Hi folks,
I've started uploading on Airliners.net again and from time to time may need to seek feedback on how to correct rejected photos.
This photo was originally rejected for soft so I increased the sharpness by another 10-20% and it is rejected again but this time for Dark, Common, Quality and Soft. I'm quite surprised at the quality and soft remarks. I don't see any soft parts/edges and is the overall quality really an issue?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 73e722e15b
Thank you.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Post-screening feedback
Screeners use the reference to Quality together with a slew of other rejections all of which make for a lesser quality image. The poor angle of light is rendering the image as dark versus being uniformly lit. To me, the image needs more contrast which would fix the soft appearance. The entire image looks flat. I would say the titles look blurry as well. Being a "common" registration (>100 in the Database), the amalgamation of several smaller issues would make this a difficult image to get accepted.
Hope this helps.
Jehan
Hope this helps.
Jehan
Re: Post-screening feedback
Thanks Jelpee - well noted.
Also seeking feedback from everyone on this latest rejection --> https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 1f872cf039
Rejected for blurry. I'm surprised it received this rejection as I don't think the levels of blurriness are that noticeable. It could appear that way because of the fading sunlight. Would a bit of increased sharpening help? If I do that it will probably lead to a combined over-sharpened and blurry rejection.
Also seeking feedback from everyone on this latest rejection --> https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 1f872cf039
Rejected for blurry. I'm surprised it received this rejection as I don't think the levels of blurriness are that noticeable. It could appear that way because of the fading sunlight. Would a bit of increased sharpening help? If I do that it will probably lead to a combined over-sharpened and blurry rejection.
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 505
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening feedback
Website titles and nose do look blurry. Increased sharpening wouldn't help.
Re: Post-screening feedback
Thank you Dutchspotter.
Hi all,
Here are the latest round of rejections for which feedback will be much appreciated:
1). UA 787 // https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... ff26aed80e // Rejected for underexposed. Is this worth appealing? The contrast looks balanced enough for me.
2). JAL 767 // https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f4e0388eef // Rejected for borders and underexposed. Underexposed I get, but borders? Does the screening team mean that the crop isn't tight enough (i.e. distance)? First time I have come across the term "Borders" in a rejection.
Thank you.
Hi all,
Here are the latest round of rejections for which feedback will be much appreciated:
1). UA 787 // https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... ff26aed80e // Rejected for underexposed. Is this worth appealing? The contrast looks balanced enough for me.
2). JAL 767 // https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f4e0388eef // Rejected for borders and underexposed. Underexposed I get, but borders? Does the screening team mean that the crop isn't tight enough (i.e. distance)? First time I have come across the term "Borders" in a rejection.
Thank you.
Re: Post-screening feedback
Hello JK82,
I took a look at your images.
The UA 787 needs some additional contrast but otherwise passable for me.
The JAL 767 also needs additional contrast. When an image is rejected for "Borders" it means that there is a visible border on one or more of the edges. I do not see any in this image.
Exposure could use a slight bump in both images, but not a show stopper for me.
Regards,
I took a look at your images.
The UA 787 needs some additional contrast but otherwise passable for me.
The JAL 767 also needs additional contrast. When an image is rejected for "Borders" it means that there is a visible border on one or more of the edges. I do not see any in this image.
Exposure could use a slight bump in both images, but not a show stopper for me.
Regards,
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests