Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:32 pm

Hi.
I have today this rejection.

Oversharp and need CCW rotation. I would like othe reference used the screener to see CCW rotation (Perhaps the branch of a tree in the background?)  . And what is oversharp here.

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...me=e1453416721.6912151104-0152.jpg

Blurry and oversharp. No can see nothing oversharp or blurry here.

https://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ame=j1453400913.387151104-0427.jpg

Before I reedit or appeal I would like some some opinion or advise.

Sincereslly...seeing the poor quality of the some pictures are being accepted here lastely. Specially oversharp and blurrys. I think this pictures meet correctly rules to be accepted.
Best Regards

Bustin
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:32 am

Hi, this rejections today.

1.- Dark - low contrast - color rejection. Personal "colour looks washed out"

I can easily correct contrast and dark. But I do not understand that means the screener with the rejection of color. I can not see nothing incorrect with the color.

I would like some advise before reediting and reupload.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...313_d1457092534.513160302-0231.jpg

2.- Night shot. Color - Cyan cast- Low contrast- soft- grainy and motiv rejection. Personal "bad flare from light ".
I think everything is correctable. But I do not understand the motive rejection .

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...13_q1457088879.7109160302-0710.jpg

Why motive rejection?



Regards

[Edited 2016-03-13 04:48:58]
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:37 pm

First one looks a bit of softish for me. I think that adding contrast will help with dull color. Personally I'd use a bit of local darkening on this guy west because it's blown out (and adds to "washed" color look too).

Second one has prominent lens flare(s) which is no-go for a.net afaik.
 
angad84
Posts: 2143
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:19 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 2):
First one looks a bit of softish for me. I think that adding contrast will help with dull color. Personally I'd use a bit of local darkening on this guy west because it's blown out (and adds to "washed" color look too).

Second one has prominent lens flare(s) which is no-go for a.net afaik.

This. The first one is not bad, very easily fixable to a.net standards.

The second is a no-go.

Cheers
A
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:17 pm

Quoting bustin (Reply 1):
Why motive rejection?

Motive is probably for the lens flares.

I'm not on my screening computer at the moment, so can't comment on the rest.
 
User avatar
YQZ380
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:20 am

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:08 am

Quoting bustin (Reply 1):
"colour looks washed out"

My take is that the saturations on the first shot need to be boosted.

Quoting bustin (Reply 1):
Why motive rejection?

It's the lens flare that is the problem, that is, the circular halo above and near the cockpit of the aircraft registered "15133". I've had a few motive rejections like these in the past, due to lens flares  

That said, the first shot is fixable, but the second I'm afraid not. Best way to avoid lens flares is to either use a lens hood or keep bright sources of light blocked or out of the frame of the shot.

Cheers,
Yang
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:34 am

I have this rejection days ago. "Dark" rejction.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...24_k1458069318.8201160302-0086.jpg

I added light and reuploaded the picture.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...3_u1458937488.5271160302-0086s.jpg

The picture was again dark rejection.

I appealed and the headscreener reply "Dark" and "Overexposed. Backlit". I think there isn´t nothing dark o baclit here. Specially in the firts picture.

Some time ago I stopped trying to understand the ever-changing criteria and headscreeners screeners.
So, I would like some advice to fix this rejection.

I used how reference this accepted picture. Same day and same light conditions.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...d=4a8a0e8ed1bfa5e746dbe7dabf79b035

Best Regards
Bustin
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:23 pm

Which editing program do you use? You don't need to boost overall brightness on the shoot, but push up shadows a bit.

PS at reference photo overall brightness is the same as on shoot in question, but shadows are lighted so it was passable.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:39 pm

Quoting bustin (Reply 6):
I think there isn´t nothing dark o baclit here.

It's toplit, but that's trivial as the result is only slightly better compared to if it were backlit.

The fact that one photo was accepted and the other wasn't is probbably due to the fact that the 2 photos were viewed by different screeners. Not sure how to fix this without overexposing the background. You could try Alex's suggestion, but be careful to not overdo it (causing an editing rejection).

[Edited 2016-04-05 14:39:42]
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:30 pm

Thanks to yours advice. I will try improved light and shadows.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:14 pm

Hi.

Several days ago I had another night shoy by motive and soft. I think there is resaon to motive rejection by lens flare here. Specially after see today one recent night picture of one Belgium AF white NH-90. I don´t want post here this nice picture. But I can send one private mails to match. Seeing this picture I created serious doubts about the criteria used by screeners to accept or reject esta type pictures.

I added my reject picture. If someone wants to compare the two pictures and give your opinion. I'm really confused here.



Best Regards

Bustin
 
User avatar
trevisan26
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:31 am

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:10 pm

Quoting bustin (Reply 10):
Seeing this picture I created serious doubts about the criteria used by screeners to accept or reject esta type pictures.

That matter of the lens flare in night pictures would be a nice theme for an appeal (as every screener can see the results and comments about appeals AFAIK. Not sure about the soft, wait for more opinions  
Quoting bustin (Reply 10):
I don´t want post here this nice picture

I dont see any problems quoting them, we're not talking they're bad. Give as examples some pictures ID, maybe it helps to clear the motive question in this cases.

Some nice pictures added with the lens flare:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jimmy Van Drunen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Shemley



Cheers
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:38 pm

I agree on soft. The motive (lens flare) is passable for me.
 
bustin
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: Pre/Pro Screening 2016

Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:42 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 12):
I agree on soft. The motive (lens flare) is passable for me.
Quoting trevisan26 (Reply 11):
That matter of the lens flare in night pictures would be a nice theme for an appeal (as every screener can see the results and comments about appeals AFAIK. Not sure about the soft, wait for more opinions

Thanks to yours opinion!!!

I will try correct soft rejection and reupload, I hope next screen no get another motive rejection again and received one warning. After seeing these two very nice and clarifiers examples would be difficult to understand.

Regards

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos