PanAm_DC10 wrote:Hello Stefan
A first visit applies and your image has been screened. Sorry for our error
Paul
Hello there, I added a photo of a new airline visit to Schiphol (ID: 6797803) but somehow it was deprioritized. According the rules I still believe it should be screened as priority. Or am I missing some new rules perhaps? Greets Stefan
Jump to postThey both look high in frame and oversharpened to me. And the first one needs CW rotation.
Jump to postjelpee wrote:Looks soft overall at this size. At 1600 pixels or larger, the screeners look for near flawless images. I think one more pass of sharpening should work.
Jehan
Hello, this one was rejected for soft. Can someone help me with pointing out where exactly?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 7bfc3b815c
Are we looking at the same photo, the KLM 772? I don`t see anything that has to do with right in frame. It looks only a tight crop on the right side to me or not cropped even with the left side, but not really a problem if you ask me.
Jump to postThanks, I agree on the heathaze but perhaps given that this shot is not the standard side-on shot (with one aircraft as main subject) I am hoping some slight haze is acceptable.
Jump to postHello everybody, this photo was rejected for blurry. The original looks okay to me so I`m a bit surprised. Can someone tell me where it`s blurry exactly? I also might try to reduce the size of the photo and start all over to see if it`s fixable. The other fact that makes it a bit hard to accept is t...
Jump to postdutchspotter1 wrote:Curious why the blocked nosegear and engine wasn't mentioned as a rejection reason.
The latest version was accepted in the end Thanks for the feedback
Jump to postThanks for the advice everybody. I agree there is some heathaze in the original especially in the far distance. I was able to shoot again and edited a new original. Is this any better? This original is sharper overall. Thanks https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/3/1/6011135.jpg?v=v41c133...
Jump to postHi Stefan, Honetly,I do not recognize neither oversharpend nor overexposed from it. Exposure looks fine for me. Sharpness looks bit soft for me but not bad. That's my point of view. Regards, Hmm, I also thought it looked better than told. It was rejected by priority screener. So does that mean appe...
Jump to postHello, I am trying to get a photo accepted of a couple of B777`s on the Schiphol runway but somehow it gets rejected for overexposed and oversharpened. I really can`t see the overexposed parts. The original is more underexposed than overexposed if I look at it. There are small glares on the rear of ...
Jump to postHi Harry, sorry I didn`t tell it earlier but it has already been fixed. In the sitewide-forum I posted something about it. Anyway thanks a lot!
Jump to postPanAm_DC10 wrote:Hello Stefan
Both screened thank you. I did notice the queue is a little longer than usual so we are now making an effort to reduce it
Regards
Paul
Hello spompert Can you let me know the photo ID numbers and I will take a look for you. Hello roadrunner As Johnkrist noted you are the only one to report this. Please contact us at support@airliners.net and we will look into this for you. If you have any screenshots they would be helpful Thank you...
Jump to postI'm experiencing very long queue times for appealing photos. Longer than one week. I posted this in the feedback forum but no response. Anybody knows if there is some issue with the appeal process as well? Thanks
Jump to postStill nothing on the appeal queue. Is there some problem going on? Are others also experiencing long waiting times. Appeal photo now one week in the queue. Looks like there is some technical problem. Should I withdraw the photos from the queue? Hope to hear something. Thanks a lot. Stefan
Jump to postHello I have two photos in the appeal queue. One of them is now almost five days in the queue. Is there just a longer queue than normal or is there some error perhaps? Thanks Stefan
Jump to postHello, unfortunately there's no way of getting this accepted. There's strong sunlight from the other side (backlit). First of all try to take photos in good conditions (sunny, not too far, etc.) It will make it easier to edit and get it accepted on Anet.
Jump to postHello, had this photo rejected for blurry, oversharpened and underexposed. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/2/3/5822323.jpg?v=v44accea62e6 Strangely enough the original looks not blurry but sharp enough to edit. I find the other rejecting reasons a bit harsh. Maybe a smaller size wil...
Jump to postStill halos around the plane and oversharpened. There is no use in uploading if you aks me. What is your editing process? The halos mostly appear with lifting shadows, don`t you see them? How did you sharpen the plane? I might be wrong but I can see a lot of jaggies all around.
Jump to postStrong vignetting, halos (around the tail and above front fuselage), still a bit yellow to me, oversharpened and too loose crop.
Jump to postHello, photo is oversharpened, white border below, over edited sky/artifacts/unnatural looking sky, too loose crop, noisy in the shadow areas like under the wings, yellow cast.
Greets Stefan
airkas1 wrote:Hi all,
As you probably noticed, newly added photos aren't showing. We're aware and hoping for a fix as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yes agree. It has something to do with layers/flattening in PS(E). It happened to me before once.
Jump to postThere`s a border of slightly darker pixels (1 pixel wide) around the frame. For me only visible by zooming in.
Jump to postHello, this one was rejected for quality, noise, underexposes, dark.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... a162195608
I agree the light is not very favorable. But I managed to get other shots in same conditions accepted so was wondering what you think.
It looks like the exposure is not good (cloudy). With the bright background it will be hard to fix. Also the fuselage is grainy. I don`t think it`s possible to get this to an acceptable level. But maybe others think otherwise...greets Stefan
Jump to postHello, I uploaded some photos quite a while ago but they are not showing in the queue. Saying screening, pending, possessing. Will the photos be repaired later, anyone else with this issue? Greets
Jump to postHI Chris,
To me it looks like there is a lot of heathaze in general. Not only from the engines but also around the front of the aircraft, clearly visible to me. I would say this photo is not fixable.
Greets Stefan
Stefan, for what's it worth I think you can get acceptances / acceptable shots with every DSLR lense outthere. I don't think it's the point for Karl, that does not even upload at the moment. The question is more: will these shots have sufficient quality for someone that is used to an L-Lense qualit...
Jump to postHi Karl, I used this lens four quite a while before I upgraded to a L-lens. If I was you I would definitely buy it. Very good quality, cheap and light. Only some vignetting at 250mm at F8 and higher. But I got hundreds of photos accepted with this lens easily. Good luck. Stefan
Jump to postThanks Julien, good to know. I think I leave the photo for what is is.
Jump to postThanks Jehan,
It would be nice to get some additional feedback indeed. I am considering to appeal it and see how the head screeners look at it.
Hi Jehan. No the motive was the problem. This was the personal note: "Sorry, motive doesn't work. We consider this an unmotivated crop." I first though okay probably not the right angle/motive but still wondering if it`s really that unaccaptable.
Jump to postThis photo was rejected for unmotivated crop: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/3/1/1/5743113.jpg?v=v4c3b8c5b9db I agree the crop is not standard but was hoping it would be a nice addition. I choose this angle because it shows the nose and people queing to get in. I was thinking the peo...
Jump to postHi, it looks my appeal of photo ID: 5725559 is somehow taking much longer than normal. Any idea if it will be seen soon? Just curious. Thanks Stefan
Jump to postStill undecided which one to choose. Probably the one with the stairs has greater chance to get accepted? Or is there leniancy towards blockage with not standard shots in hangars, etc?
Jump to postSince you posted here, I'm not going to reply to your E-mail anymore. The 2 photos both seem like the upper deck/cockpit are out of focus. I don't know for sure why it was deprioritized, but it does kinda make sense. Nowhere does it show any festivities and it could be any other non-prio worithy ev...
Jump to postHi, I attended a special KLM event yesterday and made two possible shots of a KLM B747. I have two questions about it. Do they make a chance? There are obstructions but perhaps due to the circumstances (inside a hanger and people visiting the plane) it is allowed? Also I clicked the priority box bec...
Jump to postI have given permission to airliners multiple times now and never asked for compensation. I don`t think there`s a chance of getting something in return and for me it was enough to get the exposure and views. Felt really rewarding to get the attention for my photos.
Jump to postWhat I don`t get is that the shot of D-ABUM gets so many views (80k) compared to other shots of it (couple of hundred). Am I missing something, but it looks like an ordinary shot of this plane.
Jump to postThe photo is in the appeal queue now for more than a week. I hope it can be seen by a screener soon or is there some update maybe? Thank you!
Jump to postI agree there is a bit more space around the plane than normally. I would crop a bit tighter and yes it`s easy to improve.
Jump to post