https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... d2ec8bb60c
Rejected for “unnatural sky” and “low in frame” both are absolutely absurd. Is it really so unbelievable that these colors would occur at sunset?
How can someone have so many images in the database and now be accused of image alteration to this extent?
Absolutely ridiculous.
Here's a screenshot of the MacOS Finder and Lightroom Classic (which of course process CR2 images a little better), showing a preview of the original raw images from the sequence.
https://imgur.com/wyipGNm
https://imgur.com/wqlbOn1
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
Reference the 'low in frame' nonsense. Please check these recent images in the database. Where was their 'low in frame' rejection?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-A ... 3S/5807421
https://www.airliners.net/photo/QantasL ... K9/2829842
https://www.airliners.net/photo/QantasL ... K9/2829843
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-A ... 3S/5807421
https://www.airliners.net/photo/QantasL ... K9/2829842
https://www.airliners.net/photo/QantasL ... K9/2829843
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
Centring looks fine to me personally but, had it been mine (and knowing how picky they can be here), I'd have put it a fraction higher.
Unnatural sky makes no sense — it's exactly what I'd expect just prior to sunrise or just after sunset. I'd say you have a good case for an appeal...
Unnatural sky makes no sense — it's exactly what I'd expect just prior to sunrise or just after sunset. I'd say you have a good case for an appeal...
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
Thanks JakTrax, appreciate your input.
Unfortunately the image has been rejected again on appeal. With this mixed-message personal note...
Anyway, looks like I'm packing up and heading out. It's been a fun 15 years, but I'm afraid this, along with several other recent screening irregularities and straight up insults, have broken the camels back.
I've used the contact us form to pull all my images off the database. If anybody knows the best direct email to have this accomplished asap I'd appreciate it.
Unfortunately the image has been rejected again on appeal. With this mixed-message personal note...
The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Screener rejection correct, also OS. Not suggesting you manipulated the sky, but could have changed in processing. thanks!"
Anyway, looks like I'm packing up and heading out. It's been a fun 15 years, but I'm afraid this, along with several other recent screening irregularities and straight up insults, have broken the camels back.
I've used the contact us form to pull all my images off the database. If anybody knows the best direct email to have this accomplished asap I'd appreciate it.
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
I have to side with Kevin here... I have a similar sky in the database. It's quite natural and generally occurs in the short period where the sun has just gone down so the sky is still lit up but with a dull washed out pink hue, or when the sun is going down but behind clouds. Here's that exact scenario below:
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
Thanks for your support Dylan. Those are two beautiful images if I may say!
-
-
PanAm_DC10
Community Manager
- Posts: 4220
- Joined:
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
Hello Kevin
It is a nice shot and the HS will advise further. We understand a specific rejection can be irritating though in this instance I believe we can find a solution for the benefit of the entire community
Thanks
Paul
It is a nice shot and the HS will advise further. We understand a specific rejection can be irritating though in this instance I believe we can find a solution for the benefit of the entire community
Thanks
Paul
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
pilotkev1 wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/9/4/6259499.jpg?v=v4d2ec8bb60c
Rejected for “unnatural sky” and “low in frame” both are absolutely absurd. Is it really so unbelievable that these colors would occur at sunset?
How can someone have so many images in the database and now be accused of image alteration to this extent?
Absolutely ridiculous.
Here's a screenshot of the MacOS Finder and Lightroom Classic (which of course process CR2 images a little better), showing a preview of the original raw images from the sequence.
https://imgur.com/wyipGNm
https://imgur.com/wqlbOn1
Hi Kevin,
After seeing your screenshots of the RAW thumbnails it’s very obvious that the sky was that color.
Would you be ok fixing the low in frame? It doesn’t need much, just a tad higher. Please reconsider your decision to remove your photos.
Regards,
Daniel
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
Thank you Garrett, I appreciate your input and support. What do you drive anyway? I feel like it's high time we bump into each other. I'm in the black Escape.
Paul, from time to time I'll cordially disagree with many a screening decision. I should like to clarify however, this instance has only had me so fired up for the fact that whoever screened this image has taken me for someone to maliciously manipulate my images, which has never been the case. Perhaps it would help to reverse the anonymity... screening results signed with initials, and photographer names stricken from the images in the general queue, adding a bit of responsibility, so to speak. Although at the same time I think to myself, don't fix what's not broken.
Daniel, thanks for taking a look. I still believe the final image should always speak for itself, so with or without original RAW thumbnails the screener should probably have known better than to make such a wild accusation. I'm perfectly happy to argue over framing/sharpness/etc, and certainly willing to go back for a re-edit, taking into account run-of-the-mill rejection reasons that go along with this hobby, especially on a site like A.net. The struggle, as it were, is after all what makes this hobby fun in the long run. I'd be bored to tears with unrestricted airfield access and accepting my own photos 100% of the time.
Kevin
Paul, from time to time I'll cordially disagree with many a screening decision. I should like to clarify however, this instance has only had me so fired up for the fact that whoever screened this image has taken me for someone to maliciously manipulate my images, which has never been the case. Perhaps it would help to reverse the anonymity... screening results signed with initials, and photographer names stricken from the images in the general queue, adding a bit of responsibility, so to speak. Although at the same time I think to myself, don't fix what's not broken.
Daniel, thanks for taking a look. I still believe the final image should always speak for itself, so with or without original RAW thumbnails the screener should probably have known better than to make such a wild accusation. I'm perfectly happy to argue over framing/sharpness/etc, and certainly willing to go back for a re-edit, taking into account run-of-the-mill rejection reasons that go along with this hobby, especially on a site like A.net. The struggle, as it were, is after all what makes this hobby fun in the long run. I'd be bored to tears with unrestricted airfield access and accepting my own photos 100% of the time.
Kevin
Re: Unnatural Sky Rejection
I've suspected for a while that some screeners here (hopefully a minority) are only really qualified in image processing and need to learn more about how photography works physically in the field. I bet most seasoned photographers would look at the rejected image and know right away that that's exactly the kind of sky you get in the moments before sunrise and after sunset. Image editing is only 50% of this modern game.
My confidence in general screening here waned a long time ago. Surely to screen here a prerequisite is the ability to recognise what's natural and what's not? To the team's credit cloning seems to be jumped on right away, even when it's difficult to discern — but cloning is associated with editing, perhaps reinforcing what I said earlier.
My confidence in general screening here waned a long time ago. Surely to screen here a prerequisite is the ability to recognise what's natural and what's not? To the team's credit cloning seems to be jumped on right away, even when it's difficult to discern — but cloning is associated with editing, perhaps reinforcing what I said earlier.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests