Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

kulverstukas · Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:49 pm

Ok, more to come. Reducing size to 1200px doesn't help.

Both get "low contrast" PM from screener and also and soft as a reason:

Doesn't low winter sun excuse some softness of light condition, not similar to hard summer sun in California? Also I'm puzzled with "soft" about copters shoot? Does both main copters looks soft? For me they almost OS for size. And it's impossible to get all background to look sharp just because of distance.

airkas1 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:52 pm

1) Seems ok.
2) Blurry nose section is the most obvious.
3) Blurry tail & nose section.
4) Blurry nose section.
5) Seems ok.
6) Seems ok.
7) Seems ok.
8) Blurry-ish cockpit/nose section.
9) Blurry(ish) nose section.

I didn't see very excessive amounts of grain.

airkas1 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:54 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 50):
Both get "low contrast" PM from screener and also and soft as a reason:

I agree with both rejections.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 50):
Also I'm puzzled with "soft" about copters shoot? Does both main copters looks soft? For me they almost OS for size.

They will probably withstand a little more sharpening.

The Il-18 is also of marginal quality and borderline blurry to me.

kulverstukas · Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:02 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 51):
1) Seems ok.

This one was accompanied by PM: "Please stop uploading marginal quality shots at large sizes." So it seems far from OK

airkas1 · Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:24 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 53):
This one was accompanied by PM: "Please stop uploading marginal quality shots at large sizes." So it seems far from OK

I don't know what else to say then.

Joshu · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:24 am

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 53):
This one was accompanied by PM: "Please stop uploading marginal quality shots at large sizes." So it seems far from OK

Welcome back from your self-imposed 30+ day ban!. While I was not the one to send you that comment, you know you have been told many many many times to stop uploading marginal shots at 1600-1400px. I cannot understand why you do not get this.

vaalaa · Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:18 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 49):
My eyes and my monitor is not so good to allow me to pick where grain is. I also hope for opinion on blurry parts.

1) https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...3.jpg

while the main subject is OK, the sky is patchy, some mix of the dirty red with green patches. It's clearly visible even without zooming in.

It's hard to miss, may be you need to change sometthing in your hardware settings?

kulverstukas · Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:51 pm

Quoting vaalaa (Reply 56):
while the main subject is OK, the sky is patchy, some mix of the dirty red with green patches. It's clearly visible even without zooming in.

Any better this way?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...ady/k1457470412.7546img_1733-1.jpg

vaalaa · Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:18 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 57):
Any better this way?

it seems quite acceptable to me.

Taca300C · Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:08 pm

I enjoy your pictures and comments, keep it up!

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:56 am

Quoting Taca300C (Reply 59):
keep it up

Keep poking screeners?

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:40 pm

This time it was - seems - OK with all other reasons but get "yellow cast" as rejection reason:

Big improvement from Quality Blurry Grainy Soft, but color wasn't issue previous three times... Is there prominent one? Also can I read last rejection as "only color is troublesome" or "one reason is enough so screener has no time to bother with rest"?

airkas1 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:51 pm

My version is perhaps a bit too cyan, but you get the idea (left = mine, right = yours):

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 61):
Also can I read last rejection as "only color is troublesome"

Yes.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 61):
"one reason is enough so screener has no time to bother with rest"

This should never be the case. We always try to be as complete as possible with rejections (I know it's not always the case, but it is our aim).

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:00 pm

I can see that color can be shifted into cyan side, but really it was cold winter day wit low sun and quite cloudy sky behind me, in an hour color even looks like this. Is there any chances on appeal with explanation or better just shift color as suggested?

airkas1 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:36 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 63):
Is there any chances on appeal with explanation or better just shift color as suggested?

I'd say it's passable, so give it a try.

kulverstukas · Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:58 am

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 64):
I'd say it's passable, so give it a try.

Waiting for HS decision...

Can I help with "grainy" case again?

airkas1 · Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:18 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 65):
Can I help with "grainy" case again?

The sky is a bit noisy, but I was only able to see that when I equalized the photo in Photoshop.

