Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:19 am

Hi to all,
I open this thread in order to ask community help in upload some photos...
This is the first one:

Image

it was rejected for:

Dark
Oversharpened
High Contrast

I appealed and...

Blurry
Oversharpened
Personal
Quality
High in Frame
High Contrast

with suggestion to reduce the size...

Ok, now I re-edited the image reducing size, boosting exposure and some other adaptation, but what I found very nice on original pic is the native contrast that bad weather conditions give to the bird... this seems to not be appreciated here :-(
About blurry, I don't know where is blurry, as soon I have time to find a place where put 100% crop I'll show you.
About Qulity, probably is referred to the size, but usually when I work on a original cropped of 4999 pix, reducing to 1600 I obtain a very nice result...
About High in frame, is the first time that someone say this, it was screened 4 times (2 screener and 2 hs)
Thanks a lot for any suggestion.
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:38 am

Do you know that your embedded photo opens in 1920x1080 size? So there is no way to judge quality, blurriness and sharpening issues of the original upload? It's why I stopped even think about participating in any activity except "site related quarrels" until they repair this (as Kas said) "cosmetic" misbehaving of photo part of A.net.

PS: As for HIF there is "balance school" and "fuselage school" and it was discussed at the forum many times and they are not likely agree with each other than small-endians with the big-endians
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:30 pm

kulverstukas wrote:
Do you know that your embedded photo opens in 1920x1080 size? ...


Honestly on my pc it's opened in 1600x1067 ... I hope that on your is opened (wrong) in 1920, because in other case you opened in 1600 and the photo seems to you so terrible :-(
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:28 pm

It opens in 1600x1067 for me as well.

As for the rejection:
What I noticed almost immediately was the oversharpening of the fuselage, which by the looks of it is caused by a slightly blurry original. I'd say this is especially the case for the front part of the plane. I also agree on high contrast/dark and I think you might be able to improve that. As for the high in frame; if you count in the tail, then yes, slightly.
All of the issues may be able to fix, unless the original is indeed slightly blurry. I would recommend trying a lower size like was suggested by the HS.
 
User avatar
spompert
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:46 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:08 pm

kulverstukas wrote:
Do you know that your embedded photo opens in 1920x1080 size?
For me it opens just fine. But I have noticed that sometimes it goes wrong. About the photo: it is really nice! I noticed it was oversharpend and indeed very contrasty. Can be adjusted very easily right?
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:22 pm

Thank's to all, I try to fix issues as suggested.
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:13 pm

Image

Rej for:
Quality
Compression
Motive

I don't remember very well the melanina of Compression, in this moment I couldn't find the rej guide, anyway, any suggestion to improve this one?
Thank's a lot
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:09 am

I think "motive" makes it unacceptable, at least for this screener. Compression means that there is visible jpeg artefacts - I don't think I see one, but may be screener referred to the grain on tarmac at the bottom and to the heathazed tops of trees in BG. Also nose gear (and whole plane's bottom) looks strongly heathazed :(
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:14 pm

Image

Quality, heat hazed ...
But was not hazed ... Anyone other see heat in this plane ??
Thank's
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:22 pm

I do, wings/nose but also just the general feeling. Looks quite marginal and slightly blurryish, sorry.
 
User avatar
akirauekawa
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:08 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:55 am

I do see some heat-haze on both right/left wings. Looking carefully the edges look waving.
Maybe downsizing to some 1,024pix wide is one way to resolve.
And I would say more contrast needed.
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:46 am

Thank's guys
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 20, 2016 6:31 am

Another question on this one:

Image

Screener Decision:
Rejected

Double - I have no one aircraft uploaded with this reg... is there another double possible cause?
Oversharpened - Is sharpen in the same way of other uploaded pic of same day ... result seems not different from other pics ... and seems good.
Quality - I uploaded a Nippon cargo 748 same pos crop ... distance .. why quality is signaled for other issue ?
Noise - Where? I don't see dust or other noise ... tried also with "equalize"
Heat Haze - Honestly I don't see haze ...

Image


Screener Decision:
Rejected

Oversharpened - Is sharpen in the same way of other uploaded pic of same day ... result seems not different from other pics ... and seems good.
Noise - Where? I don't see dust or other noise ... tried also with "equalize"

Image

[In my browser this pic result overzised @ display...]

Screener Decision:
Rejected

Oversharpened - Is sharpen in the same way of other uploaded pic of same day ... result seems not different from other pics ... and seems good.
Noise - Where? I don't see dust or other noise ... tried also with "equalize"


2 of these was rej in 1 minute ... so issue I suppose are evident, but I have difficulty to see so big defect...:-|

Thank's a lot if anyone could be more precisely on where in the photo are visible signaled issue Bye...
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:08 pm

May be screener thinks that all this shoots are of one airframe (I suppose it's different regs)?
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:38 pm

For sure 3 different reg...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20747
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:30 pm

ricox wrote:
Another question on this one:


All three of your images have horrible banding and highly pixelated skies (the screener might be calling this noise). It can be clearly seen without the need to equalise the image. I'm really not sure what you're doing to get it in that state, but expect endless rejections if you continue to do it. I'm surprised you didn't get (quality) editing rejections for all of them.

For the avoidance of doubt, here's one equalised.
Image
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:14 pm

scbriml wrote:
ricox wrote:
Another question on this one:


All three of your images have horrible banding and highly pixelated skies (the screener might be calling this noise).


Can you please check what size his photos opens for you. Because for me they are 1920x1080 and it's definitely not what he uploaded. So I'm not commenting about banding and noise.
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:42 am

scbriml wrote:
ricox wrote:
Another question on this one:


All three of your images have horrible banding and highly pixelated skies...


kulverstukas wrote:
ricox wrote:
...Because for me they are 1920x1080 and it's definitely not what he uploaded...



EC-KQC for example was @1200*800, but if I eq it I had a different result .. ?!?

Image

There is something very strange, if I Save image from "https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/...." the file is very different from original uploaded ..?!? whit a sky very band and grainy ???!???
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:09 am

It's fucked up at Photographers corner. Kas insist that it's only affects ours front end and screeners looks at uploaded originals. I want to believe him, but couple of my photos was rejected for compression and banding too. Go figure.
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:16 am

http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8327975

This is one of the three uploaded on other site without problem, this site is not so severe in screening but with defect showed before by "scbriml", they reject immediatly...
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:34 am

Some links are posted with "12" in stead of "11" (the last digits before ".jpg"). I think that's why they show up so much larger. Don't ask me why this happens (I will investigate), but it's a plausible cause/solution. The correct links should be:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8e9-12.jpg
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2f1-11.jpg
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1b9-11.jpg

The middle link looks like an exact match with the photo linked below (on JP).
@Federico, please confirm that the 3 links I posted above are indeed the photos in their correct sizes.


ricox wrote:

In my book that's:
- blurry
- heathazed
- quality

^ Goes for all 3 photos I'm afraid.
"double": that was probably a mistake by the screener.
"banding": I don't see it either (I see the same as Federico when I equalize it in Photoshop).

kulverstukas wrote:
but couple of my photos was rejected for compression and banding too. Go figure.

Yes, I guarantee we see the photos in their full original quality when screening. If you post your photos in a post-screening thread, we can have a look.
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:14 am

airkas1 wrote:
@Federico, please confirm that the 3 links I posted above are indeed the photos in their correct sizes.
...
In my book that's:
- blurry
- heathazed
- quality



The third one is wrong on my browser, is showed in 1280 but original is 1200 other 2 seems ok for dimension but...

Make attention to the second one, if you see under the left flap and compare it with the same pic uploaded on Jet, you can see that the quality of the A.net pic is low and different ?!?
There is a lot of noise...specially in the shadows.
If we found a common repoistory where I can upolad the raw (24MB) I can easily show you that there is no heat on this pic, could be little soft @ 100% crop but always recovered with pic resizing for upload ...

I don't understand why the 2 pic on two site are so different in quality...
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:21 pm

ricox wrote:
Make attention to the second one, if you see under the left flap and compare it with the same pic uploaded on Jet, you can see that the quality of the A.net pic is low and different ?!?
There is a lot of noise...specially in the shadows.

I don't see the difference :/


ricox wrote:
If we found a common repoistory where I can upolad the raw (24MB) I can easily show you that there is no heat on this pic, could be little soft @ 100% crop but always recovered with pic resizing for upload ...

Upload it via http://www.wetransfer.com to my E-mail: airkas1[at]airliners.net. I'll have a look.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20747
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:43 pm

kulverstukas wrote:
Can you please check what size his photos opens for you. Because for me they are 1920x1080 and it's definitely not what he uploaded. So I'm not commenting about banding and noise.


Yeah, the image downloaded at 1920x1280!
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:57 am

FYI.

Remark: The issue with the quality of rejected photos that I listed in the main feedback E-mail thread.
Reply: "Well that whole page is pretty bad but yes, the photo on there is definitely using a poorly resized version (the same as originally was on the photo details page immediately after launch). We'll get that swapped out as soon as possible. That photo has no relation to what's in the screening queue or on the details pages."


Conclusion:
- We see the correct quality when screening.
- Photo corner pages still need to be modeled after the public pages, but this will be fixed soon.


I hope this takes any doubt away once and for all now...
 
User avatar
ricox
Topic Author
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:35 pm

airkas1 wrote:
...

Conclusion:
- We see the correct quality when screening.
- Photo corner pages still need to be modeled after the public pages, but this will be fixed soon.


I hope this takes any doubt away once and for all now...


Yes ok thsnks,
About raw uploded, can you see all defect caused rej? I need to understand If I make mistake in pp or original is not acceptable...
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: ricox rejections board ;-)

Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:33 pm

This is what I made of the unedited jpg file you sent me. Of course it needs some work regarding vignetting and a bit more brightness, but I couldn't open the RAW.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/207 ... asedit.jpg


The original is somewhat marginal, but I'll have another look when the photo corner pages are modeled after the public pages, so I can see the rejected photo in its correct size. The link I posted above doesn't seem to be correct either, so the enlargement causes quality issues that might not be there. To be continued.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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