Hi All,
New here (going on two months), with only 1 image accepted. For this go-around I decided to set a baseline so I submitted a 1600 pixel image straight off the camera, no sharpening. The little camera I'm using is VERY sharp - trust me on that if you will. Just look at the ID number on the nose gear door, that for an image that was just reduced - no sharpening. The image was rejected as soft, I have a number of images rejected for over-sharpening.
The screener also mailed me a personal message:
"Understand that you're a professional photographer. However, the fact of the matter is that this image needs additional sharpening. The aircraft is also borderline backlit. Perhaps try uploading again at a smaller image size. Thank you."
I'm really not concerned about the "borderline backlit" thing - shadow wise the image is really close to "front lit" - equal light on both sides, so technically it is the same as a midday shot (top-lit).
This whole screening thing seems to be a moving target, except for people the have over 100 images posted. Those seem to go right through I have researched that part. So here's the image:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...w1421717011.6897_dsc4708c-1600.jpg
On an unrelated issue, I find the "large" image link disturbing. If an image is submitted at 1024 pixels, it is displayed on my computers as 1200 pixels, a 1200 pixel image is shown at 1600. That is a real no-no in my book because it is no longer the original image and degradation is guaranteed. What's up with that?
Best,
JASPC
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Post Screening - Soft
Ultimately that Frontier is a little soft and the screener is right. Getting images accepted straight off the camera is extremely rare to do. Even the most known photogs on the site do post processing meet the criteria for acceptance.
As for the comment about getting acceptances being easier with over 100 images on the database? I have to disagree with you completely. I have consistently been around 70% on my acceptance rate and just hit 556 images on the database. Most of my uploads are at 1200 wide with some going at 1400. It all depends on the quality of image before I do anything.
The screener, in your case, took time to send you a personal message. That to me is a huge thing. I always thoroughly appreciate when a personal comment is given as it explains things a bit better.
As for the comment about getting acceptances being easier with over 100 images on the database? I have to disagree with you completely. I have consistently been around 70% on my acceptance rate and just hit 556 images on the database. Most of my uploads are at 1200 wide with some going at 1400. It all depends on the quality of image before I do anything.
The screener, in your case, took time to send you a personal message. That to me is a huge thing. I always thoroughly appreciate when a personal comment is given as it explains things a bit better.
RE: Post Screening - Soft
| Quoting len90 (Reply 1): The screener, in your case, took time to send you a personal message. That to me is a huge thing. I always thoroughly appreciate when a personal comment is given as it explains things a bit better. |
Len, 70%? I'm getting less than 10% so far. So that proves my point. Don't get me wrong. I hold no grudges, I know my way around images and I'm very comfortable with my product. Just trying to establish some kind of baseline that I can work with for this site. So, I submitted that image to establish that baseline. No harm no foul, I make money from my images so for me this site is just a "what is this all aboutt?" type of thing. When I read the long, drawn out bit on the Rejection Guide page it puzzled me for they went through great lengths about what they did not want, instead of clearly stating what they really want. Seems contrary to every other agency I have ever worked for.
In here it all seems to be very hit and miss. I really don't care to have this image accepted as such or not, just wanted to know what the screener thought. The problem is that by just adding a bit of sharpening (which I always do) I can see the effects around the small things, like N numbers, and that leads me to believe I would get an over sharpened rejection.
I will not resubmit it as it is a waste of my time. My main goal is to get a handle on just how this website works
.
Thanks so much for the reply.
RE: Post Screening - Soft
Jose, I started out also with a very low rate and once I got the hang of what I needed to do to get my pictures to match what the site is looking for I got up near and around that 70%.
If the image is soft, sharpen it a little and resubmit. From my experience the site likes images a little bit sharper than I tend to like them.
Also remember there are different expectations for different subjects in photography. I looked at your site and am highly impressed with the bird photos and some of the abstract stuff you did.
If the image is soft, sharpen it a little and resubmit. From my experience the site likes images a little bit sharper than I tend to like them.
Also remember there are different expectations for different subjects in photography. I looked at your site and am highly impressed with the bird photos and some of the abstract stuff you did.
RE: Post Screening - Soft
I just had a look through the screening log of your images. There are only 14 individual entries (there is one that had two comments before it was rejected).
I don't see much inconsistency in the images uploaded or the screening results. Almost all of your images are soft and/or blurry, some are soft and have been oversharpened. The Frontier linked here is actually one of your worst for softness, likely because you uploaded it at 1600 pixels wide whereas your others are primarily smaller.
Also do not understand what research you have done that leads to a conclusion that people with over 100 images in the database "go right through"? Certainly agree with Len that by the time people get 100 images accepted, they have learned what the site acceptance criteria are and are able to more consistently meet them.
The Frontier is borderline backlit, but wouldn't have been rejected for that if it had been uploaded at 1024 with the right amount of sharpening.
It seems you are seeing the baseline but choosing not to accept it. If I linked all your rejected images here, I think it would be pretty clear that the screening was actually pretty consistent.
Pete
I don't see much inconsistency in the images uploaded or the screening results. Almost all of your images are soft and/or blurry, some are soft and have been oversharpened. The Frontier linked here is actually one of your worst for softness, likely because you uploaded it at 1600 pixels wide whereas your others are primarily smaller.
Also do not understand what research you have done that leads to a conclusion that people with over 100 images in the database "go right through"? Certainly agree with Len that by the time people get 100 images accepted, they have learned what the site acceptance criteria are and are able to more consistently meet them.
The Frontier is borderline backlit, but wouldn't have been rejected for that if it had been uploaded at 1024 with the right amount of sharpening.
It seems you are seeing the baseline but choosing not to accept it. If I linked all your rejected images here, I think it would be pretty clear that the screening was actually pretty consistent.
Pete
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests