Post Screening: Questionable Rejections

HarryLi · Sat May 20, 2017 2:00 pm

len90 wrote:
Was on a really nice stretch this week with the one rejection being nicely explained.

Got these 4 rejections today:

Underexposed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4f3c0273da

Dark:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0aee6203f7
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1e4c520b15
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1404c3bb46

All screened at about the same time.

Hello Len,
I think the Delta is ok for me. But others i think can be brighter. I have downloaded your photos and edited them quickly some of them indeed can be brighter. Besides, the AA is Grey so it might make people feel a little dark i think so i would like to bright them more.

Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Mon May 22, 2017 10:54 am

HI Len,

Underexposed and dark are the same. We are required to use underexposed instead of dark, but not everyone has that in their system yet...

1) I agree. Try: histogram --> mid slider to 1.20, right slider to 240. See the difference.
2) Same as #1.
3) Same as #1.
4) Same as #1.

JakTrax · Tue May 23, 2017 12:20 pm

Not dark per se but, given the light, I think all could stand a bit of brightening.

Karl

len90 · Wed May 24, 2017 3:50 am

They all fall victim to the changing sun angle at PHL then. As you get to summer the angle for 27s at PHL makes for a more nose lit set-up. Will add some brightness when I have a bit more time to edit more photos.

Kas if you remove "dark" as a reason then everyone will have to use underexposed

len90 · Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:09 am

I have this one that got hit with motive. How is the streetlight a motive rejection?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3c1eb3d935

This seems to be extremely subjective in nature. The streetlights are featured in many shots from JFK 13L arrivals and I've seen lots of other airports where there are streetlights in photos of approaching aircraft... LA and Toronto.

HarryLi · Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:51 am

len90 wrote:
I have this one that got hit with motive. How is the streetlight a motive rejection?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3c1eb3d935

This seems to be extremely subjective in nature. The streetlights are featured in many shots from JFK 13L arrivals and I've seen lots of other airports where there are streetlights in photos of approaching aircraft... LA and Toronto.

I think this situation can be accepted as i see many photos like this in DB before .

len90 · Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:24 am

HarryLi wrote:
len90 wrote:
I have this one that got hit with motive. How is the streetlight a motive rejection?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3c1eb3d935

This seems to be extremely subjective in nature. The streetlights are featured in many shots from JFK 13L arrivals and I've seen lots of other airports where there are streetlights in photos of approaching aircraft... LA and Toronto.

I think this situation can be accepted as i see many photos like this in DB before .

Granted there is also a slight OS issue on R1 and the plane's name. Also if I was to clone out the streetlight I believe that would go against site rules and result in a warning/temporary uploading ban?

HarryLi · Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:57 am

len90 wrote:
HarryLi wrote:
len90 wrote:
I have this one that got hit with motive. How is the streetlight a motive rejection?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3c1eb3d935

This seems to be extremely subjective in nature. The streetlights are featured in many shots from JFK 13L arrivals and I've seen lots of other airports where there are streetlights in photos of approaching aircraft... LA and Toronto.

I think this situation can be accepted as i see many photos like this in DB before .

Granted there is also a slight OS issue on R1 and the plane's name. Also if I was to clone out the streetlight I believe that would go against site rules and result in a warning/temporary uploading ban?

Yes, it would go against the rules .

len90 · Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:52 pm

Vignette and OS: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fcfb734a54

The only equalized version I have access to right now is from the other site and there is no vignette there. Don't see any areas of OS on this one; unless you want to go extremely specific at that cockpit window???

310815 · Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:19 pm

Hi Len,

speaking of the rejection reasons I don't see vignetting neither and it does not look oversharpened to me.

Cheers,
Julien

len90 · Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:55 pm

Underexposed, motive, personal message "distracting metallic part bottom left"
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2fbfccfbf9

Seems like this is very screener dependent as these were accepted:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/JetBlue- ... Urog%3D%3D
https://www.airliners.net/photo/JetBlue- ... A0OA%3D%3D
https://www.airliners.net/photo/TAM/Boei ... A0OA%3D%3D

YQZ380 · Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:56 pm

I think the American Eagle could use some lightening on the shadows as it seems a little toplit. As for motive, it really is subjective. Personally, I would find that metallic pole distracting, but considering that there were similar shots accepted, you could try again.

HarryLi · Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:24 pm

I agree with YQZ, the Eagle seems a little bit dark i think it could be brighter and the "Motive" reasons i think is no problem and i have some like these were accepted before so i think it is very subjective decision.

HarryLi · Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:28 pm

len90 wrote:
Vignette and OS: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fcfb734a54

The only equalized version I have access to right now is from the other site and there is no vignette there. Don't see any areas of OS on this one; unless you want to go extremely specific at that cockpit window???

I don't see vignetting in this photo either although i use Equalize in PS . Besides, the the sharpness of the whole photo seems ok for me ,no OS.

DirtyCrow · Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:49 pm

https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4407471

I`ve got a rejection on this, i can not really understand.
Category? This is in fact the TGW and this is a special paint, can not figure out what i did wrong.
Oversharpened...ok, maybe i overdid it a little bit

Personal message was "shown sign of cloning in the grass. Next time this will result in a ban."
Ok, i know cloning is only allowed to clean dust spots and i know there`s reasons for this rule. But what i cloned out was a ugly orange pole which has nothing to do with the aircraft, it was just distracting and hideous (much more then a dust spot could be). Is it really neccessary to take this rule so extremly serious?

airkas1 · Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:20 pm

Crow,

Please start your own feedback thread for your photos. Your link does not work, as it leads me to my own photo queue. The use of cloning for reasons other than to remove dust spots is not allowed, so that included cones/poles).

/on-topic: Len, I saw that your photo got accepted upon appeal. I agree that it was acceptable motive-wise. I wasn't/I'm not in a position to comment as I'm away for a few days. Just a friendly suggestion, is it perhaps possible to position yourself a bit differently next time to not get the lamp post in the frame?

310815 · Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:21 pm

YQZ380 wrote:
I think the American Eagle could use some lightening on the shadows as it seems a little toplit. As for motive, it really is subjective. Personally, I would find that metallic pole distracting, but considering that there were similar shots accepted, you could try again.

To be honest I have to agree with that. I find it distracting as well (even on the DL).

len90 · Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:32 pm

airkas1 wrote:
/on-topic: Len, I saw that your photo got accepted upon appeal. I agree that it was acceptable motive-wise. I wasn't/I'm not in a position to comment as I'm away for a few days. Just a friendly suggestion, is it perhaps possible to position yourself a bit differently next time to not get the lamp post in the frame?

There really isn't much that can be done with that spot. It all relies with how the plane approaches. If they come in higher you can get them without the pole. The annoying thing is that streetlight doesn't work. Does anyone want to assist with the light's removal? I've tried changing up my angle but you have another light on the other side of the lot. You try moving closer but that puts the planes at a higher angle. Moving further back doesn't help either as there are even more streetlights behind me and a cross street.

Can you please provide a screener comment regarding the motive of the other two images? It really seems like it is a 50/50 depending on who screens. Would like to have some clarity on this.

I know the other poster was told to start a unique thread, but what that person did sounds like the other option which is to "remove" the distraction. I think that would be a lot worse as it is altering a photo and thus clear violation of rules.

310815 · Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:17 am

There is no clear rule for such distractions, so it will always be subjective. And it that case I can understand it, especially by looking at your shots from that day I have the personal feeling that on some shots it is more distracting than on the others..
Screeners will possibly feel the same and can't be blamed IMO.

airkas1 · Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:50 pm

I'm back at my station.

len90 wrote:
[Can you please provide a screener comment regarding the motive of the other two images? It really seems like it is a 50/50 depending on who screens. Would like to have some clarity on this.

I saw one of your images rejected in the appeals I think, the other one I didn't catch. Can you please link me the images you seek an opinion on (if still applicable)?

len90 · Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:38 am

airkas1 wrote:
I'm back at my station.

len90 wrote:
[Can you please provide a screener comment regarding the motive of the other two images? It really seems like it is a 50/50 depending on who screens. Would like to have some clarity on this.

I saw one of your images rejected in the appeals I think, the other one I didn't catch. Can you please link me the images you seek an opinion on (if still applicable)?

The main object I was going after is that streetlight. The B6 321 was OS and had a motive rejection for a streetlight in the corner. The other image was a Delta 320 which got accepted on appeal.

I have these that I want to go over though:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6ea88ef7dd
Reasons: Soft and overexposed... Is this due to the sun glare line?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7a4e2bac6a
Reasons: Soft and vignette. I don't agree with the soft on this at all. Haven't had a chance to equalize and really check for a vignette

YQZ380 · Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:58 am

Etihad seems soft to me, and it seems slightly overexposed due to the glare. Delta Connection doesn't seem soft, but there is vignette, especially on the right side of the frame.

Cheers,
Yang

airkas1 · Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:39 am

The Etihad looks soft on the upper fuselage, but the cheatlines are hazed/jaggyish. The glare is indeed likely to cause softness.
The CRJ looks ok to me. Not super soft and I don't see vignetting.

HarryLi · Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:46 am

I agree with Kas, the Delta is ok but the EY seems overexposed maybe because of glare.

len90 · Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:02 pm

I appealed the Delta and whichever HS said vignette in one of the corners with removal of the soft. I'm fine with that outcome/explanation.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... dcf57fa37c
Banding/Vignette are the reasons.
Here's the equalized: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 35/sizes/l

Soft
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 874d68a13e

310815 · Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:36 am

Hi Len,

you can see the vignetting on the equalized version pretty well. Though it is only one-sided on the left side of your shot. There is a kind of band / light stripe leading from the tail to the top of the frame where the vignetting begins.

The Air France Looks okay to me, but the sunbeam might give it a soft appearance.

Julien

HarryLi · Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:33 pm

Hello, Len
I can see obvious vignetting in the right side of the picture through the Equalized Piceture and the banding issue is not so bad i think but still appears.
Regarding to the Air France,it looks fine .

Cheers,
Harry

len90 · Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:14 pm

This one hit for "underexposed"
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ace991a111

My concern is bumping up the exposure more will blow the sky and this is a relatively dark plane to photograph as is. I know lighting wasn't the best when I got it but really hoping to get this in. So does it have much more room to increase exposure or is the exposure good enough and worth a shot in the appeal?

BTW: even with this I am happily sustaining a greater than 90% upload acceptance

airkas1 · Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:28 pm

Damn, that's one tough shot. You must like torturing yourself

I tried something in Photoshop and there is room for improvement. But it will probably require quite some tweaking, mainly in the RAW converter. In my half edit, the sky is overexposed and the aircraft is a little washed out. But it might be salvagable. Give it a try

If anything, send me the RAW file and I'll see what I can do.

len90 · Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:49 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Damn, that's one tough shot. You must like torturing yourself

I tried something in Photoshop and there is room for improvement. But it will probably require quite some tweaking, mainly in the RAW converter. In my half edit, the sky is overexposed and the aircraft is a little washed out. But it might be salvagable. Give it a try If anything, send me the RAW file and I'll see what I can do.

Haha Kas I needed to do something to give myself a challenge. And it was only shot in .jpeg so that throws more of a curveball into this.
Lighting was turning as the sun was more from the rear of the plane and the high overcast clouds were moving in.

Here's a quick bit of work on it. It's really tough because it hurts the sky the more you correct for exposure.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 31/sizes/l
It doesn't really look much different than my original upload of it.

I'll email the original photo to your @airliners that I have

len90 · Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:15 pm

Two more:

American 737-800 first of the registration hit for soft: Can't really see it on my school/work display. Maybe a little soft around the middle of the fuselage windows?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 575f165e63

Delta 752 Skyteam: underexposed.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 13e8d2171b
Exposure on this shot looks almost identical to this: https://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... ER/4428347

airkas1 · Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:28 pm

B738: windowline & titles seem blurry/soft
B752: look passable maybe, but could also be a little brighter.

HarryLi · Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:42 pm

Hi Len ,
B738 seems indeed soft especially for the windows line and the title.
B752 I think it could be a little bit brighter than this one although it looks ok now.

Cheers,
Harry

len90 · Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:58 am

Will brighten Delta up... not worth appealing a 50/50 there.

The 738 I'll add another pass of sharpening to. It was shot on my 7D2 at 300+ and I'm used to working with images off my 70-200. However, those banking departures can make some of the pain worth it.

len90 · Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:01 pm

Sharpening pass on the American 738 did the trick! Delta is back in the regular queue.

len90 · Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:59 pm

Three quick ones:

Halos: Not really seeing a halo at all
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... eef41683a9
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d2b02f6612

Vignette: (maybe lower right corner is a tadlighter?)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 27aa16e4f5

One more for discussion. First off, really appreciate the screener taking the time to give a personal message: "Sorry Len, please take the tail & wing(let) into account as well. Centering is not always just the fuselage. Regards" Props to the screener and really wish you could identify yourself because that is exactly what I tend to look for when there is a rejection reason. I personally may not fully agree as this comes down to a relative grey personal preference area but nonetheless it's very helpful.
And the photo in question if that helps at all...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7822361a2f

airkas1 · Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:22 pm

Halos:
Eyeball Mk.1 and Photoshop do not see halos. Please appeal those if those were the only rejection reasons.

Vignetting:
Photoshop says some light vignetting on the left side of the frame, but it's hardly/not visible to the eye. So please appeal that one too.

len90 wrote:
really wish you could identify yourself

One more for discussion.

Yeah, I understand that you might not agree and in turn I agree that it might be a bit of a grey area. I wasn't sure at first, but looking at the thumbnail I got more convinced that it really does look HIF.

len90 · Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:46 pm

Thanks Kas. Appealed both Halos first and will get an appeal in on that CRJ after the others loop through.

How convinced are you that it is high in frame

Just kidding around I'll resubmit with a few pixels lower.

airkas1 · Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:21 pm

You're free to appeal that photo if you want, I make mistakes too. I can't handle the appeal, so you're guaranteed to have another opinion. No hard feelings if you do

len90 · Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:56 am

Seems like today was big day of screening catch up for the site.

With that came these:

Underexposed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 402be3b751
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ed8b642c1c
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3b09bcce2c

Blurry/Noise/Personal Message (none was actually provided in the email)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4ceffdeccf

High in Frame:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ef9a2bdcb0
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 091a5e9895 (If similar to the Delta 767 this one I can understand).

High in Frame/Halo (appealing)
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 31b9c62821

I currently have a full appeal queue with the JAL and the Delta CRJ that Kas said to appeal. The three underexposed and the B6 High in Frame really got me a bit puzzled as to what the screener was seeing. Curious to also know what personal comment a screener wanted to say about he VS A346 but never put in.

HarryLi · Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:32 am

Hello, Len ~
The 3 photos which were rejected with Underexposed seems not very serious but i think it can be lightened more.
Regarding to the VS A346, i can't see blurry and the noise issue should be ok i think.

High in Frame:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ef9a2bdcb0

This one... seems indeed a little bit high in frame but not very serious just slight high for me.
But the delta B757 looks fine.

The JAL 777 i used Equalize to check the halo and i can't see obvious halo around the plane.

airkas1 · Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:57 am

UE:
They don't seem that underexposed to me. But the DL and AA look HIF (see below).

Blurry/noise/personal:
No personal message was entered, as the log doesn't show one either. I don't see the noise and that much blur. I'd say passable.

HIF:
In the ideal world, they are slightly high in frame, as was the JAL. To not be super picky, the JAL was passable as the quality is otherwise good. The JB may be passable too. But the DL757 looks a bit too high for sure for my taste.

len90 · Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:39 pm

VS346 and B6321 (UE) to be appealed. I'll rework the others for centering. The B6 321 with HIF do you really see that one as high? It looks to be maybe at most a couple of pixels which is not something that would normally be considered an issue.

High Contrast:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... a0af75ffb5
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 655cfeb4f9

Dark:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7160ed0ea3

Underexposed:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cdd74a6f22

And one last thing... My United 77W banking off 22R shot made the top 5 :ugeek:

310815 · Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:32 am

Well the lighting from the back is not favorable.

I agree with that both the JetBlue and the BA747 would look better with less contrast (Looks harsh as it is).

The Qantas 747 doesn't look dark to me.

The Delta 737 could do with a bit less contrast and be slghtly brighter.

Congrats on the UA77W in the top5, nice shot!

HarryLi · Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:21 am

Ah... the BA 747 indeed has high contrast but JB A320 looks not so bad i think but still can reduce some.

Qantas 747 looks ok for me not very dark.
The exposure of the Delta B738 is ok for me.
The 777 of United is very nice ! Congratulation ~

len90 · Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:18 pm

So I take it Kas was not the HS who saw the VS A346 and B6 321 in the appeals.

Both were rejected on appeal.

The VS 346 was given personal message for revised reasons. The new reasons were soft and underexposed.
B6 321 which was originally just underexposed got Soft and Vignette added to it.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3b09bcce2c
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93082249@ ... 64/sizes/l

Lastly there is this cast. "Magenta" was the personal.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e3066a9568

HarryLi · Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:39 am

Hi, Len
According to the Equalized Version of B6 A321 it seems that it indeed has vignette (Left side which near the tail has the serious ) and also it could be brightened i think. But regarding to the soft issue i think it is ok to me.
The EK A380 looks not so Magenta .... looks fine for me.
Cheers,
Harry

airkas1 · Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:34 pm

len90 wrote:
Lastly there is this cast. "Magenta" was the personal.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e3066a9568

I don't see a magenta cast.

len90 · Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:45 am

airkas1 wrote:
len90 wrote:
Lastly there is this cast. "Magenta" was the personal.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... e3066a9568

I don't see a magenta cast.

haha should have just copied and pasted that into the appeal reason

I politely appealed.

How blurry is this Continental Retro:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... db573e52a7

And this United 772 for Overexposed. I know it's bright but thought the exposure was pretty much alright.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cc15b91cb8

YQZ380 · Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:27 pm

I don't think the Continental Retro is blurry, but it is soft around the windows. Regarding the United 772, the fuselage area around the titles look slightly blown out.

Cheers,
Yang

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net