Is standard noise reduction (even if it's a little) in your workflow when editing photos? I find that even reducing like 20-30% in the RAW converter will still leave the image quality intact, while you do take care of some of the noise.

vaalaa · Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:10 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 66):
The sky is a bit noisy, but I was only able to see that when I equalized the photo in Photoshop.

comparing with the image from the rejection guide which is marked as "It would be accepted to Airliners.net.", the Su-34 photo perfectly fits into a.net quality standards in part of 'grainy', unless you screen it in equalize mode of course

[Edited 2016-03-18 06:10:42]

kulverstukas · Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:22 pm

Honestly, since I found some suitable LR settings about two years ago I don't bother about NR till beginning of this year. I even dare to teach seasoned spotter on editing including dealing with noise in this thread

But now I'm forced to revise my NR settings each time I edit photo for Anet

If the only sky is the reason of 'grainy' rejection, then I just push my NR sliders right a bit and hope for the best. Also I wonder if plane itself, background and tarmac are also a source of 'grainy' look. tarmac looks 'sandy' a bit but I think it's how it must look.

[Edited 2016-03-18 06:27:19]

airkas1 · Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:43 pm

So just to clarify, I don't find the photo grainy.

vikkyvik · Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:05 pm

Quoting Joshu (Reply 55):
While I was not the one to send you that comment, you know you have been told many many many times to stop uploading marginal shots at 1600-1400px. I cannot understand why you do not get this.

I can't understand why the screeners care so much. If they're all low quality, they're very quick rejections. If a photog wants to bang his head against a wall, let him do it!

Or, if they're marginal, that means they are borderline, and he certainly shouldn't be penalized for uploading borderline shots - we all do it.

Either way, seems like it isn't much of a nuisance to anyone.

kulverstukas · Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:29 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 64):
I'd say it's passable, so give it a try.

HS rejected it as blurry. I think I'm fed up with A.net right now. It makes no sense to spend time uploading with 95% reject rate - with such poor quality of photos I better find another way to entertain myself elsewhere.

[Edited 2016-03-19 15:34:23]

Joshu · Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:48 am

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 71):
HS rejected it as blurry. I think I'm fed up with A.net right now. It makes no sense to spend time uploading with 95% reject rate - with such poor quality of photos I better find another way to entertain myself elsewhere.

What do you expect when you continuously ignore the help you are given? You whine and complain more than anyone else that uploads to this website. Get over yourself. Your images make it to the front page not because of the interest of this website or the quality of those images, but rather your social media whoring.

I heard Flickr doesn't have a screening requirement. See ya.

vaalaa · Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:11 am

Quoting Joshu (Reply 72):
Your images make it to the front page not because of the interest of this website or the quality of those images, but rather your social media whoring.

to be fair, the rating system of this website has been totally discredited because of giant loss of public interest few years ago and biased screening definitely won't help to return public interest and raise the hits.

airkas1 · Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:59 am

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 71):
HS rejected it as blurry. I think I'm fed up with A.net right now. It makes no sense to spend time uploading with 95% reject rate - with such poor quality of photos I better find another way to entertain myself elsewhere.

I saw the rejected appeal yesterday and realized it was initially rejected for blurry and that it was also on that list of 9 photos in post 49 and I remembered that I agreed with it. I forgot to mention that as I was focused on the color part.

Quoting Joshu (Reply 72):
What do you expect when you continuously ignore the help you are given? You whine and complain more than anyone else that uploads to this website. Get over yourself. Your images make it to the front page not because of the interest of this website or the quality of those images, but rather your social media whoring.

I heard Flickr doesn't have a screening requirement. See ya.

Not all his photos are bad. And upload size is up to the photographer, not our call to make. If someone always wants to upload 1600px even though his photos are useless, let them. Easy rejections for us.
(note that this is an example, and not Alex's case in particular)

I too find it lame if people get to the front page by social media post whoring, but it is not breaking A.net rules. When one posts a photo on FB or anywhere else, it's exactly the same, even if it gets the photographer less hits. It's todays world.

What I also think should not be done is crew encouraging people to leave. This is a feedback forum, where people should be free to ask for help. If you're tired of someone's 'whining', please just leave the replying to others and not reply yourself.

Alex, if this really was the last straw, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you'll be able to try again in due time.

[Edited 2016-03-20 02:30:23]

trevisan26 · Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:27 am

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 74):
Not all his photos are bad. And upload size is up to the photographer, not our call to make. If someone always wants to upload 1600px even tough his photos are useless, let them. Easy rejections for us.

From all his acceptances I would say many are very good.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 74):
I too find it lame if people get to the front page by social media post whoring, but it is not breaking A.net rules. When one posts a photo on FB or anywhere else, it's exactly the same, even if it gets the photographer less hits. It's todays world.

