
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
airkas1 wrote:If you submitted a correction, that's fine and no further action required. The editors usually take care of that anywhere between an hour to a day.
JKPhotos wrote:Hi
Hard to tell. Typically compression issues coming up by not saving at the highest amout possible (12 in Photoshop) or by editing on already resized finished files or generally by squeezing very large originals into tiny sizes.
In your case sky is rather blotchy. If you want, you can send me the orginal and I'll have a look and can try an edit, because like that it is hard to tell where it comes from in a specific case. JKphotos (at) airliners.net
Cheers,
Julien
jelpee wrote:Please post a copy of the image so I can confirm if I may have screened it.
Thanks
Jehan
airkas1 wrote:Versions are cumulative, not stacked.
Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: T-38C Talon
Version: T-38C Talon
is incorrect.
Manufacturer: Northrop
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon
would be correct.
---
In this case:
Use the Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled (MFE) --> tick "no".
Generic type: Northrop T-38 Talon
Version: Northrop T-38C Talon
is correct.
---
Sometimes the 'normal' way (MFE = yes) does not always display the entry correctly. Most of the times this is due to an incorrectly added antry by a photographer who does not know what he/she is doing. When you keep the cumulative part in mind; if the 'normal' way doesn't get you the desired result, tick the MFE "no" box and 99^% of the cases you will find a proper entry.
airkas1 wrote:I think it could use a bit more sharpening.
gh6912 wrote:Hi there, as I've said before I really hate having to appeal because I don't want to waste any screener's time so I am back looking for some feedback on this image. Was rejected for being "Soft" just want to know where the softness is in your eyes before I go back and edit or if I should consider an appeal. Thanks so much!
gh6912 wrote:One more I'd like a little feedback on. The first submission of this F-15K was at 1400x898 size wise and was rejected for simply being "soft"
I resubmitted after adding sharpening slightly and reduced the size a bit to 1250x802 and it was rejected for "Overexposed, soft, low contrast, noise, heathaze" and was called unfixable.
I know that screening is subject to opinion of the individual but I'm just curious how when I added only sharpening to the 1st edit it caused so many additional rejection reasons? This has happened a few times to me in the past so I just want to be sure when resubmitting in the future. Appreciate all the help - Garrett
HarryLi wrote:gh6912 wrote:One more I'd like a little feedback on. The first submission of this F-15K was at 1400x898 size wise and was rejected for simply being "soft"
I resubmitted after adding sharpening slightly and reduced the size a bit to 1250x802 and it was rejected for "Overexposed, soft, low contrast, noise, heathaze" and was called unfixable.
I know that screening is subject to opinion of the individual but I'm just curious how when I added only sharpening to the 1st edit it caused so many additional rejection reasons? This has happened a few times to me in the past so I just want to be sure when resubmitting in the future. Appreciate all the help - Garrett
For me, I don't see obvious heat haze, overexposed,and contrast issue from it. Sharpness looks not bad at 1250px for me.
Regards,
Harry
jelpee wrote:Am not seeing blurry, soft or quality issues that would be show stoppers. People are OK since they are not blocking the aircraft nor posing in front of it. Not seeing color or aberration issues either. Overall it sounds harsh to me. If anything, the image could use some CW rotation judging by the vertical alignment of the pole in the foreground.
Jehan
Crosswindphoto wrote:Agree with Jehan, however, i'm seeing a little bit of chromatic abberation around all of the letters (more so towards the rear of the A/C.)
However, like Jehan said, not a show stopper, personally I would re-upload at a smaller size (1400ish), but thats up to you.
Tim
airkas1 wrote:RE: correct info for the MC-12.
Aircraft Manufacturer Filter Enabled? --> No
Generic Type --> Hawker Beechcraft 350 King Air (C-12)
Version --> Hawker Beechcraft MC-12W Huron (350ER)
However quality is too poor and not fixable.
airkas1 wrote:I think that was my doing and seem to remember that it’s increasingly blurry/OOF towards the left of the frame (so indeed towards the tail).
jelpee wrote:Same day, same location and same side will typically draw a "Double" rejection unless it is a different sequence of flight. e.g. landing, take off, taxiing, or parked at gate. Unless there is strong motivation for it, what you have described, will most likely be considered a double.
Jehan