[will now post my post-screening questions in this topic]
Hi all,
Just had this photo rejected for the second time (actually the 4th if you count the two appeals). Wondering if anybody can point out what exactly is wrong with it:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 425bbf3145
Thanks in advance for your help.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Post-screening questions
Hi,
The body of the aircraft has obvious magenta cast for me, and it also can be brighter slightly.
Regards,
Harry
The body of the aircraft has obvious magenta cast for me, and it also can be brighter slightly.
Regards,
Harry
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Got some confusing rejections again; hopefully somebody can help me to improve the following photos:
1. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 068147.jpg
2. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 068149.jpg
3. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 070035.jpg
1. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 068147.jpg
2. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 068149.jpg
3. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 070035.jpg
-
- 45272455674
- Posts: 7732
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
dutchspotter1 wrote:Got some confusing rejections again; hopefully somebody can help me to improve the following photos:
1. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 068147.jpg
2. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 068149.jpg
3. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 070035.jpg
What were those rejections for?
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
I didn't mention that on purpose to see if others come up with the same rejection reason as the screeners. If that is the case then I can actually learn from it and pay more attention to that aspect while editing any future photos 
-
- 45272455674
- Posts: 7732
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
I’m not going to play second guess the screener games.
Perhaps the screener will chime in. I had some thoughts, but I’ll wait.
Perhaps the screener will chime in. I had some thoughts, but I’ll wait.
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
That's fine, I appreciate the help either way.
-
- clickhappy
- Posts: 9175
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
UAL 777 looks fine to me. My United shots seem to have the same color cast.
Those three other rejections look fine quality wise to me, but they do seem a bit high in the frame for the current screening standards (I’ve had a couple of rejections for the same). As a result I’ve started making an effort to crop slightly lower.
They are all nice images
Those three other rejections look fine quality wise to me, but they do seem a bit high in the frame for the current screening standards (I’ve had a couple of rejections for the same). As a result I’ve started making an effort to crop slightly lower.
They are all nice images
Re: Post-screening questions
All 4 images look perfectly acceptable to me.
UA 777 just looks like a late afternoon sun giving the airplane a slight color cast.
UA 777 just looks like a late afternoon sun giving the airplane a slight color cast.
Re: Post-screening questions
What I see:
Air Canada A330: Slight pink hue to it; not a show stopper but fixable.
KLM T7: Passable
ElAL T7: Soft in the nose area.
Jehan
Air Canada A330: Slight pink hue to it; not a show stopper but fixable.
KLM T7: Passable
ElAL T7: Soft in the nose area.
Jehan
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Once again I'm somewhat confused by the following rejected photos:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 113155.jpg
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 113153.jpg
First both were rejected for "soft", then on appeal they were rejected for "HIF". So who should I believe, the main screener or the head screener? The main screener doesn't think these are HIF, but he does think both are soft, whereas the headscreener thinks the exact opposite.
I'm curious if these two photos are really high in frame or if it's still within acceptable limits. Technically I'd agree that the two are HIF, but when adding more blue sky on top, the a/c will look LIF due to the ratio between sky and ground. Therefore the above photos look still centered to me.
I tried to find out what limits are acceptable and I'm curious if the above two photos are looking higher in frame than the following:
Thanks in advance for the feedback/clarification.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 113155.jpg
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 113153.jpg
First both were rejected for "soft", then on appeal they were rejected for "HIF". So who should I believe, the main screener or the head screener? The main screener doesn't think these are HIF, but he does think both are soft, whereas the headscreener thinks the exact opposite.
I'm curious if these two photos are really high in frame or if it's still within acceptable limits. Technically I'd agree that the two are HIF, but when adding more blue sky on top, the a/c will look LIF due to the ratio between sky and ground. Therefore the above photos look still centered to me.
I tried to find out what limits are acceptable and I'm curious if the above two photos are looking higher in frame than the following:
Thanks in advance for the feedback/clarification.
Re: Post-screening questions
The images that were rejected are HIF. It is apparent if you look at a thumbnail sized version. From the screening log, the Head Screener expressed his apologies for it not being mentioned in the initial screening. It is not unusual to have new issues identified on appeal. The 737 does looks soft in parts (window line and titles). The A320 looks passable to me. The degree of acceptable softness is a subjective call. I am guessing that the HS thought it was acceptable. I probably would have called it out if I was handling this appeal.
I believe if you adjust the centering on these images and give it some additional sharpening and resubmit them it should be OK.
I agree that the other examples you cited do look HIF. Will address those outside of this thread.
Regards,
Jehan
I believe if you adjust the centering on these images and give it some additional sharpening and resubmit them it should be OK.
I agree that the other examples you cited do look HIF. Will address those outside of this thread.
Regards,
Jehan
Re: Post-screening questions
I'm puzzled. Both your images look fine to me (as does the Correndon 737 you linked — except for it looking slightly unlevel). And they'd remain fine even if the subjects were lowered considerably. HIF/LIF here seem to constitute one screener's view, then it all changes when that screener leaves the team and the next takes it upon himself to apply his own preferences.
There needs to be more flexibility — I guarantee if you search through the last week's uploads you'll find images in which the subject is far higher/lower in frame than the examples above.
Karl
There needs to be more flexibility — I guarantee if you search through the last week's uploads you'll find images in which the subject is far higher/lower in frame than the examples above.
Karl
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Thank you both for your input.
The question is, why wasn't it mentioned on the initial screening? Because (a) the screener forgot or (b) the screener considered it to be within acceptable limits. I'm sure the HS concerned will say it's (a) but I wonder if these things are actually being discussed between the screener and HS before the verdict on the appeal. That would ultimately help both the screener (getting better at his job to provide constructive feedback) and the photographer (getting better at editing his photos), leading to fewer appeals, shorter screening queues, higher quality photos, etc, etc.
jelpee wrote:From the screening log, the Head Screener expressed his apologies for it not being mentioned in the initial screening. It is not unusual to have new issues identified on appeal.
The question is, why wasn't it mentioned on the initial screening? Because (a) the screener forgot or (b) the screener considered it to be within acceptable limits. I'm sure the HS concerned will say it's (a) but I wonder if these things are actually being discussed between the screener and HS before the verdict on the appeal. That would ultimately help both the screener (getting better at his job to provide constructive feedback) and the photographer (getting better at editing his photos), leading to fewer appeals, shorter screening queues, higher quality photos, etc, etc.
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Curious if other people think this one is right in frame and underexposed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 34dd456f48
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 34dd456f48
Re: Post-screening questions
It's clearly right in frame based on what I understand the standards here to be. Personally, I'd crop it so that the distance from the nose to the edge of the frame and tail come to edge of the frame were equal (and still show the h-stab), but that's not acceptable either...
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
So what should be taken into account regarding centering: the tip of the rear end of the fuselage (i.e. nose-to-tail) or the tip of the horizontal stabilizer? Based on the first option it's actually left in frame.
Re: Post-screening questions
Are we looking at the same photo, the KLM 772? I don`t see anything that has to do with right in frame. It looks only a tight crop on the right side to me or not cropped even with the left side, but not really a problem if you ask me.
Re: Post-screening questions
Let me weigh in. The aircraft is technically right in frame. Unlike High/Low in Frame which looks at the perspective and impact of the tail, for Right/left in Frame, it is generally equidistance from the ends of the airplane. In your case, it would be from the nose to the left edge, and the tip of the horizontal stabilizer to the right edge.
Regards,
Jehan
Regards,
Jehan
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Many thanks for the clarification! Will keep this in mind when editing my photos.
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Hi all,
Can anybody point out the difference in exposure between these three photos (of which the first one got rejected):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e816bd7873
Many thanks for your help.
Can anybody point out the difference in exposure between these three photos (of which the first one got rejected):
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... e816bd7873
Many thanks for your help.
