Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

nstampede002 · Mon Sep 12, 2022 8:59 pm

Hi Photo Feedback forum,

I've been meaning to start one of these to play with for a while, so now is the time I guess.

I'm seeking a little input from the crowd on what the problem is here. Rejected for two reasons: underexposed & motive (PM: "poor crop"). UE and other issues, I can deal with. Poor crop - I am a little confused about. Common practice is to zoom for the fuselage and "clip" the wings so I sincerely hope it's not that. I appealed, mentioning the histogram was peaked but with more of an inquisitive message as to what the issue is with the crop was. I got the lovely re-reject for the same two reasons with the two-word personal message of "screener correct." So, a big help that was. What say you all? (back-dooring Flickr may kill whatever quality was there but we'll see :duck:

)

Thanks,

Josh

dutchspotter1 · Tue Sep 13, 2022 6:24 am

Usually this website is not a big fan of clipping the wings, but the rules seem different from time to time. Anyway, on the left side, try cropping it closer to the horizontal stabilizer; on the right side try to include the enite strut (including the piece that connects it to the wing).

Crosswindphoto · Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:45 am

Personally I think it would be better if you cropped closer to the horizontal stabilizer on the left side, as well as loosening the crop on the right hand site to include the entire wing mount.
Exposure is passable for me

Tim

nstampede002 · Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:40 pm

Crosswindphoto wrote:
Personally I think it would be better if you cropped closer to the horizontal stabilizer on the left side, as well as loosening the crop on the right hand site to include the entire wing mount.
Exposure is passable for me

Tim

dutchspotter1 wrote:
Usually this website is not a big fan of clipping the wings, but the rules seem different from time to time. Anyway, on the left side, try cropping it closer to the horizontal stabilizer; on the right side try to include the enite strut (including the piece that connects it to the wing).

Guys,

Many thanks for your input - that makes more sense now that I see it. I know the screeners/HS have plenty of stuff to look at, but a two word personal message like "horizontal crop" rather than just "poor crop" would be way more useful. Tweaked and resubmitted.

Josh

nstampede002 · Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:52 pm

Hi all,

I have another question with regards to cropping...clearly I don't have the eye for it.

Below is the shot in question and I have had another similar
rejection like it: Motive (PM: unbalanced crop). I don't remember this shot/ramp area specifically but sometimes getting full wings in the shot at the WEF is impossible. I've left the horizontal stabilizer full-length and tired to balance the distance from the right side of the frame to the #1 engine nacelle the same as the left side of the frame to the fuselage/nose. Still a rejection. I've been told that the crop on these types of shots can be tighter on the fuselage overall (clipping the stab, which seems odd), but with the Falcons that seems to be unlikely with a quartering nose shot (tall vertical resulting in a square-ish crop). Sometimes I'll ask a HS to make a call if it's ok or not but today we'll ask the forum.

Anyone see something I'm missing?

Thanks,

Josh

Psych · Sun Apr 23, 2023 9:02 pm

Hi Josh.

I am pretty sure that a key issue in this photo is the aircraft in the background. If that wasn't there I am going to bet that the crop would be deemed acceptable. The cropping of that aircraft's horizontal stabiliser looks a little awkward on the far left.

Paul

nstampede002 · Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:56 am

Psych wrote:
Hi Josh.

I am pretty sure that a key issue in this photo is the aircraft in the background. If that wasn't there I am going to bet that the crop would be deemed acceptable. The cropping of that aircraft's horizontal stabiliser looks a little awkward on the far left.

Paul

Hi Paul,

That's an interesting enough thought - though I have never really considered a background subject to be an issue. But I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the input!

Josh

nstampede002 · Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:16 pm

All,

If anybody monitors and would like to give input, I'll hear it. I'm having repeat rejections for "blurry" quite often with my ZRH shots. I am fully aware of the runway 28 lineup shots and how heat haze can be bad here especially during the WEF when there are business jets parked on the Foxtrot stands. I do carefully select shots in this area to avoid this. That said, does anyone else see a specific area that the jet is blurry? I sometimes ask the HS on appeal if there is a specific area that's blurry or looks blurry, but I always get "screener rejection correct."

I'm using Google Chrome viewing at 100%, and when I look at the rejected image - they look soft. But when I right click and select "open image in new tab," it looks far more sharp. I'm not sure what the screener views it as but once I have the image alone in a new tab, 1024, 1200, 1600, it looks sufficient to what is accepted on Anet to me. I'd like to go larger in resolution to give the screeners "more" to look at but I also don't want to tick the screeners off. Any input from the forum?

Thanks,

Josh

yhx4 · Mon Jul 03, 2023 4:33 am

Dear Josh,

In my opinion, The nose side (especially near the L1 door) of the aircraft feels relatively blurry than the rear side of the aircraft. I think it will be solved if you selectively add a Sharpeness for these parts. These are all my thoughts, so if you don't think so, you can ignore me!

nstampede002 · Mon Jul 03, 2023 1:57 pm

yhx4 wrote:
Dear Josh,

In my opinion, The nose side (especially near the L1 door) of the aircraft feels relatively blurry than the rear side of the aircraft. I think it will be solved if you selectively add a Sharpeness for these parts. These are all my thoughts, so if you don't think so, you can ignore me!

yhx4,

No, no worries at all - thank you for chiming in. You're definitely seeing something I am not seeing (two different monitors, looking at the 1200px version I uploaded as well as a 1600px version to compare). Rather than just saying parts are blurry, I really wish the screeners could be slightly more specific. Thanks for your input - I'll see what I can do!

Josh

nstampede002 · Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:52 pm

Testing (for myself) rejected image attachment:

nstampede002 · Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:53 pm

All,

The image below was rejected for low in frame and on appeal centering was ok'd by a HS, but rejected for "color" with a message that said "colors are off." Normally this would come with info about a "cast" or saturation but not this time. Any ideas as to what it needs? I'll hear it.

Josh

dutchspotter1 · Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:26 am

On first impression it look a little green/yellow-ish.

scbriml · Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:15 pm

dutchspotter1 wrote:
On first impression it look a little green/yellow-ish.

Very much so. Just applying 'auto color' in Photoshop gives a much better result where the fuselage is white and the tail orange.

nstampede002 · Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:36 pm

dutchspotter1 wrote:
On first impression it look a little green/yellow-ish.

scbriml wrote:
Very much so. Just applying 'auto color' in Photoshop gives a much better result where the fuselage is white and the tail orange.

I'm inclined to agree - thanks for the input guys!

Josh

nstampede002 · Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:24 pm

All,

I have had a couple of photos recently rejected for "banding." I know it's kind of a bad word since it is regarded as un-fixable or at least very hard to fix (there's an old thread somewhere out there where a former screener talked about it a fair amount) - typically the issue was there when the photo was taken. This has not been a very common rejection reason with my photos, but the most recent one (below, top) I decided to do some trial and error.

The original file, shot in JPG, does not have any banding that I can see - it's only after export from LR does it show up (also the file does not have any high or heavy adjustments to color or light). FWIW, I can barely see it on a "conventional" monitor (on Retina I can't see it at all) - only when the photo is equalized in PS does it really pop out. The file is exported in sRGB which I believe I was told a while back is what you should use on Airliners. If I use ProPhoto RGB, the banding is noticeably less aggressive, just a more consistent grade down to the horizon (it's hazy in ATL year round - it's just what we do :lol:

). Are other color spaces/profiles allowed? Has anyone else found a way of dealing with this? The bottom photo was also rejected for banding a couple of weeks back. Also I realize it may be better in the Aviation Photography forum instead of Feedback, but I figured I would try here first since it is dealing with rejected photos.

Thanks in advance!

Josh

Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Re: Pre/Post Screening Input - Josh Frizzell

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net