Same think with A.net official page at FB that gets you at least 2000 views in 2/3h

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 74):
What I also think should not be done is crew encouraging people to leave.

Many good photographers already left, lets try to keep the ones who still around

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:38 am

Joshua, there is much more aviation photography resources, including these with quite strict screening. A.net even is not the largest one lately.

As for your accusing me of "whoring", if A.net keeps exclusive rights of uploaded photos and sharing them is prohibited activity, punished by low acceptance rate, please write it somewhere in the rules. BTW, I share them only on thematic reddit pages and in my own LJ, I neither can be responsible for anybody linking them at different aviation forums nor want to prohibit such use.

As about help, I'm grateful for any member of A.net community helping me to improve my photos, including screeners. Unfortunately, both your replies in this thread lately hardly looks like "help" but more so like personal insults. I don't know why you - one from all community only - are so upset by my presence here. I'm not only one of pointing on inconsistent screening and asking explanation. Don't want to think also that great part of some strange rejections of my shoots lately was your share. If you don't like me personally, just stop reading my posts. If you think that other screeners or photographers or any other persons here are affected by me - let them defend themselves. May be my posts looks "whining", but yours just looks stupid. Sorry.

vaalaa · Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:17 am

Quoting trevisan26 (Reply 75):
Same think with A.net official page at FB that gets you at least 2000 views in 2/3h

it's not a reason to cheat hit counter via reddit for every photo you've uploaded. It looks like that you're underestimating yourself.

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:02 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 62):
Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 61):Also can I read last rejection as "only color is troublesome"
Yes.

It's why I asked question under photo in Reply #61. And it's why I dared to appeal.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 74):
I saw the rejected appeal yesterday and realized it was initially rejected for blurry and that it was also on that list of 9 photos in post 49 and I remembered that I agreed with it. I forgot to mention that as I was focused on the color part.

Removing only rejection case to add another one is not what word "appellation" is stands for in my understanding of English language and Law practice

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 74):
Alex, if this really was the last straw, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you'll be able to try again in due time.

I get some top photos and eyecatchers at another aviation sites recently, including photos which here was rejected for quality, blurry, grainy. I just feel that concentrating on uploading here not worth time spent. It was great at the beginning of the learning curve, but now rejections mainly ads confusion instead of pointing at real flaws. I will still put some shots in queue now and then and even will ask for help sometimes, majority of people in the forums are nice here.

[Edited 2016-03-20 05:23:08]

YQZ380 · Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:52 pm

Rejections are just part and parcel of this website. Don't get too dejected, we all have our highs and lows while uploading to this site. I, for one, love your shots and would certainly like to see more. Don't give up!

Cheers,
Yang

vikkyvik · Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:59 am

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 74):

Not all his photos are bad. And upload size is up to the photographer, not our call to make. If someone always wants to upload 1600px even though his photos are useless, let them. Easy rejections for us.

That's exactly what I was saying above. I've never understood why the screeners really care.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 74):
What I also think should not be done is crew encouraging people to leave. This is a feedback forum, where people should be free to ask for help. If you're tired of someone's 'whining', please just leave the replying to others and not reply yourself.

Kas, you have the best "screener mentality" I've seen in quite awhile (in my opinion, of course). Please don't lose it.

kulverstukas · Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:00 pm

Can I have final opinion on this two?

scbriml · Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:36 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 81):
Can I have final opinion on this two?

IMHO, the SuperJet needs CW rotation.

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:54 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 82):
SuperJet needs CW rotation.

Agree. Strange that it was not in rejection reasons up to appeal. Any other issues?

vaalaa · Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:48 am

Il-76 is soft to me (subjective)

SSJ is dark, snow must look like bright white snow for such a sunny day

airkas1 · Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 81):
Can I have final opinion on this two?

SSJ: Could be a bit brighter, tiny amount of CW, blurry tail & nose gear.
IL76: Could use a bit more contrast.

kulverstukas · Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:30 pm

Ok, thanks for help, everybody. Initially SSJ was rejected for OS, IL76 for Soft. Both lost appeal with reasons upheld and added Quality (and Level for SSJ). Honestly, I can't understand quality difference between rejected shoots and, for example this SSJ

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

and that IL76 shoots.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

[Edited 2016-03-27 14:48:44]

Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

RE: Just Regular Post-screening Topic.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net