Re: Post-screening questions
Hi,
The rejected one does look slightly underexposed even without checking the histogram. If you want a more subjective reference you can check histogram but don't rely too much on it. Just a reference. Besides, I would suggest you to try adjust "Level" in Photoshop or whatever softwares you used to edit, which could be helpful IMO. I won't compare the rejected one with the last one you quoted there since it's shot at late time with softer light condition.
Regards,
Harry
The rejected one does look slightly underexposed even without checking the histogram. If you want a more subjective reference you can check histogram but don't rely too much on it. Just a reference. Besides, I would suggest you to try adjust "Level" in Photoshop or whatever softwares you used to edit, which could be helpful IMO. I won't compare the rejected one with the last one you quoted there since it's shot at late time with softer light condition.
Regards,
Harry
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Hello,
This one got rejected for needing CCW rotation, but I'm wondering how to determine when the photo is level or not. There are no obvious vertical objects and it was not taken perpendicular to the runway, so I'm not sure what to use as a reference. Any suggestions or tips?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a4bb69125e
Many thanks in advance.
This one got rejected for needing CCW rotation, but I'm wondering how to determine when the photo is level or not. There are no obvious vertical objects and it was not taken perpendicular to the runway, so I'm not sure what to use as a reference. Any suggestions or tips?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a4bb69125e
Many thanks in advance.
Re: Post-screening questions
dutchspotter1 wrote:Hello,
This one got rejected for needing CCW rotation, but I'm wondering how to determine when the photo is level or not. There are no obvious vertical objects and it was not taken perpendicular to the runway, so I'm not sure what to use as a reference. Any suggestions or tips?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a4bb69125e
Many thanks in advance.
in ground shots, there is ALWAYS a level reference. Sometimes they are related to the horizon, sometimes its related to the runway, and many other times with the objects (for example a runway marking sign).
In your case the apparent horizon is the grass at the back (and also the trees at the right side of the picture)
regards, fernando
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Just got this one rejected for oversharped:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f754f8f300
Can anybody point out what area is oversharped? Obviously the Neos titles and logo have a white line around them by design, not as a result of oversharpness.
Thanks in advance for the comments.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f754f8f300
Can anybody point out what area is oversharped? Obviously the Neos titles and logo have a white line around them by design, not as a result of oversharpness.
Thanks in advance for the comments.
-
-
PanAm_DC10
Community Manager
- Posts: 4220
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Hi
The whole frame looks slightly OS. It's great quality and if you'd like to try again with a little less USM I'm sure it would be an IA
Regards
The whole frame looks slightly OS. It's great quality and if you'd like to try again with a little less USM I'm sure it would be an IA
Regards
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Thanks, just wondering how it's more OS than e.g. this one:
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Hi all,
I just got an image rejected for double, even though they were clearly not taken in the same sequence but at different times of the day and at different locations. Can anybody please clarify the "double" rules?
Rejected image:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... db5e724868
Accepted image:
I just got an image rejected for double, even though they were clearly not taken in the same sequence but at different times of the day and at different locations. Can anybody please clarify the "double" rules?
Rejected image:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... db5e724868
Accepted image:
-
- nstampede002
- Posts: 80
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Joost,
The explanation for it is in the acceptance guide. Paragraph two kinda spells out why they punted your second upload. Nice photo, just too much like the one accepted I suspect (same side, same day, relatively similar conditions, even though it was at a different time of day). See here: https://www.airliners.net/faq/photo_acceptance_guide/#double
Hope this helps.
Josh
The explanation for it is in the acceptance guide. Paragraph two kinda spells out why they punted your second upload. Nice photo, just too much like the one accepted I suspect (same side, same day, relatively similar conditions, even though it was at a different time of day). See here: https://www.airliners.net/faq/photo_acceptance_guide/#double
Hope this helps.
Josh
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening questions
Thank you, I was under the impression that Double only applied for shots taken in the same sequence.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests