len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:44 am

So I've been quiet for a bit as photography is not my job, career, etc. It's my hobby and passion to take me away from the stress of everyday life. Life for the past 8 weeks has been insanely busy with just a few small breaks for me to get out and spot with minimal time to upload or post. It seems like every now and then the screening team here decides to have a little fun prompting me to speak up and question...

Let's take a look at two recent rejections:
Rejection Number 1
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 434951f9bf
Original rejection: Dark and Soft
Appeal rejection: Blurry, Personal, Quality, Underexposed with the comment of "sorry Len but quite some of your shots suffer from a slight blur like this"

Anybody want to point out the slight blur... especially when the site has a tendency to accept such examples as this: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... /4156055/L Not to mention there are also accepted images that I have in similar conditions here: http://www.airliners.net/search?datePho ... user=39305

Rejection Number 2
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5979063555
Original rejection: soft and underexposed
Appeal Rejection: Blurry, Motive, Personal, Quality, Underexposed with the comment of "motive for clipped stabilizer"

Motive? But how can that be a motive rejection when the airliners.net acceptance guide rules on Motive states:
In this image the horizontal stabilizer is also clipped. However since there is equal space in front of the nose and to the right of the tail this is allowed

Let's take a look at the numbers: The nose to the edge of the frame is 7 pixels. The tip of the antenna on the tail to the edge of the frame is 8 pixels. So how again is this not balanced and therefore NOT a motive rejection? The original screener actually had it right in not putting this as motive. As for the exposure this goes back to a prior statement and topic of how the site wants you to overexpose and alter the appearance of the image from how it appeared when you actually shot the picture.


Input would greatly be appreciated.

And while we are at it, if the "blurry" police wold pay half as close attention to color casts maybe, just maybe we will have some consistency. Just utilize N304JB's arrival into JFK on 2/21 as a clear example.
Len90
 
JKPhotos
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:31 pm

Hi Len,


1.) AA738: Brightness seems okay to me, I personally would not say it is underexposed. As for the sharpness, there is something about the American titles that makes them look soft in my opinion. It might be just from editing though (e.g. working too much on an existing file).

2.) UA738: My first thought was obvious motive rejection for a cut stabilizer on a side-on. I always thought this is a clear motive rejection as it doesn't look properly motivated to be honest. Still having searched for the rejection guide, to my big surprise (and as you stated above) the picture of the Thomson 737 clearly states otherwise.
So either it is acceptable or the guide needs an update. I don't think this point was touched in the last years, still the common sense that was always used in the forum here was that such is a motive rejection.

Sorry if I can't say anything else, but I am irritated as well.

Cheers,
Julien
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:12 am

Thanks Julien for the response.

AA: No heavy work on it. Levels, sharpen, and resize. Equalized to check for dust.

As for the clipped stabilizer, I had a plane on the ground with a clipped stabilizer accepted in early 2016. I don't recall seeing any sort of rule changes in the past year.
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:07 am

Hi Len,

#1: I don't find it underexposed, but the quality looks a bit marginal. The new AA scheme is a PITA to work on, especially the titles. They always get either soft or OS when editing. But there is some sort of slight blur in the front section of the fuselage & titles. Thanks for the A350 link, that photo looks horribly blurry and I will try to get it corrected.

#2: The image does look blurry/soft and quite underexposed. Regarding motive, I guess the Acceptance Guide does support your claim.

Image
Airliners.net Crew - Head Photo Screener
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11999
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:39 am

len90 wrote:
As for the clipped stabilizer, I had a plane on the ground with a clipped stabilizer accepted in early 2016. I don't recall seeing any sort of rule changes in the past year.


It depends on the angle of the photo and how it would look with the full stab visible. In my opinion, the clipping in your shot is borderline-unjustified (disregarding the rejection guide). I don't think the photo would have suffered at all from including the stab.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:10 am

Appreciate the responses.

It appears the phantom rejection reasons are continuing....

1. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1f3a85a4a3
Original rejection: Soft/Low In Frame
Appealed: 10 pixel difference between the highest point of the fuselage and the top of the frame vs the lowest point of the fuselage to the bottom of the frame meaning a redo would be 5 pixels most. Also didn't see any soft spots.
Appeal Rejection: Quality and Blurry.

A look at the full size: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 94/sizes/l

2. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fd1385f7fd
Rejection: Dark, Soft, Halos
Appealed due to not seeing anything like what the screener is. Maybe give a benefit of the doubt for slight softness on the tail.
Appeal Rejection: Underexposed and High in Frame. Personal comment: "no halos and sharpness fine"

A look at the numbers now: lowest point of fuselage to bottom of frame 224 pixels. highest point of fuselage to top of the frame 257 pixels. So how exactly is this high in frame? I know the argument from the other side will be the wing, but look at the database and you'll see MANY examples framed this exact same way. As for the underexposed... maybe the only plausible reason and that to me is critical.

3. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a9b0150250
Rejection: Soft, Dark, Halos
Appealed: Same reason as for number 2.
Awaiting Appeal.

4. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3f5b5c3a9b
Rejection: Soft, Dark, Halos
Awaiting appeal queue space

5. http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 098ac745be
Rejection: Soft and Dark (at least no halos rejection in this shot).

I think the ironic part here is in both rejections that went through the appeal process none of the original reject reasons were upheld. Instead we probed to find new reasons. The Southwest shot truly baffles me with how a HS wants to label that as a High in Frame when it is the exact same setup as these:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-A ... k9qg%3D%3D
http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-A ... k9qg%3D%3D
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwes ... k9qg%3D%3D
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:16 pm

Hi Len,

1) I agree on blurry/quality. The original photo does look blurry and quite marginal quality.
2) I agree on underexposed, centering is passable for me.
3) -
4) -
5) Looks blurry/soft.
Airliners.net Crew - Head Photo Screener
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:57 pm

Kas, appreciate the response. Those two in appeal came back with overshaprened, underexposed, quality and blurry. Was that you? Do you agree?
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:22 pm

That wasn't me, but I am sorry for the results of your latest batch. That's far from fun for me too.

Regarding the 2 earlier photos, I do kinda agree with the result. Thing is, when the images are slightly blurry and then sharpened, it's a short route to being blurry/OS. The exposure can always be fixed of course. It seems your images are usually underexposed/dark, so perhaps that's something to take into account when editing?
Airliners.net Crew - Head Photo Screener
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:27 pm

airkas1 wrote:
That wasn't me, but I am sorry for the results of your latest batch. That's far from fun for me too.

Regarding the 2 earlier photos, I do kinda agree with the result. Thing is, when the images are slightly blurry and then sharpened, it's a short route to being blurry/OS. The exposure can always be fixed of course. It seems your images are usually underexposed/dark, so perhaps that's something to take into account when editing?

What does kinda agree mean? Are you on the fence about it? Do you feel it is being a bit on the more critical side?
This batch had that lower sun angle with deeper shadow. I opted to keep it natural as to what it presented with instead of overexposing post processing. I'll bump exposures by like 0.25-0.35???

With that said the original screener was completely wrong. Hopefully that is something that gets looked into on the other end.
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:08 pm

len90 wrote:
What does kinda agree mean?

It means I agree with the rejection.


len90 wrote:
With that said the original screener was completely wrong. Hopefully that is something that gets looked into on the other end.

All screeners get the appeals results in their E-mail inbox. We are expected to look it over and adjust our screening based on the results.
Airliners.net Crew - Head Photo Screener
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:47 pm

Where's the blur on this and how can an image be OS if I didn't apply any sharpening?
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6333dc4d53
Len90
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:52 pm

The cheatlines are quite jaggy. If you didn't apply any sharpening, then resizing could've been the culprit. As for the blur, it just looks slightly blurry in general.
Airliners.net Crew - Head Photo Screener
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:07 am

airkas1 wrote:
The cheatlines are quite jaggy. If you didn't apply any sharpening, then resizing could've been the culprit. As for the blur, it just looks slightly blurry in general.

Here's the full size: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 3/sizes/o/

So what do you do in a case where there is no post processing sharpening and downsizing for the site causes it. It seems lately I have come under more critical screening. My acceptance rate has gone down to basically 0 since speaking up. One can only hope it is a coincidence.

The thing that is funny is I always thought the point of screening is to look to accept not find ways to reject.
Len90
 
User avatar
jelpee
Crew
Posts: 302
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:34 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:47 am

The full sized image does not show jaggies on the cheat lines. Therefore it is likely happening during resizing. Ordinarily I would recommend uploading at a larger image size, but in this case, the full size image shows areas that are blurry (nose and nose gear) and would probably show. You might also try to resize in steps. i.e reduce from full size to say, 1900 pix, then resize again to 1600 pix and finally to 1200 pix. I have found that it can reduce the appearance of jaggies.

Jehan
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
JKPhotos
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:08 am

Such a livery with some small waivy lines will always show jaggies upon significantly resizing the shot. And yes generally the smaller you go the worse it gets.
So you can try to reduce it by resizing in steps or selectively applying some gaussian blur to these lines.It should help to reduce it.
You can't fully avoid it though.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 5482
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:11 pm

Hi Len,

Just saw the Gulfstream in the DB, nice! The current version does not look jaggy, what turned out to be the issue in the end?
Airliners.net Crew - Head Photo Screener
 
len90
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

Re: Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:13 am

airkas1 wrote:
Hi Len,

Just saw the Gulfstream in the DB, nice! The current version does not look jaggy, what turned out to be the issue in the end?

Setting with resizing on photoshop. Worked with Manny. Also tweaked a few things on the routine used for editing.
Len90

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos