Every month I record the view count of all of my photos in a spreadsheet. That certainly is...unique. Don't worry, a computer program is doing it for me. It's quite interesting to see how views evolve over time. For example LAS photos gain in January more photos than they do in 6 months. Apparently...
Jump to postEvery month I record the view count of all of my photos in a spreadsheet. Lately I have noticed that the system is randomly decreasing the view counts. First example. 5876369 February: Photo Added (1st day of each month) March 343 views April 463 views May 509 views June 562 views July 494 views Aug...
Jump to postIt was taken using the last usable light of the day! It was appealed and accepted. If I were you, I'd reduce the image size to somewhere between 1200 and 1600 wide and re-upload, but you have some phenomenal high-res images already on the site so you seem to definitely prefer going that route. First...
Jump to postThis photo was rejceted three times This was rejected for Oversharpened and dirty. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/2/3/5928325.jpg?v=v4bc3d272632 I deleted the spots/background traffic and I reduced sharpening. Then this was rejected for CCW rotation and soft, https://imgproc.airlin...
Jump to postThanks Jehan! I followed your advice. I think the minor issues are fixed with this edit https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/8/4/5963485.jpg?v=v4bacbe1bfcf I had one more rejection. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/4/5/5935543.jpg?v=v4b9356e5eea This was rejectied for Blu...
Jump to postThanks for our feedback Jehan!
I did the portrait crop eventually.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/3/4/5960435.jpg?v=v4f0e9ac280c
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks Tim.
The jet-bridge is for sure blocking but I don't think that eliminating it will make the frame any better. I ll try to appeal for now.
Hello again This image was recently rejected for Soft and Motive https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/5/3/5928353.jpg?v=v402aea1cac8 Regarding to "motive" I am having a really big trouble identifying what the screener tought was inappropriate for this website. My only thought i...
Jump to postHello again. I d appreciate your opinions on this shot. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/6/3/5876369.jpg?v=v4914c7e1c3f I am pretty sure that the halo around the shadow is not a defect of the window but an atmospheric phenomenon of some kind that's why I decided to upload this one. A...
Jump to postThanks for your genuine replies all and especially DL747. I think the first priority is to look at the votes, and I really hope the screeners pass these requests to the developers. Then we can debate of how "broken" is the system. In the meantime let us all be more careful on what we vote....
Jump to post5792001 The luckiest photo of the year for me. The 787 banked gently around the track giving me literally dozens of good frames. 5564553 First ever photo of this airline on the database. It has never happened to me before, and I doubt if I ll manage to accomplish something like that again. 5692887 ...
Jump to postThis was rejected as soft.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/2/5/5776523.jpg?v=v4e6e80434fd
I cant see any major softness. Do you think an appeal has chances?
I had this Norwegian 787 rejected 4 times. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/0/5677037.jpg?v=v49cbc6c18b2 High contrast https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/9/8/5710897.jpg?v=v4525246f312 Quality, high contrast ,Underexposed https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners...
Jump to postThanks for your replies and excuse me for the delayed answer. I'm not seeing an airport nor the wing of your aircraft, making this a motive rejection to start with. If the top right is an airstrip, it's too insignificant. I d like to argue that in many similar cases the parts of the aicraft visible ...
Jump to postI'm not a developer, but I do get how complex it can be on a site like this, with pieces and parts built at different times by different people over time. It makes it really challenging to support and even more challenging to try to plan out a long term resolution when a site has grown to the scale...
Jump to postIt’s like this website is still debating VHS vs Betamax while the rest of us are debating Netflix, Disney+ or Apple TV+. The photog in question upthread could just be really good at promoting his work, which is what the entire internet is now based on. The game has changed. Wake up. You’ve set your...
Jump to postThis time I would like some prescreening on this picture. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/1/5676161.jpg?v=v4f4a77ceed3 Feel free to judge everything, shaprness, contrast, colours (it was taken from a 787 window which gives serious casts) etc. I would also like to ask if this pictu...
Jump to postKarl, The photo you are describing is currently 2k views short of No.1 for the last 365 days (which I just noticed is from the same guy) surpassing the rollout of the 777-9 and the first A220 for Delta. If one clicks on that pic will see 0 likes and added in the usual album...This indicates rather l...
Jump to postI had this photo rejected as double of the following one, even after an appeal. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/3/5/5612539.jpg?v=v44f4557194c 2821023 I understand that they are from the same sequence but the motive and the frame is really different. What are your thoughts on this?
Jump to postLooks like another banner-deserving photo has been neglected.
This is the first picture of this charter airline from Denmark
Hello everybody.
I stumbled upon something I cannot explain in the following pics
One more series of rejections. This time is thw Swifair 737 N314XA, under priority screening My first attempt was rejected for "blurry" and "oversharpened". https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/1/5/5507511.jpg?v=v435ed259c85 Then I tweaked sharpening and it was reject...
Jump to postRoyal, I like your photos, because you shoot in a very similar manner to me. The old fashioned 'sunny side-on' is often sneered at these days (not here so much) but, given an old 35mm camera, I have to wonder how many of these digital whizz-kids could achieve the required standard without having Ph...
Jump to postAfter one more rejection and a successful appeal the 5th edit of the Southwest 738 made it!
Oh, it is possible to check where views come from, and with the right reporting tools even exclude views from particular sources. I use these tools in my day job. But I guess this site also wouldn’t have the budget available that I do to get these enterprise level solutions. This was implemented on...
Jump to postThanks Kas. I lowered it a bit, and it is going to get screened soon.
Jump to postI just appealed the 2nd one. Hope this works out. Today I realized that there is an HS with his own view on centering. I appealed this pic for blurry yesterday and I got the exact same message "Blurry but too high in frame. Please consider tail as a part of aircraft " And the photo is obvi...
Jump to postThis was appealed and rejected. The HS said that I should consider tail as part of the airctaft. Probably I 'll appeal the last one.
Jump to postI had a totally 4 rejections for one single image. My first try was this. It was rejected for noise and low contrast. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/4/1/5467147.jpg?v=v4f37d9e20f6 Then I boosted the contrast and reduced noise, so it was rejected for high contrast and underexposed h...
Jump to postThank for your answer Harry. I appealed the last one... Passable for me. It ended up far from passable Kas. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/4/5/5454543.jpg?v=v4a93fc32a86 It was rejected for Overexposed Size Soft Low Contrast Heat Haze I can agree with the overxposed and contrast, b...
Jump to postHello... I have one more weird rejection. My first try was this. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/0/2/5453209.jpg?v=v422b80b8628 It was rejected for dark and oversharpened. Then I increased the brightness, and increased the size. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/9/7/5...
Jump to postHello Jehan.
I closely examined the original and I couldnt see any "motion". I think it's just softnes. I applied a bit of selective sharpening at the front. I think it's Ok now.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/4/5/5454543.jpg?v=v4a93fc32a86
I want some pre-screening on this Travel Service 738. Do you think its OK for that size. Is the glare killing this pic?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/4/2/5453249.jpg?v=v49ef969ba61
Thanks
Solon
I understand your claims Jehan. I ll spend some time to re-edit.
Thanks
Solon
I ve reuploaded it, and now hoping for the best. Double Southwest Rejection I uploaded first this at 1920 px and was rejected for soft and blurry. Soft, maybe on the back, but I cant see any blurryness. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/3/7/5449731.jpg?v=v4e460b41e29 After this I resi...
Jump to postThird time was the charm indeed! Now this was rejected after appealing for high in frame. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/0/4/5414403.jpg?v=v4bc8c51947e I also have two more pics accepted with the same composition. 5376799,5395841 Should I upload the same one again with this remark,...
Jump to postAnother pair of rejections... This was rejected for soft. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/8/3/5414385.jpg?v=v475279ae435 Then I added some sharpening and it was rejected for oversparpened and CCW. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/2/5422261.jpg?v=v4d73d249db9 Should...
Jump to postThis Delta 738 was rejected as "Soft" and the screener added "This shot does not support such a large size. Try 1200 pix or below" https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/2/5/5408529.jpg?v=v4b69c652878 I understand that the conditions are not ideal but should I upload at...
Jump to postAnother puzzling rejection
This pic was rejected for "Low in frame"
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/8/5398837.jpg?v=v430a14e8751
I understand that the empty space above the plane is bigger, But the center is right on the window line. Should I appeal?
Youprovided enough reasoning to dump that pic!
The two Southwests were accepted after the appeal!
Thanks Jehan! I ll defenitely re-edit the 717 and upload it again. As for the two SW I appealed them both... Now one more rejection https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/3/8/5394839.jpg?v=v4f66c741562 This is some kind of overview. I understand that the United and the buildings behind are...
Jump to postHello... I had a ton of rejection lately...Some more puzzling than others Southwest winglet. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/3/8/5385833.jpg?v=v4317e78455b Rejected for "banding" I understand that such large color gradient cant be perfectly smooth. The only way to reduce i...
Jump to postI think the counters are stuck again...Over 40 pics with zero views
Jump to post