Airliners.net

I agree with Len's point. The red dye seems OS other parts look ok to me.

The tail flag edges are a bit sharp, but I wouldn't reject that for oversharpened. If anything, the front & titles seem a little soft.

thanks all, will fix it.

Rejected for soft. Where? Thanks!

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 66101b11b1

The whole fuselage & tail could use an extra kick of sharpening. The reflection likely make it a bit softer than usual.

airkas1 wrote:

The whole fuselage & tail could use an extra kick of sharpening. The reflection likely make it a bit softer than usual.

Excellent, thanks a lot!

Hello, this one was rejected for oversharpened. I have some difficulties seeing the jaggies. Please help me with this, thanks

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 166a7f9037

Actually, i don't see obvious jaggies here.

I don't see any over-sharpening. There is a slight yellow cast though which can be easily fixed.

Jehan

Thank you, it was accepted after the appeal.

Hi there, this one was just rejected for too much contrast and soft. Regarding contrast I did nothing special while editing and perhaps it has more to do with the dark background. Do you agree on the rejection? And where should I sharpen more? Greetings Stefan

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b7c1d9e6df

I think the contrast indeed could be reduced a little bit. And for me, the nose part , cockpit, the surroundings around first door looks bit of soft to me i think, the tail AND the title also seem bit of but not bad. Besides, i think it also is bit of underexposed to me. It could be brighter i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Hi Stefan,

I agree with Harry that the shot looks a bit dark in total and too contrasty. I would lighten up the midtones on that one.
Otherwise it could Overall do with a pass of sharpening.

Julien

The nose looks a bit marginal and I also agree that the darks are a bit dark. Sharpening is passable for me.

Thanks all! Will re-edit and try again.

This one was rejected for unbalanced crop. I wonder how I should crop better then? I can cut more off the right side but to me it doesn`t really matter. Please advice me, thanks

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d712460d84

I would crop closer to the tail. As it is, it looks like the horizontal stabilizer was cropped prematurely. I would also crop closer to the nose thereby eliminating the winglet. A "nose to tail" crop usually looks balanced. I'm not too excited about the quality of the image though. At 1400 pixels, the sky looks noisy. I'd try it at 1024 pixels or 1200 pixels (max).

Jehan

Thanks Jehan, good feedback as always.

Hello there, this one was rejected for soft, blurry and too much contrast. The original is really sharp so I was a bit surspised it got a blurry rejection. Can someone help me out. And agreed on the hight contrast too? It was strange contrasty light en sky that day....Thanks Stefan

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f0157c514c

I don't really see it as blurry/soft (that's most likely the light playing tricks on the eyes), but I do agree on 'contrast', although I'd call it dark instead of contrast. Especially towards the front.

It just looks like the nose fell out of the sunlight. Do you have another shot from the sequence?

Not sure if you can really brighten that up and salvage the nose without compromising the rest of the fuselage.

Kas en Len great stuff, thanks. Indeed the plane is with his head in the clouds so maybe better to leave it. I will try to brighten a bit and we`ll see. There`s no other shot of this one unfortunately. I have another question about a rejected shot

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4ed1db1557

I am trying to get it accepted but after a few HQ`s it is again rejected for underexposed. And now is high contrast added too. Any opinions if I really should brighten more? I don`t want it to look unnatural, there was not much sunlight at the time and it`s a nice shot so I don`t want it to leave it. Thanks

Hi,
The contrast of it looks indeed bit of high could be reduced a little bit. Besides, the exposure i think also could be increased a little bit although it looks ok to me. Increasing a little bit woule be more confortable for me and i don't think it will lead to unnatural.

Cheers,
Harry

A quick edit seems to indicate that it can sustain at least +0.30 of brightness. This will likely also solve the contrast issue.

Thanks Harry and Kas! I reedited and will try again.

A new edit of the MD11 cargo was again rejected for underexposed. Think I still need to brighten more? I added some brightness I thought but probably not enough. Agree or should I appeal now?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bd9b91d603

Thanks a lot

Uh.... to be honest , it the exposure looks not bad to me. But the noise seems more obvious than last time but also ok to me i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Thanks Harry, it was just accepted after appeal. Greets!

I have a question about an appeal I send in two days ago. It`s still not being seen, but I understand the queue can be a bit long sometimes. So that`s not the point. But the strange thing with this one is that once I submitted the appeal Thursday it was immediately not editable anymore. I can also not delete the photo. This was from the moment it was submitted and still the case. In combination with the longer than normal screening time this gives me the idea something has gone wrong with uploading. Maybe a screener can help me out. Thanks

spompert wrote:

I have a question about an appeal I send in two days ago. It`s still not being seen, but I understand the queue can be a bit long sometimes. So that`s not the point. But the strange thing with this one is that once I submitted the appeal Thursday it was immediately not editable anymore. I can also not delete the photo. This was from the moment it was submitted and still the case. In combination with the longer than normal screening time this gives me the idea something has gone wrong with uploading. Maybe a screener can help me out. Thanks

Problem fixed

deleted post

Hello, this United Dreamliner was rejected for compression, noise and quality. Although taken from pretty far and with some zoom I thought quality would be sufficient for 1024px. I also don`t see the noise that much. Does it look salvageable? Otherwise I skip it and go to other photos from that day. Greets

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 34c03c1513

Hi, I have added a photo for appeal but somehow I can not edit or withdraw my appeal. It just doesn`t look alright. Is this a bug or something I don`t have to worry about? Thanks

[twoid][/twoid]

spompert wrote:

Hi, I have added a photo for appeal but somehow I can not edit or withdraw my appeal. It just doesn`t look alright. Is this a bug or something I don`t have to worry about? Thanks

It happens to me as well. I don't know if it was a bug or not. I remembered that only when screeners are looking or screening your photos the button will turn to grey before these days.

Happened to me as well. Should be glitch or change on the backend. Started happening maybe 1 or 2 months ago.

- In your photo corner, the edit/delete buttons have been disabled for photos that are in the appeal queue. This was previously possible and caused errors for the screening interface.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1335403

---
Reason is that some uploaders abused the bug in this feature. It was possible that rejected photos were removed from our overview when the photo had been appealed and deleted again. As such, we would not be triggered that the photo had been previously rejected.

Ah, thanks for clarifying all of you. I missed that announcement. Good to know.

Can anybody help me with this rejection. Rejected for underexposed, noise and quality. Is the noise really a problem and besides some more exposure is the quality really unacceptable? I had to shoot trough glass but hoped it would be okay. Maybe I should let this one go and try some other time on a sunny day.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ea0d0e46bf

The noise and quality aren't that bad, but the light really isn't doing you any favors. Would be very hard to get that right (if even).

Okay clear. Thanks for the feedback!

Is this crop really unacceptable?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f660d1617f

I understand the horizontal stabilizer is somehow a bit cut off but it really doesn`t catch the eye that much. My first impression is that the crop is alright. Love to have some feedback.

Yes, that's a pretty poor crop for me.

Okay, thanks, I`ll skip this one.

Rejected for
- Blurry
- Colour (yellow)
- Soft
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 21bf591620

Yellow cast can be true, but I already removed some yellow. And the original looks pretty sharp to me so I don`t understand it can be blurry at 1400px. Do you agree on the rejection reasons? Thanks and greets S.

I agree with the color rejection. I tried an auto white balance adjustment based on the white in the fuselage and there was a significant improvement which shows in the sky as well.
Re. the blurry, I see some minor OOF in the tail/horizontal stabilizer section, but nothing that I would reject for.

Jehan

The colour of it does look strange to me too especiallythe sky i think. The aircraft's colour looks not so bad although the yellow could be reduced bit of. I tried to reduced Red in the curve and it seems that it becoms better after that. Sharpness and blurry looks ok to me.

Cheers,
Harry

Hi, I changed the color but now to my surprise it`s rejected for blurry and quality
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5894f58440
Any opinions?

Hello, does anyone see any oversharpness in these photos?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0a5bf1e721
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5b695be445

Thanks

spompert wrote:

Hello, does anyone see any oversharpness in these photos?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0a5bf1e721
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5b695be445

Thanks

Greetings!
I have exactly the same problem. I have the same lens. It is really very sharp.
But apparently not all screeners know this. I have a lot of rejected photos for a reason - very sharp.
I practically stopped working on photoshop photos and still my photos do not take.
I file an objection.

Sorry for my bad English.

They look OK for me Stefan.

@ PABlokhin, please start your own feedback thread if you wish to ask for feedback.