Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

kulverstukas · Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:03 pm

ccw,Insufficient quality for large size quality oversharpened dark level personal

I agree with need of slight CCW and see OS here, but want advice on two other topics:
- what is satisfying level of brightness for backlit shoot like this (or are they no-go for A.net at all - some sites just refuse any backlit photos with "no sun on a/c" reason and I honestly can't put through another lovely backlit shoot here too with continuous "dark" rejections).
- tires are motion blurry, is it also case of rejection?

scbriml · Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:25 pm

It is backlit and backlit shots will nearly always get a dark rejection.

vikkyvik · Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:31 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 1):
It is backlit and backlit shots will nearly always get a dark rejection.

While true for airliners, I do see a LOT of fighter aircraft shots that look very backlit to me, yet still get added.

Not really sure why that is, but the shot may still have a chance.

kulverstukas · Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:32 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 1):
It is backlit and backlit shots will nearly always get a dark rejection.

It's quite over political correct for me... Does it mean that backlit = unacceptable?

airkas1 · Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:21 pm

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 3):
Does it mean that backlit = unacceptable?

No. It'll probably depend on a case-by-case basis. So subective really..
Your photo above is ok for me, but it might not work for someone else.

Quoting Kulverstukas (Thread starter):
tires are motion blurry, is it also case of rejection?

No.

kulverstukas · Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:00 pm

Was rejected for needs ccw

This time rejected again with "sorry, needs CCW"

Is it really looks so unleveled, because technically it level for me (proof)

trevisan26 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:38 am

Agree that CCW rotation is needed even on the second one. As it was already rejected in appeal, just give it some rotation.

vikkyvik · Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:10 am

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 5):
This time rejected again with "sorry, needs CCW"

Is it really looks so unleveled, because technically it level for me

Looks fine to me.

kulverstukas · Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:07 pm

Sole motive rejection.

"Motiv for distracting pole in foreground"

Soooo distracting? o.O Seems A.net became close and close to planespotters with its immediate rejections for backlit shoots and visible fence in the frame

kulverstukas · Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:58 pm

It's really became funny at A.net:

MiG-21 was rejected in appeal with level reason and PM: "Verticals show it needs CW. Typo in original message I believe."

Because it's infinite process - next time it will be rejected by next screener with "need CCW" again if I turn it CW - I think it's just not A.net worthy and I must trash it completely.

However this "Typo in original message I believe" adds nice flavor for both rejection and appeal process

It's much more inspiring than flat "Screener right", it's "Screener right, he just misprinted rejection reason".

[Edited 2016-01-21 14:02:11]

Joshu · Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:38 pm

Alex, if you don't like the process - leave. Seriously.... you complain more than anyone else and it is absolutely annoying and disrespectful to the all-volunteer staff that work hard to screen all of these photos. With every rejection you get, you must whine in the forum about those dumb screeners that have no idea what they are talking about.

Take your rejections like a man. Fix them and re-upload them.

notaxonrotax · Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:27 pm

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 9):
Because it's infinite process - next time it will be rejected by next screener with "need CCW" again if I turn it CW - I think it's just not A.net worthy and I must trash it completely.

It can be frustrating, at times; I know.
Screeners make mistakes; I know. (Perhaps us photographers do to, though?)

But you don't seem to be enjoying the "game" anymore....that is what this is: a game!

If it really deeply frustrates you....then I guess you are left with 2 choices:

- Leave.....This....Site.

-Upload, but don't expect much.....and alter your images as instructed / suggested. Laugh it off, don't let it piss you off!

No Tax On Rotax

kulverstukas · Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:18 am

Quoting Joshu (Reply 10):
Alex, if you don't like the process - leave.

Quoting Joshu (Reply 10):
- Leave.....This....Site.

Thank you both for inspiring advice. I seriously thinking about it lately. I'm not "whining". I ask - if you looking for my messages so close lately - advice only on cases that I can't understand what to do.

Sorry if you feel that your job is underestimated, Joshua, but customer complains is part of the game/life too. Even if I leave, there will be other photographers who will still ask questions about screeneing. I'm very grateful to you and Kas who are lately the only screeners who attend this forum daily to answer questions. It's pity because half a year ago there was much more feedback from screeners here (and it's what this forum is for, I believe).

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 11):
that is what this is: a game!

Yes, I don't enjoy games without a rules. Also how can I "alter my images as instructed / suggested" if I can't dig out for example "distracting pole" or rotate it both CW and CCW at once?

I'm still on my learning curve, it's only my second year at A.net. And when I get an answer - I stop asking this particular question. I don't ask about soft/OS/color cast/grainy. Things I still can't figure is "blurry", and now "level".

[Edited 2016-01-21 23:38:05]

scbriml · Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:26 am

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 12):
Yes, I don't enjoy games without a rules.

Photography is art, not science - it is, by it's very nature, subjective. One man's soft can be another man's perfectly sharp. There will always be variation in opinion.

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 12):
and now "level"

You often post level rejections claiming to have 'proof' they're level. As far as I can recall, you're often shown to be incorrect. Sometimes level needs to be visually right, not what a ruler is apparently telling you when you zoom in to 500%.

You know, the vast majority of rejections are correct (I'm not just talking about yours here). We all get rejections we don't agree with. I very rarely appeal, I normally just fix whatever the screener is unhappy about and re-upload.

Quoting Joshu (Reply 10):
Take your rejections like a man. Fix them and re-upload them.

In the vast majority of cases, this is the best approach.

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 12):
Thank you both for inspiring advice. I seriously thinking about it lately.

They're not telling you to leave. But, if you're as unhappy as comes across from your posts, then it is an option.

However, Alex, nobody wants you to leave. Most of us don't get the chance to shoot the stuff you do and your shots are an asset to the site. I grew up in an era when taking photos of a plane in Russia would have had me immediately arrested as a spy. I'm envious of what you get to shoot.

Enjoy your photography and take the a.net highs with the lows.

angad84 · Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:10 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
You know, the vast majority of rejections are correct (I'm not just talking about yours here). We all get rejections we don't agree with. I very rarely appeal, I normally just fix whatever the screener is unhappy about and re-upload.

This - it's easy to get cranky as soon as you get a rejection email. What I usually do is make the changes regardless of whether I agree with them or not (increase contrast, reduce sharpening, increase NR, whatever) and re-upload. If it comes back again, I take a few minutes off before looking at it with fresh eyes, and if I think it's ok, appeal. Sometimes (rarely) I jump straight to appeal, particularly if it's a clean shot that was done mostly right in camera, and I'm reasonably sure the rejection was in error. I have about a 50-50 success rate with appeals over a year or so.

LASTLY, it goes up on the feedback forum — so basically only after two rejections, either a reject and a rejected appeal, or two rejections in a row, or two rejections and a rejected appeal.

Of course, none of this applies for pre-screening, which I rarely do, since saving time/upload slots isn't really my thing — getting better at shooting and editing is, which is where this forum helps. FWIW Alex, your editing tips have helped me a LOT over the past months/years, especially since we both use Lightroom.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
However, Alex, nobody wants you to leave. Most of us don't get the chance to shoot the stuff you do and your shots are an asset to the site. I grew up in an era when taking photos of a plane in Russia would have had me immediately arrested as a spy. I'm envious of what you get to shoot.

Enjoy your photography and take the a.net highs with the lows.

(especially the last part - maybe take a break from uploading like I have for the past few weeks)

Cheers
A

310815 · Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:55 am

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 12):
but customer complains is part of the game/life too

Absolutely! But don't forget that we are not really customers (they pay for the services, we don't) and screeners are volunteers who invest a rather large amount of their free time for this site and get nothing for it.
Trust me with family / work / and other obligations I couldn't handle it.
So basically I can understand Joshu's post pretty well, I have to say.

I mean we all enjoy your rare and interesting shots, and trust me I like the fact that you are uploading at big sizes, but sometimes you d'just have to accept some rejections. I know some in some cases this can be hard (and understand that), but you seem to be very upset with every rejection you get. Screeners are maybe wrong sometimes, but certainly not everytime.
That's part of the game, as well. Try to not take it personal. I am pretty sure that screeners appreciate your shots, too. Why shouldn't they? In the end we're all fans of nice aviation shots.

For example on the TU-134 I agree that the foreground looks distracting. Others will disagree, but well so is life!

[Edited 2016-01-22 02:56:02]

airkas1 · Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:32 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
Photography is art, not science - it is, by it's very nature, subjective. One man's soft can be another man's perfectly sharp. There will always be variation in opinion.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
Quoting Joshu (Reply 10):Take your rejections like a man. Fix them and re-upload them.
In the vast majority of cases, this is the best approach.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
However, Alex, nobody wants you to leave. Most of us don't get the chance to shoot the stuff you do and your shots are an asset to the site. I grew up in an era when taking photos of a plane in Russia would have had me immediately arrested as a spy. I'm envious of what you get to shoot.

I agree to all of the above quotes.

I've been there before as well, many years ago. Getting worked up over rejections that were unjustified in my opinion. In hindsight, I was usually wrong and my shots weren't that great as I thought they were. But it took a long time to realize to really become objective towards my own photos. And as far as I'm concerned that's the biggest responsibility of the uploader.

I'll never tell anyone to leave the site. But I do agree with the idea that the best option when your photo gets rejected is to simply fix it. When it gets rejected and you dont agree, take a step back, look at it another time, with different eyes and try to place yourself into the screener. If your photo gets rejection for blurry (example), try to find it. 9/10 times you will realize that the flaw is actually there.
And if you really can't see it, you have the right to appeal. If you don't understand why a certain rejection was given, you're can always ask and we will try to explain it to our best ability.
But by now, some things shouldn't be a surprise anymore (e.g. size).

As for your photo; it isn't blocking the aircraft. So in a way, it's just like a fence, which is acceptable in some cases. But I can also understand the screener when he says that it's distraction (I agree to a certain extent).

Of course you then run into the fact that you can't edit it to an acceptable shot, because it would involve cloning the foreground, which A.net doesn't allow. But what you can do is find another frame in the sequence that doesn't have the unfixable flaw.

kulverstukas · Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:43 pm

Thanks everybody for your comments and for your effort to bring back my faith in myself

Please let me explain:

- I get 33 rejection since first day of this year. From one that was Tu-95 rejected for blurry, (which started thread screeners was frowned upon) and up to Tu-134 with distracting pole.

- Of them I asked advice on rejections reasons about 6 - bit less than 1/5

- I asked about things I can't understand - why "blurry" rejection for shoot without motion blurry and in focus (at least for me and couple photographers there). What is "dark" by A.net standards.

- My acceptance ratio was about 75% from the middle of last year and suddenly dropped to about 5% since 1st of January. Also sorry for a bit salty tone of question about motive for Tu-134, but it was after I get two PM from screener(s?): "quality is not there for such a large size like most of your uploads" and "Please start taking our personal messages seriously and stop uploading images at large sizes." Quite inspiring for photographer with majority of ~470 shoots in DB of size >1400px.

- Sorry again if screeners feels it like insult, but rejection with CCW and appeal turned down for CW still looks funny for me...

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 15):
But don't forget that we are not really customers (they pay for the services, we don't)

In my experience, customers of any free service (charity, giveaways, free internet service etc.) are most annoying and most fastidious

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 16):
But what you can do is find another frame in the sequence

Unfortunately, it is not an option, it was the only good frame with trail of snow blown from the bird and sequential frames are just common shoots of common plane.

Also as I can understand, this one is no go too because of motive?

Then this spotting point is now dead too

airkas1 · Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:24 pm

Fair enough Alex, but it's not a contest (proving a point with numbers).

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 17):
but rejection with CCW and appeal turned down for CW still looks funny for me...

It is. But it sometimes happens that the 2 get mixed up when typing and could've easily been a simple mistake on the screener's part (example: wanting to write CW, but accidentally writes CCW).

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 17):
"quality is not there for such a large size like most of your uploads" and "Please start taking our personal messages seriously and stop uploading images at large sizes."

I don't know who wrote that, but I strongly disagree with those words. It's up to the photographer what size he/she wants to upload in and 'like most of your uploads' has a strong personal scent to it. Emotions like that shouldn't play a role.

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 17):
Unfortunately, it is not an option, it was the only good frame with trail of snow blown from the bird and sequential frames are just common shoots of common plane.

Yeah, I thought so. But in general, people can choose another image from the sequence.

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 17):
Also as I can understand, this one is no go too because of motive?

It's less intrusive for me as in the Tu-134 photo, so you could always try. This edit is a bit low on contrast though.

[Edited 2016-01-22 10:26:01]

vikkyvik · Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:29 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 18):
I don't know who wrote that, but I strongly disagree with those words. It's up to the photographer what size he/she wants to upload in and 'like most of your uploads' has a strong personal scent to it. Emotions like that shouldn't play a role.

I agree with you, but similar messages have been written to photogs before.

I don't really know why the screeners particularly care - should be easy and quick rejections based on that sort of message....

kulverstukas · Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 18):
But in general, people can choose another image from the sequence.

Just of curiosity, if I frame it 16:9 and left more snow trail, will it make a difference in your opinion?

notaxonrotax · Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:27 pm

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 12):

Quoting Joshu (Reply 10):
Alex, if you don't like the process - leave.
Quoting Joshu (Reply 10):
- Leave.....This....Site.

Thank you both for inspiring advice.

That was a little bit out of context if we're honest....as that was not the message I was sending.
I tried to put your chin up!

But I just KNOW I'm included in this.....

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 17):
hanks everybody for your comments and for your effort to bring back my faith in myself

So, all is good!

Don't consider statistics too much, just enjoy the hobby!
Screeners have bad days too....sometimes things are unfair, I know.
But to be fair, a lot of their rejections are pretty fair.

Correct it in the A-net way and re-upload!
The bigger the satisfaction for you when you eventually receive this "Congratulations" mail!

No Tax On Rotax

kulverstukas · Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:23 am

Okey dokey, need help on level rejection again...

Which way to go and how much?

YQZ380 · Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:57 am

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 22):
Which way to go and how much?

0.3 CW for me.

airkas1 · Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:01 am

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 20):
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 18):
But in general, people can choose another image from the sequence.

Just of curiosity, if I frame it 16:9 and left more snow trail, will it make a difference in your opinion?

It should help, yes. It'll eliminate a lot of the fence on the underside, although you won't be able to cut it off entirely (because even in 16:9 it would mean that the aircraft will be low in frame *I think*). I wouldn't use a looser crop, because that could lead to a distance rejection.

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 22):
Which way to go and how much?

It's a bit tricky, since the background isn't level and the use of a wide-angle lens makes the wind vane unreliable in terms of level. I used the small shed(?) in between aircraft 1 and 2, which needs 0.4 CW.

kulverstukas · Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:51 pm

Vertical distortion was corrected to make pole staight. Will it need correction after CW?

airkas1 · Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:17 pm

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 25):
Vertical distortion was corrected to make pole staight. Will it need correction after CW?

Not sure what you mean by that?

kulverstukas · Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:58 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 26):
Not sure what you mean by that?

Newer mind, I already made decision

kulverstukas · Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:47 pm

Still puzzled about motive rejection for Tu-134. Is this pole less annoying here?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kulverstukas

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kulverstukas

Also I wonder if this one will qualified as double or not:

And if not, is it far worse in quality terms than one accepted?

[Edited 2016-01-24 06:53:14]

[Edited 2016-01-24 06:56:59]

airkas1 · Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:53 pm

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 28):
Is this pole less annoying here?

Yes.
For me it blends in with the fence more than in the Tu-134 photo.

kulverstukas · Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:55 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 29):
Yes.

Pity. I checked other frames and tried 16:9, seems it's one for trash bin

PS: Was Photo of the Day at RP.net

[Edited 2016-01-24 06:56:29]

kulverstukas · Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:11 am

Reject reason: titles incorrect soft info

I can't get what is wrong about titles?

Untitled Private
Rockwell Commander 114
Rockwell Commander 112/114
Orlovka - Orlovka (UUTO)
Russia, January 2, 2016
Reg: RA-2393G
Code:
Cn: 14426

Also does "soft" mean that it's need more USM or is it pointed in lens distortion in the corners, which is however incurable?

airkas1 · Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:33 pm

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 31):
I can't get what is wrong about titles?

"Untitled Private" is not an option. It should just be "Untitled".

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 31):
Also does "soft" mean that it's need more USM or is it pointed in lens distortion in the corners, which is however incurable?

If the screener didn't specify a certain area, you can assume the soft goes for the whole photo. So that includes the distortion in the cornes (which unfortunately can't be fixed).

kulverstukas · Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:28 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 32):
the soft goes for the whole photo

So it's no go as I understand?

airkas1 · Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:32 pm

Quoting Kulverstukas (Reply 33):
So it's no go as I understand?

Unfortunately you are correct.

kulverstukas · Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:03 pm

Opinion?

scbriml · Sat Mar 12, 2016 10:55 am

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 35):
Opinion?

Looks a little low in the frame to my eyes. Can't comment on quality as I'm not on my editing screen.

angad84 · Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:34 am

Looks good to me. Yes, a bit low, but the tall tail and background aircraft, should help offset that.

Cheers
A

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:48 am

It was rejected for soft with "Better at smaller size." I have trouble to balance softness - for me this seems at the edge of oversharpened. Worth reediting?

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:11 pm

Rejected as blurry, soft, dark.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...301_o1456152030.2584img_2967-2.jpg

Appealed and rejected with "dark removed" and usual "smaller size"

Reedited and now it's blurry oversharpened dark

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0313_e1457112839.732img_2967-3.jpg

This one was just soft also bad info (because airline was listed as SibNIA)

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...227_k1455825950.5594img_3101-3.jpg

Now it became blurry, soft again and again bad info ("incorrect titles" - now listed as Untitled airline and SibNIA operator).

