Page 3 of 3

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:52 am
by solro
Hello...

I have one more weird rejection.

My first try was this.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/0/2/5453209.jpg?v=v422b80b8628
It was rejected for dark and oversharpened.

Then I increased the brightness, and increased the size.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/9/7/5454797.jpg?v=v43ed26dc400
It was rejected again for dark and oversharpened. I appealed it and the HS rejected it for Overexposed and soft.

My last attempt is this, which was again rejected for oversharpened ,underexposed.and noise

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/5/7/5461753.jpg?v=v4019877cd80

I am really puzzled. Should appeal either the first or the last one?

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:49 am
by HarryLi
Hi Solro,
First of all, the sharpness for all of them look fine for me. Exposure does seem bit of tricky maybe due to weather / light condition in this case because of white background cloud.Your second attempt which to increase the exposure did make the BG seems overexposed to some extent. The reason screener rejected your second try as Dark at first is because screener considered the a/c looks underexposed not the whole Image. But HS mentioned overexposed in terms of BG sky. Exposure looks not bad for your last version, IMO.

Regards,
Harry

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:21 pm
by solro
Thank for your answer Harry. I appealed the last one...

airkas1 wrote:
Passable for me.


It ended up far from passable Kas.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/4/5/5454543.jpg?v=v4a93fc32a86
It was rejected for
Overexposed
Size
Soft
Low Contrast
Heat Haze

I can agree with the overxposed and contrast, but not with the rest.
Do you think it's worth an appeal?

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:31 am
by solro
I had a totally 4 rejections for one single image.

My first try was this. It was rejected for noise and low contrast.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/4/1/5467147.jpg?v=v4f37d9e20f6

Then I boosted the contrast and reduced noise, so it was rejected for high contrast and underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/7/4/5472475.jpg?v=v44d9fafb43b

Then I tried to fix these. They were apparently fixed, because the screener rejected the pic only for high in frame. I appealed the HS said "screener correct"
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/9/3/5478399.jpg?v=v4772e8dd610

Finally I moved the subject down, and it was rejected for oversharpened, noise and underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/1/8/5479817.jpg?v=v4036af58c02

Note that this is the first pic with the new Southwest livery.

What should I do?
Thanks Solon

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:31 am
by Runway28L
The third image linked looks the best IMO. I'm having a hard time seeing how that's considered High in Frame.

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:33 pm
by solro
This was appealed and rejected. The HS said that I should consider tail as part of the airctaft. Probably I 'll appeal the last one.

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:09 pm
by airkas1
Jeez, sorry for this rollercoaster. I realize this doesn't really help, but I'm on #teamphoto2 and am of the opinion that that photo is good enough for the DB. In my opinion the centering is pretty much spot on from this angle... The 4th one is definitely low in frame.

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:18 pm
by solro
I just appealed the 2nd one. Hope this works out.

Today I realized that there is an HS with his own view on centering. I appealed this pic for blurry yesterday and I got the exact same message "Blurry but too high in frame. Please consider tail as a part of aircraft" And the photo is obviously spot on
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/3/0/5480033.jpg?v=v4a1f9395b56

I can accept the fact that Southwest 738 may look unbalanced if I put the fuselage right on the center. But in the last pic we are talking about common standards.

Furthermore I got also the exact same message when appealed this Delta 717 for soft. "Sharpness acceptable but too high in frame. Please consider tail as a part of aircraft". I know it's high in frame but my motive is to show the terminal and taxiing aircraft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/2/5/5454525.jpg?v=v4f1565a34f3

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:33 pm
by airkas1
The crop of the 717 is fine for me.

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:37 pm
by solro
Thanks Kas. I lowered it a bit, and it is going to get screened soon.

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:42 pm
by solro
After one more rejection and a successful appeal the 5th edit of the Southwest 738 made it!


Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:45 pm
by jelpee
Man...you are tenacious! Congratulations.

Jehan

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 12:00 am
by solro
One more series of rejections.

This time is thw Swifair 737 N314XA, under priority screening

My first attempt was rejected for "blurry" and "oversharpened".
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/1/5/5507511.jpg?v=v435ed259c85

Then I tweaked sharpening and it was rejected for underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/2/9/5516927.jpg?v=v429db6fbee2

The last one was rejected for
Overexposed
Soft
Quality
Low Contrast
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/6/1/5518167.jpg?v=v4c500cfeb71

Do you think anyone of these is worth of an appeal or I should just keep tweaking things?

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 12:03 am
by jelpee
I would let this one go.

Jehan

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:49 pm
by solro
I had this photo rejected as double of the following one, even after an appeal.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/3/5/5612539.jpg?v=v44f4557194c



I understand that they are from the same sequence but the motive and the frame is really different.

What are your thoughts on this?

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:23 pm
by JKPhotos
Hey Solon,

I am sorry to say, but there are no real "thoughts" on this.
The rules state it pretty clear: Same side, same day, same phase of flight (both taxiing) is a double. It would have to be at least a 90° different angle (one head on, one side on) to be acceptable.
Closer or wider view doesn't matter on a.net - we still considere as same side - same day.
That's why the appeal had no chance anyway, sorry.

I think you should have chosen the second shot first, but it is as it is... Next time chose the shot you want to have on here carefully.

Julien

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:05 am
by solro
This time I would like some prescreening on this picture.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/1/5676161.jpg?v=v4f4a77ceed3

Feel free to judge everything, shaprness, contrast, colours (it was taken from a 787 window which gives serious casts) etc.

I would also like to ask if this picture qualify as a "talk of the town" priority at the weekend of the US Grand Prix which is held there.

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:02 am
by jelpee
For me: Overexposed for starters. Also the image looks a bit "Smudgy/pasty"...like there's been too much noise reduction applied.

Jehan

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:08 am
by airkas1
I'm not seeing an airport nor the wing of your aircraft, making this a motive rejection to start with. If the top right is an airstrip, it's too insignificant.

Re: Post screening Solro

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:28 am
by solro
Thanks for your replies and excuse me for the delayed answer.

airkas1 wrote:
I'm not seeing an airport nor the wing of your aircraft, making this a motive rejection to start with. If the top right is an airstrip, it's too insignificant.

I d like to argue that in many similar cases the parts of the aicraft visible at window shots (engine cowling wing tips etc) are more of a nuisance rather an element that plays a role in the composition of the frame. One can find numerous example in the db.

The new version of the image is this.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/1/1/5723115.jpg?v=v4935c823a33