Hi guys,
looking for some feedback on my latest rejections.
CI77W:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6592068.3744img_6209acrop_anet.jpg
Was done for "overexposed" and "soft".
I know that overexposed is used as well when screeners feel a shot is a bit bright, so no need about a discussion that it isn't technically overxposed. But I don't even think it is particularly bright?!
LH Siegerflieger:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6_h1456560086.5623img_6076anet.jpg
It was done for "not enough quality for 1600px"; soft and high-in-frame.
Even after sleeping over it, I can't see why the quality shouldn't be there, nor do I see any real soft spots. But high-in-frame? I can easily find recent additions that are higher..
So I am looking forward for other opinions. What do you think on these?
Thanks,
Julien
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Post Screen JK
| Quoting JKPhotos (Thread starter): I know that overexposed is used as well when screeners feel a shot is a bit bright, so no need about a discussion that it isn't technically overxposed. But I don't even think it is particularly bright?! |
Sometimes "overexposed" is (incorrectly) used for what should be a contrast rejection when they want darker blacks or midtones, which I believe may be the case here. The whites certainly look well controlled.
| Quoting JKPhotos (Thread starter): Even after sleeping over it, I can't see why the quality shouldn't be there, nor do I see any real soft spots. But high-in-frame? I can easily find recent additions that are higher.. |
If that's high in frame, I'm afraid the quality team will have to go back and trash about a solid half of the database...
Quality looks ok to me, could use a touch more sharpening.
Cheers
Angad
RE: Post Screen JK
| Quoting angad84 (Reply 1): Sometimes "overexposed" is (incorrectly) used for what should be a contrast rejection when they want darker blacks or midtones, which I believe may be the case here. The whites certainly look well controlled. |
| Quoting angad84 (Reply 1): If that's high in frame, I'm afraid the quality team will have to go back and trash about a solid half of the database... |
Plus there have been far higher additions in the last few months.
RE: Post Screen JK
| Quoting JKPhotos (Thread starter): CI77W: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6592068.3744img_6209acrop_anet.jpg Was done for "overexposed" and "soft". |
Needs more contrast. Sharpening doesn't look that bad, but perhaps a small increase will make it look better (careful not to oversharpen the titles. Those look fine for me as is).
| Quoting JKPhotos (Thread starter): LH Siegerflieger: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6_h1456560086.5623img_6076anet.jpg It was done for "not enough quality for 1600px"; soft and high-in-frame. |
I find the tail soft. Don't agree with HIF and quality.
RE: Post Screen JK
| Quoting airkas1 (Reply 3): Needs more contrast. Sharpening doesn't look that bad, but perhaps a small increase will make it look better (careful not to oversharpen the titles. Those look fine for me as is). |
Sometimes more contrast makes a picture look inherently "crisper" so you might kill two birds with one stone there.
Cheers
Angad
RE: Post Screen JK
Thanks for all your responses!
Unfortunately it seems like we all have no clue..
I appealed the LH Siegerflieger based on your comments, still EVERY rejection reason was upheld with the comment "quite soft. Better smaller at 1.200px"
What I don't get about the appeal process these days is, that at least from my personal experience (can't tell about others), it is either black or white these days. Either a shot will get accepted or every reason will be upheld, there is nothing inbetween anymore. When I started it happened that maybe some reasons were removed and I could work on the shots again. With that verdict on the LH, I certainly won't work on it again, it just doesn't make sense to do so.
Unfortunately it seems like we all have no clue..
I appealed the LH Siegerflieger based on your comments, still EVERY rejection reason was upheld with the comment "quite soft. Better smaller at 1.200px"
What I don't get about the appeal process these days is, that at least from my personal experience (can't tell about others), it is either black or white these days. Either a shot will get accepted or every reason will be upheld, there is nothing inbetween anymore. When I started it happened that maybe some reasons were removed and I could work on the shots again. With that verdict on the LH, I certainly won't work on it again, it just doesn't make sense to do so.
RE: Post Screen JK
| Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 5): I appealed the LH Siegerflieger based on your comments, still EVERY rejection reason was upheld with the comment "quite soft. Better smaller at 1.200px" |
The sharpening requirements seem to be a VERY narrow band these days. I certainly can't reliably hit it anymore.
As for HIF, I see photos added every couple days that are considerably higher. Always surprises me.
-
- trevisan26
- Posts: 440
- Joined:
RE: Post Screen JK
No comments on HIF...
Yes. In my three years on the site, I just needed to start using selective sharpening in the last 3 months. Neves used before that.
If it was just simple as that. The problem is, you never know who will screen your picture, and the other screener may have a totally different opinion from the first one. We need to edit them well and have some luck to get pictures accepted.
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7): The sharpening requirements seem to be a VERY narrow band these days. |
Yes. In my three years on the site, I just needed to start using selective sharpening in the last 3 months. Neves used before that.
| Quoting angad84 (Reply 8): Indeed. I just do what I feel like now and wait for the rejection to figure out which way to adjust (if needed). |
If it was just simple as that. The problem is, you never know who will screen your picture, and the other screener may have a totally different opinion from the first one. We need to edit them well and have some luck to get pictures accepted.
RE: Post Screen JK
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7): As for HIF, I see photos added every couple days that are considerably higher. Always surprises me. |
Exactly! That's why I don't feel being fairly treated on this one...
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7): The sharpening requirements seem to be a VERY narrow band these days. I certainly can't reliably hit it anymore. |
Yes I would sign that..
RE: Post Screen JK
Hi guys,
Here I am back (possibly my only entry in a while as my editing notebook broke down unfortunately).
This shot got done for dirty with the comment
"Probably birds, but too small and unidentifiable. Better remove them"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._q1457996812.9096img_6500anet2.jpg
Of course it is a flock of birds, which at least to me is visible on that size as well.
What do you think?
I know it is always a thin line between birds and dust spots. Still I am looking for feedback.
Julien
Here I am back (possibly my only entry in a while as my editing notebook broke down unfortunately).
This shot got done for dirty with the comment
"Probably birds, but too small and unidentifiable. Better remove them"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._q1457996812.9096img_6500anet2.jpg
Of course it is a flock of birds, which at least to me is visible on that size as well.
What do you think?
I know it is always a thin line between birds and dust spots. Still I am looking for feedback.
Julien
RE: Post Screen JK
Took me a while to catch those "birds" on the screen 
In my opinion they should be cloned out. Only thing I recognised instantly was the departing aircraft, but when I first saw those "birds" my immediate impression was that they were dust spots.
Cheers,
Yang
In my opinion they should be cloned out. Only thing I recognised instantly was the departing aircraft, but when I first saw those "birds" my immediate impression was that they were dust spots.
Cheers,
Yang
-
- kulverstukas
- Posts: 1101
- Joined:
RE: Post Screen JK
I agree that if there is only this tiny dots in question then it is quite simple to remove them and reupload.
PS: I'm really envy that somebody can upload such shoots without instant rejection for large size
PS: I'm really envy that somebody can upload such shoots without instant rejection for large size
-
- kulverstukas
- Posts: 1101
- Joined:
RE: Post Screen JK
| Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 15): Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14): three tiny dots nine at least |
Yes, well....at least it's a multiple of three....
RE: Post Screen JK
Well, thanks everybody.
Let'see when I can do this.
Technically yes,. But without your editing PC, without any editing software and without access to your original flie it is actually not easy at all. That is the only reason why I asked.
Let'see when I can do this.
| Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 13): it is quite simple to remove them and reupload. |
Technically yes,. But without your editing PC, without any editing software and without access to your original flie it is actually not easy at all. That is the only reason why I asked.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests