First question is for rejection with "soft parts, better at smaller quality soft overexposed"



Which parts are soft, as for me it looks close to OS and I use selective sharpening to mend it and not make jaggies visible everywhere? Also what to do with exposition - sky is already too dark and close to grainy, so I need to work on plane only.

Second is for three photo from same day with very nice winter light which all are rejected with "need more contrast"

1. contrast low oversharpened


2.poor lighting conditions/more contrast needed, needs CCW rotation blurry soft contrast level


3. poor lighting conditions/more contrast needed grainy soft contrast


First one was already boosted in contrast for about 30, so if it still doesn't look good I'll drop it. Second one can be edited with more contrast, I think, not ruined by it but I wonder about blurry. I checked verticals also and they are vertical, so what about level? Third is already at the edge of too much contrast to my taste, but I wonder about grainy and soft, which parts are soft an where it grainy?

Hi,

1. YAK-42: I agree, to me it looks more close to oversharpend than soft, there are already some jaggies visible.
But quality looks not to be ideal for such a really large size.

2. Yakutia 757: In your other thread someone showed you the direction to go
https://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...5653&filename=1416184343iSyujv.jpg
Your edit still looks more like the front part.
-> whites are not white enough for a.net's taste.
I think it is a nice shot and would not drop it. The titles and the engines look marginally oversharpened.

3. Gulf: I think it is the same for the whites as above. The upper part of the tail looks instead blurry to me, although that is rather strange.

4. TU: I don't think light is that poor, it is a rather nice scene. Still it could be a bit brighter.

[Edited 2014-11-27 00:58:02]

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 1): 2. Yakutia 757: In your other thread someone showed you the direction to go https://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...5653&filename=1416184343iSyujv.jpg Your edit still looks more like the front part. -> whites are not white enough for a.net's taste.

I did exactly what was advised - boosted contrast (even more, +30) but trouble is that nose part was already in the shadow when tail caught some sun rays...

1. Reject reason: high in frame, needs ccw rotation, blurry tail quality blurry dark centered level



Does HIF mean that tail must be used in calculation? What about level - I was thinking that radar tower at the right is beacon and used it for leveling photo vertically. Is tail blurry? I can see some softness which is natural for wide shot. Is this photo mendable?

2. Reject reason: contrast low, too red and would be better smaller, no more than 1200 soft contrast colour



Is it really too red? For me it seems more yellow and it's - I think - quite natural for low sun.

Re. No. 1, while the radar tower in the RH side of the image is vertical, I think in reality it should not be due to lens distortion. If you look at the vertical parts of the main landing gear however, it shows room for CCW rotation. I try to use verticals in the center of the image rather than the edges since the latter can be misaligned due to lens distortion especially on a wide angle shot like this. Regardless of the verticals, the image does look like it could use CCW rotation.
As for HIF, I get tripped up by this as well. I don't necessarily agree that it is HIF, but A.net judges it to include part of the tail. I think the guideline is if you place a 9 box grid on the image the aircraft must be reasonably balanced across the grid.
Can't comment on the blurriness of the tail since I am on a laptop and the monitor is not the best. But, it does not look blurry on this monitor.

Hope this helps!

Jehan

As for the UTair, I certainly agree that the yellow lighting should be quite normal, but I believe it could do with more contrast and the titles could be sharpened slightly more.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

Quoting jelpee (Reply 4): but A.net judges it to include part of the tail

Why not? The tail is part of the aircraft, too. I know that some photographers center just by fuselage and ignore the tail, this may be okay for an A340-600 or a MD-80 but for a short aircraft like the A319/318 or a large tail like the A380 this looks unbalanced.

Take the VIM shot, if you draw a line at the highest point of the aircraft (tail) and another line at the lowest, there is just 1cm above the aircraft, and almost 7cm under the aircraft. So yes I agree with high in frame.

But unfortunately the upper part of the tail is blurry, so not worth working on I'd say.
Nice shot, otherwise!

The colour on the UT Air is debatable. For my taste it looks a bit too yellow (e.g. the tail).

Julien

Rejected with PM "Backlit" and Dark only reason.



Worth any reworking or backlit images are prohibited at all? This question arises as I get rejection on this photo also:



(but this one also have Quality Grainy Soft Overexposed Dark Contrast combo with PM: "image lacks contrast, poor lighting conditions/backlit" on the top   ) which was accepted at other three main spotting sites without questions.

PS: I also have this one definitely backlit image in DB:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Kulverstukas

Nobody here? OK, then I have another question.

This batch was rejected again:

1. (Another one from sequence) Reject reason: oversharpened dark


Is it really OS and what level of brightness is desired?

2. Reject reason: blurry soft oversharpened



Soft and OS I can see, but is it really blurry (which I translate from Anet English as movement blur or OOF)?

3. Reject reason: Still noisy. Also dark grainy



Where it noisy? It's painted in kind of "metallic" blue paint. Also what is the difference between noisy and grainy and again, what level of brightness is desired?

Still nobody? Halooooo!

I have more!

1. Reject reason: soft dark

Is it really soft? Which parts? I'm afraid that it is close to OS. I also wonder why it's dark - body is white enough for me and sky is overcast in this direction. This plane taken about this direction 7 min earlier:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Kulverstukas


2. Reject reason: soft

Which parts looks soft, because again I'm afraid it's closer to OS.

#1: I'd sharpen the engine and the titles, as well as the registration.

#2: Tail looks soft to me, and I'd also sharpen the titles slightly.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

Thanks. Your opinion about Vim is dark?

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 11): Your opinion about Vim is dark?

Histogram actually looks fine, but I'd still tune up the brightness.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

Help with OS only rejection - I see jaggies on tail paint. Is there any other parts, affected by OS?

Well, I think the area between the outward engine and the winglet on both wings is oversharpened. Some other edges of the wings and the outline of the gear have jaggies as well.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 14): have jaggies as well

Thanks, Yang. Now I can see them on another monitor.

Quoting YQZ380 (Reply 12): Your opinion about Vim is dark? Histogram actually looks fine

Get very strange headscreener comment at another site:

Quote: Your appeal for photo id 4731431 has been processed and has been rejected. Admin Comments >> Left hand side of photo much darker than right.

Any better?

Yep, looks better to me, especially the gear and edges of the wing.

Cheers,
Yang Qize

Reject reason: quality grainy soft dark

Quality, grainy and soft I can edit by reducing photo to 1300px, but what about dark?

Is this any better?

The underside looks very iffy. Soft or unclear. I can't really put my finger on it. I would try a further downsize to 1200px.

Cheers
Angad

You can try to lighten the underside of the Sukhoi by adjusting the mid tones in colour curves. I use photo shop elements, there is a button called enhance. From there I go to adjust colour and then to adjust colour curves. There you will find a button marked increase midtones, this should lighten the underside of the aircraft.


Steve

Need help from fellow photographers on this two pairs which was rejected first for soft and second times for OS.

1. . . .

First one was also blurry so I changed it to other from sequence. Which parts of second are visible OS?

2. . . .

For this two just soft - oversharpened. Which parts of second need attention?

PS: Please don't insist on downsizing, I feel that both can make it at this size. Or explain the reasons if I fll wrong.

The Yak-40 doesn't look too bad, I would try an appeal.

The Helo looks a bit too "smooth" as if there is excessive NR applied. If it's oversharpened, then it's marginal.

Cheers
Angad

Hm... Did you read my other thread?

Quoting angad84 (Reply 22): I would try an appeal.

This two (four total, but for T-50 I agree with OS) was rejected together with this comment.

Appealed. No way: "Would probably be acceptable smaller, too big at 1500It is blurred and oversharp in attempt to correct. Might just be acceptable at 1024, far too big at 1500". You know it's not blurry. So I was right, no sense in appeal for images large than 1024...

One of the things that has changed over the years is that there are far more personals in screening and with appeals it is rare to not get one at all, yet some people are still not happy !

You have taken a photograph of a moving helicopter with a longish lens at a slow shutter speed and yet you submit it at 1500 wide (which is large) and are surprised that it is blurred. It is actually very difficult for them to not have some blur when you do that as movement of the subject is beyond your control. If the quality was good enough, it would have been accepted and many are accepted at above 1024, yes, even 1600 when the quality is good enough so you talk nonsense about not appealing if the image is above 1024. It is however important to know when to submit them at that size ! Another point is that appealing should not be the first course of action with every rejection - recheck the image first.

I think the personal was very much to the point, (after all I wrote it ) but I will remember and perhaps not bother in the future.

Mick Bajcar

Mick, thanks for detailed and discreet answer. I don't overuse appeal function, last of all I have used it if I have soft or OS rejection - even if I don't agree, I prefer to reedit. This time Angad, whom I respect and who have a lot of photos in DB, and who also like big photo, said that he doesn't see them OS - both - and I decided to try, just in case. I was almost sure they will be rejected. May be my appeal ratio - less than 1 on every 40 uploads, or on every 20 accepted shots - can excuse me.

I know for sure also that both that shots are not blurry. Again, English is not my native language, so I assume that blurry means moved while exposed or out of focus. If I'm not right, please correct me (BTW, first shoot of copter is blurry, I uploaded it by mistake). I have access to originals which are more than 3000px wide, so I can see that both are not blurry in this means and both are in focus. Yes, some small letters are beyond resolution of the camera/lens but a lot of details are visible at 3000px. I agree, downsize to 1024 (even to 1200) will make this detail invisible, so picture will looks more simple and will be more easy to edit. But it's not an option for me, please understand.

I can agree however, that long distance, tele lens, slow shutter makes its difficult to make good shoot. But not impossible. And proof is that I have enough 1500px photos from this place in DB. Based on that, how can I understand this PM from screener: "You are too inconsistent for uploading at large sizes."?

I assume, that screening (I mean not function which prevent low quality photos to be accepted but reasons given for rejection) and screeners PM are here to help photographers to increase their skills, to show them directions in which to improve their photos. Again, between them are eliminable/recoverable (like soft, OS, dust spot, level, contrast, overexposed, dark etc.) and unrecoverable. Blurry is second (along with obstructing objects, wrong framing or double). So it's very disappointing to get photo rejected for dust spot, remove this spot and then get it rejected again for blurry!

So, may be I'm stupid or stubborn as a bear with balalika ram, but I want my photos to get accepted at large size and I want to use screeners comment (and forum help) to move in this direction. Am I wrong?

Thanks for listening.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 24): Might just be acceptable at 1024, far too big at 1500

Are two rejected much worse than this two?

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

Marry Christmas, dear spotters, photographers and screeners!

Got this two rejected today and need help on reediting:

1. Soft and OS.



An-124 is soft, because of DOF. Kamov seems OK to me, not OS, but may be I'm wrong. I think there is no option to make Antonov sharper, but is it's softness too annoying to make this shot not worth submitting?

2. Soft.



Which parts? Nose and vertical stabilizer, as well as gears and engine inlets seems OK for me. Farthest parts of wings?

And both was commented: "please stop uploading at high res, you have great stuff but the quality rarely supports these high res images, MAX 1200PX PLS "

Sorry, dear Screeners. My last 6 photos in DB are 1500 or 1600 and I think that at least T-50 is good enough for highres. So I will keep uploading if it is not breaking any rule.

You might annoy the screeners if you keep on uploading at 1500 or 1600PX. Try uploading as they say at 1200PX and see what happens. Most of mine I upload at 1200PX, the others from the eighties I upload at 1100PX. The screeners know what is best for every ones photos


Steve

Quoting bombayduck (Reply 29): You might annoy the screeners

I already do  

Quoting bombayduck (Reply 29): Try uploading as they say at 1200PX and see what happens.

They will be rejected with advice to reduce to 1024?   Really, I know that at 1200 it is more simple to pass, but some photos I want at highres only. T-50 can make it, I think.

So thank you far advice, but I really need answer on my questions.

Happy Xmas.

It seems to me that you only want to hear what you want to hear and you will keep taking advice until someone agrees with you. I suggest that you should be ready for a long wait.

I have helped a lot of people and you remind me of one who could not get images accepted because he increased the saturation so high that they were rejected. When I started to help him he said he liked them like that but I pointed out that he would not get them accepted that way. He reduced the saturation and now has a high acceptance rate.

You have had the advice on this forum and from many Screeners to submit them at 1200 - I have not seen anyone say 1024, but you do not want to listen to that sound advice. Submit yours at 1200 and I am sure that you will soon have a high acceptance rate too !

I have more images on the site than anyone else and I don't think any are above 1200, some are at 1024 - does that not say something in itself ?

Merry Christmas

Mick Bajcar

Merry Christmas, Mick!

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 31): I suggest that you should be ready for a long wait.

I will  

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 31): I have not seen anyone say 1024

Sorry, but wasn't it you?

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 24): Might just be acceptable at 1024

 

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 31): Submit yours at 1200 and I am sure that you will soon have a high acceptance rate too !

I doesn't run for high acceptance ratio/lot of my photo at Anet. There is two other big airplane photo sites and I have high ratio and a lot of photo at them (not least because one of them doesn't accept more than 1200px   ). But I want my Anet photo be highres and I has succeeded in it till now (at least with half of them).

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 31): I have more images on the site than anyone else and I don't think any are above 1200

I don't have a lot of photo at my personal archive at all, I can shoot at very small amount of places, I can't spend a lot of time shooting (work, distance, climate, access etc.) but I don't mind to work in PS a lot (I used working as prepress designer some long times ago). So I think there is some difference and it's not bad for Anet (if not take in account some additional workload at screeners, but I flatter myself that I upload interesting photos lately, not just common traffic).

So back to my questions, I will be very grateful for everybody who can spend some time explain me what can be improved in my photos (as for example for T-50 may be like "wingtips are soft, tails are OS, tarmac is grainy, underbody too dark, needs some CW etc.") as I tried to do for other photographers in this forum. And I do listen for argumented advice on downsizing and sometimes accept them or sometimes just drop such shoots at all.

Thanks in advance.

Alex

Thanks for Xmas present, dear Screeners! Thanks for help everyone! Long live Hihgres Photos!   

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

View Large View Medium

Photo © Kulverstukas

And thanks screeners again!

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

View Large View Medium Photo © Kulverstukas

May be I can make 200 this year   

Rejected for soft in shadows (3d also for dark). I think that there is may be some overbust in shadows pushing? Also underbody looks bit noisy, so sharpen it brings grainy rejection?

1. Soft

2. Soft

3. Soft dark

4. Soft with PM soft/blurry in shadows, most likely from too much denoising

Need some side view here. Rejected for level (PM: "counter clockwise rotation needed") and lost appeal with "screener right".



I checked level by roof of hangar (under left wing) and also checked with accepted one, with same Ruslan parking at same place:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Kulverstukas


As this arguments seems makes no impression on screeners, how I'll find reference to level the image?

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 36): I checked level by roof of hangar (under left wing) and also checked with accepted one, with same Ruslan parking at same place:

Different focal lengths cause different kinds of distortion/compression. If these were two shots at identical focal lengths and identical framing, you would have had better luck.

I think just give it 0.1 deg of CCW and try again. It does "feel" a bit off even if it is technically level.

Cheers
Angad

Quoting angad84 (Reply 37): If these were two shots at identical focal lengths and identical framing, you would have had better luck.

But they are! Still... OK, let's us not trying to mount dead horse.

Another question, did you think it's worth resubmitting if I have #2 from Reply #28 in queue? It's same T-50 same day (taxiing to TO instead of taxiing after landing but it seems not much difference concerning double rule). Can't decide which one is better for DB.

[Edited 2014-12-31 05:12:58]

[Edited 2014-12-31 05:14:40]

1. Rejected with: heat haze affecting quality, needs CCW rotation



CCW I can see, but what heat haze screener mean? The only one I can see (exhaust) doesn't affect copter. It's also quite cold and no direct sun.

2. Too much empty space motiv



Is this worth appealing with explanation about composition?

[Edited 2015-01-05 07:02:55]

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39): 2. Too much empty space motiv

Although a very nice photo, in my opinion, the condensation trails are not strong enough to justify crop to a.net. I wouldn't appeal.

This one now rejected for composition:



Reject reason: LIF and soft to me. Entire upper fuselage is soft. Why place it at that level? Could still include the An-124 even if T-50 is centered.

Does it worth to reedit again (soft) as is, or change composition (I can crop tighter left and top to make T-50 be really centered)?

BTW, accepted at 1500px  
View Large View Medium

Photo © Kulverstukas


[Edited 2015-01-05 14:21:40]

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 41): Reject reason: LIF and soft to me. Entire upper fuselage is soft. Why place it at that level? Could still include the An-124 even if T-50 is centered.

Sorry, but I don't get it. It was rejected for "composition" and you argue that it should have been better rejected for being soft and Low in Frame?!

I don't want to be offensive, I just want to understand it, why do you upload the shot if you think it should be rejected?
If i think a shot of mine is soft, I'll sharpen it more...before it gets screened.

Speaking of the composition...as the wings of the AN-124 are already partly cut, you could just crop out the right engine as well.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39): CCW I can see, but what heat haze screener mean? The only one I can see (exhaust) doesn't affect copter. It's also quite cold and no direct sun.

I don't see heat haze but quality looks a bit iffy. Might want to tone down NR a bit. Of course, safest option is to downsize to 1400px or 1200px but... 

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39): Is this worth appealing with explanation about composition?

Yes, if that was the only reason.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 41): Does it worth to reedit again (soft) as is, or change composition (I can crop tighter left and top to make T-50 be really centered)?

Soft is correct. Composition is fine. I would have actually included the whole the An-124 (incl tailfin) to make it seem even more physically imposing in comparison to the T-50.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Angad Singh - Zone Five Aviation


Cheers
Angad

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 42): Sorry, but I don't get it.

It's screener PM, not my thoughts  

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 42): Photo © Angad Singh - Zone Five Aviation

Great.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 43): included the whole the An-124 (incl tailfin)

Alas, framing doesn't allow this.  

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 44): It's screener PM, not my thoughts

Sorry man, this was a misunderstanding. I thought this was your comment. Now I get it, forget what I said before... 

I got that a bit wrong!

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 45): forget what I said before...

Everything? 

I make different crop, what do you guys think about them?

1.

2.

3.

#3 seems to do it for me; the two combined aircraft are in the center of the frame and there's equal empty space in front and behind the jet fighter.

Last one looks best. Might have to downsize significantly when you upload, though, because now it's a pretty hefty crop.

Cheers
Angad

Quoting angad84 (Reply 48): Might have to downsize significantly

Original is still more than 4100px wide. What do you think about needs for CCW?