Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
310815
Topic Author
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Post Screen JK

Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:36 am

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
 
angad84
Posts: 2145
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:14 pm

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
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12729
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:56 pm

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

RE: Post Screen JK

Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:04 pm

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.
 
angad84
Posts: 2145
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:10 pm

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
 
310815
Topic Author
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:01 am

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

RE: Post Screen JK

Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:50 am

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 5):
When I started it happened that maybe some reasons were removed and I could work on the shots again.

It still happens at times. Sometimes reasons are added, sometimes removed.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12729
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:15 pm

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.
 
angad84
Posts: 2145
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:28 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
The sharpening requirements seem to be a VERY narrow band these days. I certainly can't reliably hit it anymore.

Indeed. I just do what I feel like now and wait for the rejection to figure out which way to adjust (if needed).

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

RE: Post Screen JK

Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:34 pm

No comments on HIF...

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.
 
310815
Topic Author
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:04 am

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..
 
310815
Topic Author
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:11 am

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
 
User avatar
YQZ380
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:20 am

RE: Post Screen JK

Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:13 pm

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

RE: Post Screen JK

Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:33 pm

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  
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12729
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:49 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 11):
Of course it is a flock of birds, which at least to me is visible on that size as well.
What do you think?

If you're talking about the three tiny dots above the tail, then definitely remove them.
 
User avatar
kulverstukas
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am

RE: Post Screen JK

Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:51 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14):
three tiny dots

nine at least
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12729
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:37 am

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 15):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14):
three tiny dots

nine at least

Yes, well....at least it's a multiple of three....   
 
310815
Topic Author
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:49 pm

Well, thanks everybody.

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.
 
len90
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:01 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 15):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14):
three tiny dots

nine at least

Yes, well....at least it's a multiple of three....   

I counted 10 so no longer a multiple of there  Rule of thumb here is anything speck like pretty much needs to be cloned out.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Post Screen JK

Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:05 pm

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 11):
What do you think?

This post is probably overkill given the above replies, but I agree that it's better to remove them.
 
310815
Topic Author
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

RE: Post Screen JK

Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:39 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 19):
This post is probably overkill given the above replies, but I agree that it's better to remove them.

No it isn't. I appreciate your input anytime, Kas!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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