Post Screening JK

310815 · Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:12 pm

Hi guys,

had these two rejected and don't understand these rejections

Here is the first:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 833bf6b341

Got done for colour (yellow cast) and underexposed.
It was shot 45minutes before sunset on a short wintersday, so of course it is yellow. I don't see it as being underexposed either, but it is interesting lately I've had quite a few overexposed rejections (whenever I've had any sunbeam on an aircraft) and now this?

The second:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... d355a32468

Got done for noise and also underexposed
I really can't see any noisy parts. Perhaps it could be a bit brighter, but as I explained before due the overexposed rejections I received before I was careful upon editing.

Looking forward to any opinions on these.

Regards,
Julien

jelpee · Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:00 pm

No.1: Does look a bit underexposed to me. Re. the yellow cast, it helps if the a comment is included with the upload indicating the presence of a yellow cast due to time of day. It works for me. Typically, I am bothered more by cyan or magenta casts which have little to do with time of day, but rather with camera WB settings.
No. 2. Exposure seems passable for me. I am on a lap top monitor right now and cannot comment on the noise. But the sky looks noisy even on my laptop.

Hope this helps.

Jehan

JakTrax · Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:05 pm

Hi Julien,

I'd personally have made the first a bit less yellow but it's certainly well within the site's tolerance I think. It's less yellow than this accepted photo I found:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Tran ... 2BW8NT4%3D

Neither are underexposed. Slightly dull for my taste, but not underexposed. Second one does feel unlevel to me, though.

Karl

310815 · Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:21 pm

Hi Karl,

the second one is actually rolling down form a bridge, so it is going downhill at that point, I always write this as a comment to the screener when shooting at this Position, usually it helps.

Thanks for your feedback to both of you. Still I currently don't know what to do, my latest appeals didn't really encourage me to do so again.
Still I don't want to receive a warning for uploading an unchanged Image. Addtionally the nose on the first one will quickly look overexposed when brightening it further.

Julien

310815 · Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:51 am

Hi everybody,

just a short question, this one was done for oversharpened, but I struggle to see it (maybe I am blind on my own shots :-)

).
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6ef4510c7c

Can someone help me out?

Cheers.
Julien

len90 · Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:44 am

I agree that it is a tougher one to see the OS on. However, to me I see some jaggedness on the titles and gear doors.

310815 · Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:30 am

Hi Len,

thanks a lot for your Feedback. I did a new edit with less sharpening and we'll see what happens.
Glad that you confirm that it isn't that obvious :-)

Julien

jelpee · Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:01 pm

Sorry for the late response (was away from my screening monitor for a bit)...I don't see over-sharpening on the Cathay 747.

Jehan

310815 · Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:11 pm

Hi Jehan,

thanks for your response nevertheless. I did already another edit with slightly less sharpening and it was accepted.

Cheers,
Julien

310815 · Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:27 am

Hi everyone,

just had another rejection:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... c9f2e14e78

was done for oversharpened, common, noisy.

Personally I can't see the oversharpening and it doesn't particularly noisy to me, therefore I am looking for some feedback.

Thanks,

Julien

HarryLi · Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:28 am

JKPhotos wrote:
Hi everyone,

just had another rejection:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... c9f2e14e78

was done for oversharpened, common, noisy.

Personally I can't see the oversharpening and it doesn't particularly noisy to me, therefore I am looking for some feedback.

Thanks,

Julien

Hi , JK i saw the link just now. The airplane has obvious OS especially the tittle area and the center line .Actually u can see a little white line around it and jaggies when u see the picture with 100% zone. Noise is good for me .

Best wishes,
Junjie Li

vikkyvik · Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:14 am

HarryLi wrote:
The airplane has obvious OS especially the tittle area and the center line .Actually u can see a little white line around it and jaggies when u see the picture with 100% zone.

I have to disagree. I don't see any offensive oversharpening at all. Looks pretty good to me on the sharpening and noise fronts.

Surprised it didn't get rejected for low contrast, though.

YQZ380 · Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:33 am

JKPhotos wrote:
Hi everyone,

just had another rejection:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... c9f2e14e78

was done for oversharpened, common, noisy.

Personally I can't see the oversharpening and it doesn't particularly noisy to me, therefore I am looking for some feedback.

Thanks,

Julien

Sharpening seems fine to me, though I do see some colour noise in the background building. I think it could do with more contrast too.

Cheers,
Yang

airkas1 · Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:58 am

I agree with Yang.

310815 · Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:52 pm

Thanks for your replies and thanks for confirming that my percpetion of the sharpness wasn't that wrong.
I did one mistake upon judging the noise though (so thanks for bringing that out, Yang): I did only look at the sky and it seemed allright to me. I can see the noise on the building as well.
Did a new edit with some NR applied and also gave it a boost of contrast.

310815 · Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:15 am

Hi everyone,

just had another rejection, which did surprise me.
This
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 16dce55664

Was rejected for "CCW Rotation"

I levelled it like this shot that was accepted a few hours earlier
https://www.airliners.net/photo/TAP-Port ... 11/4158387

There is no big difference between the two and when I look at the verticals on the Wow Air it still looks allright to me.

Any opinions?

airkas1 · Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:22 am

Looks fine to me.

310815 · Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:17 pm

Thanks, a lot Kas, I appealed and the shot was added to the db!

310815 · Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:04 pm

Hi,

I am bit at a loss..

This:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3690b03b87
was again rejected for CCW Rotation, though similarly levelled like the TAP and the Wow air before and to me all vertical references are fine.

Additionally it was done for oversharpened and I do struggle again to see it.

I really don't know what is going on.

Any opinions?

Kaphias · Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:14 am

Looks level to me. I don't see any over sharpened parts either, but I'm no expert. Would say it's low in frame, however.

Miguel1982 · Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:17 am

On a first look I would say that it can take some, very minor, CCW rotation.

Whether 0,2 degrees of rotation make or break a shot is then anyone's guess

airkas1 · Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:23 pm

Looks fine to me.

vikkyvik · Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:07 pm

JKPhotos wrote:
Any opinions?

I would appeal it.

310815 · Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:36 pm

Kaphias wrote:
Looks level to me. I don't see any over sharpened parts either, .

airkas1 wrote:
Looks fine to me.

vikkyvik wrote:
I would appeal it.

Thanks for your feedback, I did appeal and it was rather quickly added!

310815 · Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:26 pm

Another day, another rejection...

This
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4e824fe964
was done for soft only.

I did cafrefully sharpen it and even after checking it again it looks pretty sharp to me.

Any opinions?

Thanks

jelpee · Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:57 am

Does look soft along the window line and titles The image could use some added contrast as well which might help the soft appearance as well.

Jehan

vikkyvik · Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:20 am

Very slightly soft to my eyes.

310815 · Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:05 am

Thanks for your reply Jehan and Vik.
Did a new edit with some more sharpening along the fuselage.

310815 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:52 am

Hi,

this one was done for "noisy and oversharpened"
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 040fbbc158

Speaking of the noise, yes a dark cloud like this won't look smooth and I don't see this one being overly noisy. The sharpening seems allright to me, yes the Lufthansa.com titles may show some small jaggies, but I didn't even sharpen it.

So any opinions?

Thanks & regards,
Julien

airkas1 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:58 am

Hi Julien,

The titles do seem a little sharp and I see some jaggies on the wingtip and hor.stab. Noise doesn't look too bad for me.

310815 · Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:31 pm

Hi Guys,

just looking for feedback here.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/air ... 44d2a3b8f9

I had this shot rejected for CCW Rotation, I appealed because I levelled other shots from the Position in a similar way and they made it to the db, as well as the fence and the building suggest it is Level.

The Appeal was rejected which is fair enough of course.
It got now CCW Rotation, oversharpened, quality and blurry.

I can live with the first 3, but I am wondering myself why "blurry" gets regularly added on appeal. I could show you the original and it is sharp at 100%.
I know I am not making myself popular by uploading at large sizes (though I don't get where the problem is, after all viewers like it), but still no need to call it blurry?

Any opinions? I just want to understand it...

Cheers,
Julien

airkas1 · Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:10 pm

CCW I agree with (judging the poles), but the rest looks ok to me.

310815 · Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:16 pm

Thanks for your honest answer and confirming, Kas, (actually I saw it was screened by 2 persons before and they didn't see anything apart from level neither).

After all we are speaking about a shot of a very slowly moving aircraft taken at a rather short distance on a bright, sunny and clear day taken with a prime lense.
If that has strong quality issues and is blurry and totally unsuited for any "larger" size then I really don't know what to do. I do distinguish for what may be suited for large sizes and what's not.

310815 · Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:34 pm

Hi guys,

had this one being rejected for "soft". After checking it twice I still can't see any true soft parts. It Looks pretty sharp to me.
https://www.airliners.net/photos/airline ... 12d4cd00d2

Any opinions?

Thanks,
Julien

HarryLi · Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:41 pm

JKPhotos wrote:
Hi guys,

had this one being rejected for "soft". After checking it twice I still can't see any true soft parts. It Looks pretty sharp to me.
https://www.airliners.net/photos/airline ... 12d4cd00d2

Any opinions?

Thanks,
Julien

Hello , Julien
I saw your photos just now and in my opinion the Chinese Title and the "AIR CHAIN" are soft it can be sharpened and the tail also is a little soft not very bad . In addition , i saw your photo size is 1600 the size is too big i recommend you to use smaller size and sharpen it again it will be better i think . Maybe you can use 1024 or 1200 it will be better than this one because big size photo needs high quality it means that your photo must be very good especially the sharpeness i think .Hope can help u

Best wishes,
Junjie Lee

310815 · Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:30 pm

Well most of my accepted shots are at 1.400-1.600px, so I don't think it is too big. :-)

Still thanks for your Input, still I struggle to see softness on the Air China titles.
Any other opinions (on softness - I truely don't want a size discussion)?

Miguel1982 · Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:46 pm

I always tell my wife that size doesn't matter... in photography, of course!

To me the titles are closer to showing jaggies than to being soft. Maybe making it a bit lighter while retaining the darks as they are (i.e. giving it more contrast, but towards the lighter tones) and applying some sharpening to the front of the wing and engine could help. In any case, splitting hairs here.

Cheers,

M

310815 · Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:02 pm

Hi guys,

I had this shot being ultimatley rejected after spending 4 days in HQ1 (honestly that's the worst that can happen to your photo, I'd rather have an instant rejection and can work on a shot)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f116d12ce7

It got done for "high contrast" and "soft".
Speaking of the contrast what Is a shot on a very bright & clear sunny day supposed to look like? Sorry but I personally don't get it, therefore I am looking for other opinions. I struggle to see "soft" as well, it Looks pretty sharp in my opinion.

Thanks for other opinions,
Julien

airkas1 · Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:22 pm

Hey Julien,

The contrast looks ok to me. The titles look a little softish, but the photo would be passable for me.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net