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



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.

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

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

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.

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?

Thank's to all, I try to fix issues as suggested.

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

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

Quality, heat hazed ...
But was not hazed ... Anyone other see heat in this plane ??
Thank's

I do, wings/nose but also just the general feeling. Looks quite marginal and slightly blurryish, sorry.

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.

Thank's guys

Another question on this one:



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 ...




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"



[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...

May be screener thinks that all this shoots are of one airframe (I suppose it's different regs)?

For sure 3 different reg...

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.

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.

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 .. ?!?



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 ???!???

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.

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...

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:

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

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.

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...

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.

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!

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...

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...

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.