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...313_f1457113245.3992img_3101-2.jpg

What wrong with darkness on the first one and why second one has bad info (There is SibNIA on the cargo door and according to RP.net this airframe belongs to SibNIA). Also can I have opinion if they both are so poor that only resizing to 1000px will help?

angad84 · Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:19 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 38):
It was rejected for soft with "Better at smaller size." I have trouble to balance softness - for me this seems at the edge of oversharpened. Worth reediting?

Moving target etc. Probably best to just sharpen and re-up, unless a screener chimes in here to suggest an appeal instead. FWIW, it looks fine to me, but I literally have no idea what qualifies for sharp or not on this site after three years, so...

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39):
Reedited and now it's blurry oversharpened dark

Beats me. The dark rejection alone would cause me to question everything else than came with it.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39):
Now it became blurry, soft again and again bad info ("incorrect titles" - now listed as Untitled airline and SibNIA operator).

You should email the DB editors for clarification on the titles. Otherwise, again, the dark rejection is mystifying. Maybe they want you to lift the whites?

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39):
Also can I have opinion if they both are so poor that only resizing to 1000px will help?

No, they certainly don't need to go down to 1000px. You know the difficulty of getting photos accepted increases with size. If there's a shot that's only marginally soft/grainy, it's easier to get accepted at 1400px rather than 1500px. Personally, I am slightly more conservative with size, but I enjoy uploading (and seeing) large photos here – as I've said many times before. 1000px has very little value to me in an age of UHD monitors and such.

Cheers
A

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Just add another difficult case:

Just oversharpened.

Was grainy and soft: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...225_j1455736179.8461img_2822-3.jpg

len90 · Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:48 pm

Jagged all around on the current one. Agree with the OS. Don't agree with the soft originally.

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:58 pm

Quoting Len90 (Reply 42):
Don't agree with the soft originally.

Does it looks grainy?

angad84 · Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:47 pm

Quoting Len90 (Reply 42):
Don't agree with the soft originally

This. Regardless, it looks like you've "overcorrected" with sharpening on the second edit.

Grain looks well controlled in both. FWIW, I would go with a 16:9 crop on this.

Cheers
A

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:05 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 44):
This. Regardless, it looks like you've "overcorrected" with sharpening on the second edit.

Any suggestion about Bear photo? I like dramatic light and queue in background, but it seems will be tough to get through. I have tighter crops and different sages of start preparation, engines switching on one by one and taxi...

airkas1 · Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39):
Reedited and now it's blurry oversharpened dark

I guess it could stand to be a bit lighter. I don't find it blurry and only ever so slightly oversharpened.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39):
Now it became blurry, soft again and again bad info ("incorrect titles" - now listed as Untitled airline and SibNIA operator).

Could stand to be a little sharper. The info is this: you uploaded it as "Untitled SibNIA", when it should be "Untitled (SibNIA)". Usually we will correct these kind of mistakes and by itself it is a very nitpicky item, but makes sense if you're already going to reject it for something else, to then include all rejection reason, however small they may be. Usually we will correct these kind of mistakes.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 39):
Also can I have opinion if they both are so poor that only resizing to 1000px will help?

Lol, no. The first one should be fine once you've fixed the dark and slight OS. The second one will be fine in 1200px.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 41):
Was grainy and soft:

I agree on soft. When comparing both edits side-by-side, I prefer the sharper one.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 41):
Just oversharpened.

Looks ok to me.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 45):
Any suggestion about Bear photo?

Looks alright, but could probably withstand a slight increase in sharpening (I just tried it with 30 / 0.3).

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:19 pm

Thanks, Kas!

I see your point on brightness, may be I give it a shoot later with full reedit in LR from scratch.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 46):
Looks ok to me.

Chances on appeal?

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 46):
a slight increase in sharpening

Decided to resharpen in nevertheless, which parts needs more USM? Wings?

airkas1 · Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:36 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 47):
Chances on appeal?

Always 50/50, as it's either yes or no. I've noticed you get photos rejected that I personally don't find so bad, so I find it hard to say any other numbers that that. Upon looking again just now, I can see it's sharp, but in my opinion not that much.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 47):
which parts needs more USM?

I would probably sharpend the whole photo slightly more. Deselect the sky, use layers and erase any jaggies you may encounter.

kulverstukas · Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:19 pm

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net