Had this one rejected for soft: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 49f-12.jpg Queue time was 11 days, 5 hours.
Appealed it as I didn't see an issue with the sharpening pointing out the nuermous areas that I used to judge. HS responds with a Not soft but blurry. Reject reasons now: Blurry, Quality, Personal, High in Frame.
With some of the recent FAR off centered acceptances I find it laughable to see the High in Frame (which this is not). So I now ask, let's look for the blurry areas....
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
Hi, I would say the back of the airplane is a bit blurry. It`s visible around the windowline and the red signs above it. But it might be that I am not viewing the photo at good size, I watched it at 1400px.
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
Hi Len,
I agree on slightly blurry, noticed it almost right away on the titles/windowline.
Regarding HIF, I see your point. With crops like these, the centering is always a bit subjective to the screener.
I agree on slightly blurry, noticed it almost right away on the titles/windowline.
Regarding HIF, I see your point. With crops like these, the centering is always a bit subjective to the screener.
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
Hmm interesting. A part of me wonders if the slight blur being seen is from the sun line reflection. That's always going to cause a distortion and issue of apparent blur that isn't there.
The HIF subjectivity is a horse I beat to death already and I really think that is something that needs to be worked on already in developing leniency. For a head to throw that on with my appeal for the soft... it comes back as more of a slap than anything. If the original screener rejected for high in frame I would have understood it a bit more as this site might prefer the centering slightly different than the other site. The main wight of the fuselage is lower than the center weight point of the image to compensate for the angle putting the wing towards the top of the frame.. I guess for this the head is looking for equal pixel count between the frame and the extreme points of the aircraft, something that just feels totally wrong to me.
I will say this last point regarding the HIF: To hold me to a "centering" type rejection on that image when there has been an EXTREMELY poor example of centering accepted in the recent week is laughable. I have no issue with screening being critical as it makes your accepted shots that much more meaningful. However, when you hold my image to one screening standard and another image to another FAR OFF screening level there comes an issue. Screen everyone equally as harsh. I know that screening is subjective and sometimes a gracious benefit of the doubt slips on by. HOWEVER, you can't seriously think that a severely vignetted off-centered image is something that is accepted on mistake. We all make mistakes but we should be at a level in screening for this site to not be making mistakes that are that bad.
The HIF subjectivity is a horse I beat to death already and I really think that is something that needs to be worked on already in developing leniency. For a head to throw that on with my appeal for the soft... it comes back as more of a slap than anything. If the original screener rejected for high in frame I would have understood it a bit more as this site might prefer the centering slightly different than the other site. The main wight of the fuselage is lower than the center weight point of the image to compensate for the angle putting the wing towards the top of the frame.. I guess for this the head is looking for equal pixel count between the frame and the extreme points of the aircraft, something that just feels totally wrong to me.
I will say this last point regarding the HIF: To hold me to a "centering" type rejection on that image when there has been an EXTREMELY poor example of centering accepted in the recent week is laughable. I have no issue with screening being critical as it makes your accepted shots that much more meaningful. However, when you hold my image to one screening standard and another image to another FAR OFF screening level there comes an issue. Screen everyone equally as harsh. I know that screening is subjective and sometimes a gracious benefit of the doubt slips on by. HOWEVER, you can't seriously think that a severely vignetted off-centered image is something that is accepted on mistake. We all make mistakes but we should be at a level in screening for this site to not be making mistakes that are that bad.
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
Interesting discussion and thanks for bringing the issue up. Regarding CENTERING and VIGNETTING I saw this image some days ago.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... cf2251fc26
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... cf2251fc26
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
Surely that AFL isn't an accepted image? If so, I'm speechless!
Len, your shot on my screen looks very soft (blurry at the rear, although the engine's jet-wash is right in line with the blurry detail) - almost as though it's been heavily cropped. Unless wherever's hosting your shot has applied some compression?
Karl
Len, your shot on my screen looks very soft (blurry at the rear, although the engine's jet-wash is right in line with the blurry detail) - almost as though it's been heavily cropped. Unless wherever's hosting your shot has applied some compression?
Karl
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
JakTrax wrote:Surely that AFL isn't an accepted image? If so, I'm speechless!
Len, your shot on my screen looks very soft (blurry at the rear, although the engine's jet-wash is right in line with the blurry detail) - almost as though it's been heavily cropped. Unless wherever's hosting your shot has applied some compression?
Karl
Not a heavy crop. Think a lot of what is being seen can be related to some sort of site compression. Attached are a link to the original jpeg and then the edited version on my flickr. Note the edited was worked off the raw file.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 86/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 73/sizes/l
And yes that AFL is an accepted image from Aug. 3 2016.
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
len90 wrote:JakTrax wrote:Surely that AFL isn't an accepted image? If so, I'm speechless!
Len, your shot on my screen looks very soft (blurry at the rear, although the engine's jet-wash is right in line with the blurry detail) - almost as though it's been heavily cropped. Unless wherever's hosting your shot has applied some compression?
Karl
Not a heavy crop. Think a lot of what is being seen can be related to some sort of site compression. Attached are a link to the original jpeg and then the edited version on my flickr. Note the edited was worked off the raw file.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 86/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 73/sizes/l
Then something about your editing is off, because the original resized down to 1600px on flickr actually looks sharper than your 1400px edit.
len90 wrote:And yes that AFL is an accepted image from Aug. 3 2016.
Good grief.
Re: Len90: Post Screening Fun
FWIW, the AFL A330 photographer has been contacted to reupload a better version of that photo. It slipped through.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests