344_WVB_1200px.jpg

I am not disagreeing with the rejections, just asking for advice in which areas I should apply less.

Thanks and regards,

Walter

sjmurphy · Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:43 pm

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 134kb

Will this pass

flynavy · Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:16 am

Quoting Sjmurphy (Reply 164):

No, and why are you posting it in the post-screening thread? Did you not take a look at the IGRR link we provided you?

Neophyte · Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:30 pm

Hey guys, I need your help with two pictures.

This picture was rejected with "colour" What do you think about?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081206_OELPB.jpg

and this picture with "soft"

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081206_A6EBK.jpg

Is it soft around the Emirates titles?

Cheers

Timo

walter2222 · Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:27 am

Hi there,

I had this one rejected for soft:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...J_20080627_IMG_2163_WVB_1200px.jpg

It seems I can't find the correct sharpening (just between soft and oversharpened) lately Sad

Best regards,

Walter

sfb26180 · Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:31 pm

Hello

Now rejected for Quality and Oversharpen. I give up, i don´t have the necessary for A.net.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ions/big/20081207_ECICReditfin.jpg

I´m sorry. Thanks for your time and advices.

Best regards

Sebastian Fernandez Bielkiewicz
Iberian Spotters

whisperjet · Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:40 am

This one was rejected for colour. Any hints on how to improve it?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20081207_EC-JEI.jpg

Thanks

Stefan

haphadon · Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:59 pm

This one is rejected for quality and oversharppen:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...irforcewarplanekevinnov222008.jpeg

This one is rejected for soft:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...greatpicturesnowbirkevin29nov.jpeg

how are either of those that expeccialy the first shot.

walter2222 · Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:27 pm

I had this one rejected for motive:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...L_20060721_CRW_5788_WVB_1200px.jpg

I thought it was an interesting close-up view, and there are several close-ups (similar?) in the database (also from myself). Any thoughts what's wrong with this one?

Another rejection for motive and centered:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...060721_CRW_5923_RT8_WVB_1200px.jpg

I can understand the centered (I have another crop, but that is showing distracting items below the aircraft, hence this closer crop), but why is the close-up regarded as not allowed motiv?

Thanks and regards,

Walter

radium15 · Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:11 pm

Hi All,
"Contrast" rejection on this one:

The question is - too low or too high?

--
Pavel

walter2222 · Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:18 am

Hi,

I had this one rejected for dark:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...L_20080718_IMG_3284_WVB_1200px.jpg

I know, the weather was very bad that day (rainy, poor light, ...), but the time of day - when the shot was taken - was still before sunset. What should I do, artificially lighten up the shot or should I just forget about it?

Thanks and regards,

Walter

Lanas · Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:42 pm

Hi Walter

I think that the background is too bright, compared to the foreground. That´s the main problem I believe.
Any attempt on brightening up the foreground might brighten the background too much. Unless you applied some selective brightening, but that may not be allowed. I´m not sure about it.

Good luck with it! Smile

Cheers
Lanas.-

blackbird1 · Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:49 pm

Hi all!

Just received these rejections:

Soft:

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...1210_N925AU_SBD_20062710_2354a.jpg

Looks sharp on my monitor, any further sharpening creates jaggies.
Does anybody know which area do I have to sharpen?

Level:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...81209_N628VA_LAX_20082210_6047.jpg

Adjusted according to the pole in the middle and the building and the pole to the right, which adjustment is needed here??

Thanks for any advice!
Gerhard Plomitzer

whisperjet · Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:07 pm

Quoting Blackbird1 (Reply 175):

Have to agree with you on the first shot. It's close to being oversharpened. The only areas which might need some ahrpening is the cockpit and maybe also the engines. But definitely not much!

I would use the right corner of the big terminal building as reference for levelling the second shot. Some 0,xx CW rotation.

Stefan

wilco737 · Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:06 am

Hello fellow a.net photographers,

I need your help. I got this picture rejected for "level". The screener dropped me a personal note - which I do appreciate - that it needs CW rotation.

Now, I've been on Photoshop and tried CW rotation, but it never looked level to me as I don't have a real reference here.

Can anybody tell me how much of rotation this picture needs?

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 695 File size: 228kb

Thank you very much.

Regards

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:40 am

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 177):

In my oppinion you should use the taxiway in the background as it seems to follow the tree line in the background.
In that case it needs 0.61 CW rotation.

blackbird1 · Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:41 am

Would like to help if I can, WILCO737, but the image does not open on my monitor Sad

wilco737 · Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:44 am

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 178):
In my oppinion you should use the taxiway in the background as it seems to follow the tree line in the background.
In that case it needs 0.61 CW rotation.

But I am not 100% perpendicular to the airplane or taxiway, isn't that a problem of perspective then? I tried it with 0.61 CW and then it looks like it is leaing to the the right for me.

Quoting Blackbird1 (Reply 179):
Would like to help if I can, WILCO737, but the image does not open on my monitor Sad

Thanks anyway.

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:10 am

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 180):

Hmmm, looking closer, that's a concrete fence or? I thought it looked like a taxiway...
Well, a fence is not the best reference and I levelled using it. Rotating 0.3 looks better overall I'd say, but agree that it's not easy to know what reference to use.

wilco737 · Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:14 am

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 181):
Hmmm, looking closer, that's a concrete fence or? I thought it looked like a taxiway...

Yes, it is a concrete fence.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 181):
Well, a fence is not the best reference and I levelled using it. Rotating 0.3 looks better overall I'd say, but agree that it's not easy to know what reference to use.

That's my problem, I don't know what to take as reference. With 0.3 it looks as ok as with 0.0 rotation, IMO. Ah well.

WILCO737 (MD11F)
airplane

DJdeRidder · Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:37 am

I had this one rejected twice already for not being level:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ig/20081213_20080701_yyyy_9615.jpg

I leveled it with the grass below the small fence on the right side, but still didn't get accepted. How can I improve this shot?

ptrjong · Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:02 am

Quoting DJdeRidder (Reply 183):

Hi Dirk Jan,

The immediate impression when opening the pic is that it needs counterclockwise rotation.
Just make the central poles in the fence approximately vertical.
Or try the grey bar below the fence as a horizontal.

Peter Smile

cpd · Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:03 am

I had this rejected:

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20081212_DSC_3017_A6EHA_081130.jpg
quality blurry contrast colour distance common

I'll do this one again at a smaller size - but where and what is the colour cast? And does it have too much or too little contrast? I'm confused - it looks okay on my screen.

This is my proposed re-edit:

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 297kb

Maybe I'm a little bit annoyed here too - after a run of accepted images - then getting these out of the blue..

[Edited 2008-12-14 03:06:32]

firefly_cyhz · Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:24 pm

Hi got this one rejected for level...I used the vertical lines on the hangar to level it as I wasn't straight on to the hangar. Any idea what way I should rotate it?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...81213_N501XJcysu091208gmb8994a.jpg

Thanks!

andrewC75 · Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:34 pm

I really like this one... rejected for dark. Think there's any chance for it? I think were I to brighten it, the top would start to get grainy and blow out the sunset glow.

[Edited 2008-12-14 05:35:31]

chuck9941 · Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:37 pm

rejected for colour and contrast.

photo was taken as the sun was starting to set which would really increase the colors being shown. I actually reduced the contrast in editing to try to avoid. Shooting settings we set to be darker as well.

Any chance to appeal based on time of day and lighting conditions? other thoughts?

Thanks,
Andrew

NWA783 · Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:18 pm

Quoting Firefly_cyhz (Reply 186):
Any idea what way I should rotate it?

Looks to me like it need a bit of CW rotation

- Josh -

jobu7282 · Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:49 am

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...81217_BraggC130PresidentDetail.jpg

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...s/big/20081216_GWBushAggieland.jpg

osu_av8or · Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:32 am

Jobu7282, both look great to me, but then again my current acceptance ratio is abysmal. What were they rejected for?

And while I'm here (and since my other thread was deleted), does anyone have any thoughts on the quality rejections I just got? I know they are a tad oversharpened, but any thoughts on the QUALITY rejection?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ns/big/20081217_N715WA_JLC_DUA.jpg

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ns/big/20081217_N401SB_JLC_M18.jpg

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

withak · Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:20 am

I had this one rejected for dark and grainy. The grain is no real problem and can easily be dealt with. The levels on the other hand I am having a lot of problems with. Does anyone have any ideas? Can it be saved or should I just keep it for the personal collection? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20081216_20081211_F28_11186_F1.jpg

Kris

jobu7282 · Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:07 pm

The first one for oversharpening and the other for Over Sharpening and I think Contrast

osu_av8or · Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:09 pm

Jobu,

The VH-60 might be a tad on the dark side, and maybe ever so-slightly oversharpened . I think I can see a bit of oversharpening on the C-130 around the cockpit windows.

Really FANTASTIC shots though, I love the VH-60 especially. Tweak it a bit and I imagine it will get in the second time.

Any thoughts on my quality rejects? Quality is such a hard thing to pin down.

jobu7282 · Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:49 am

What ISO do you shot with?

On the second photo I see oversharpeing on the Trailing edge of the wings.
Also, when you crop are you selecting the DPI or are you letting Photoshop create your DPI?

What I mean is, I crop my photos at 3x2 inches and my DPI is around 800-1000 DPI?

Also what Image setting is your camera on? Raw or Jpeg? You may want to try Raw if not already and make sure your camera is on the largest setting.

aznwings777 · Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:08 pm

This photo was rejected for level, but when I zoom in on the photo and line up the buldings with the edge of the frame, it looks level. Maybe it needs the smallest amount of counterclockwise rotation, but thats all I can think of. Thoughts?

Thanks,
WINGS

osu_av8or · Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:55 am

Jobu, I shot both years ago with my C-740. Couldn't tell you the settings it has been so long. I get the oversharpening, but the quality reject has got me scratching my head.

HAL · Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:06 am

This one was rejected for color and level. The color I can understand because the day was pretty hazy (volcanic vog). I can go in and correct for it, although it won't look the same in the picture as it did in real life. But for me it's the level that is really open to interperetation. The background of the shot is a mountain. The road with the cars on it is coming downhill and toward the camera. The actual runway (out of sight to the left) is sloped well downhill, as is all the terrain leading up to it. There isn't a level piece of land anywhere in the photo. I lined up the road with the trees along it because it ran closest to parallel to my shot. If that isn't level, then what the heck should I use?

David

Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:26 am

Quoting HAL (Reply 198):

Looking at the lightposts/telephone poles they are all leaning to the right. Use them as reference for level. Do a replace colour on the whites on the fuselage to a whiter nuance, that ought to do the trick for the entire image. I tried that, but can't upload it since it seems to be impossible to erase images in the profile Sad

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net