Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
sausten wrote:Have the rules changed for this style of crop?
Thanks
Steve
sausten wrote:I assume the screener has also been notified that this crop is acceptable.
airkas1 wrote:A general message was left that the crop is fine.
sausten wrote:And another sad tale...
This one was originally done for oversharpened
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 07a0682ec9
I appealed and cited this accepted shot by Mark H ( I try to match standards the screeners are submitting themselves)
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... %2BgHxCDFI
Rejection was upheld for Blurry Oversharpened Personal Message Quality.
Would love some further 'feedback' from the head screener as to the differences between these two edits.
airkas1 wrote:It's a bit too sharp in general (especially the tail), but other than that I'd say the images are quite equal in terms of quality.
sausten wrote:Thanks Chris. I guess no one else feels comfortable commenting on this one.
Steve
sausten wrote:Just had two more rejections.
This
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2fd51c88b0
Rejected for Oversharpened Common Noise Underexposed
Again, these seem harsh to me... but I would appreciate your thoughts as always.
Steve
sausten wrote:Should it be this difficult to get a sunny side on accepted?
sausten wrote:sausten wrote:Just had two more rejections.
This
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2fd51c88b0
Rejected for Oversharpened Common Noise Underexposed
Again, these seem harsh to me... but I would appreciate your thoughts as always.
Steve
So I brightened the mid tones slightly on the Singapore A380 shot, using curves in photoshop and resubmitted. I didn't touch the sharpening or apply more noise reduction as I did not believe these issues were present. Came back a few hours ago rejected for ''common soft heat haze''.
Here is the second edit
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... cbbaf83c66
Here are some examples of mine to compare to....
So first edit is oversharpened. Second edit with no changes to sharpening is soft. To me both edits appear acceptable when compared to what I have already had accepted.
In the ''Image standards' thread in the photography forum, I made the comment that it is impossible to edit a photo that all screeners would independently agree on accepting. Certainly seems that way.
Should it be this difficult to get a sunny side on accepted?
Steve
sausten wrote:In the ''Image standards' thread in the photography forum, I made the comment that it is impossible to edit a photo that all screeners would independently agree on accepting. Certainly seems that way.
sausten wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 42b2c5c7f5
Rejected fo rOversharpened Noise Heat Haze. To me seems on par with these...
sausten wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c80ed31b85
Rejected for Blurry Soft. I see no evidence of blur. Seems better than this similar shot of mine.
sausten wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7a0b201908
Rejected for Info Oversharpened Underexposed. Not sure what the info problem is. I see no jaggies severe enough to warrant a rejection and exposure is consistent with the low light at the time. Comparable to this one
sausten wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6dc23895ea
Rejected for Blurry Compression Oversharpened Quality Noise. I have struggled to get a shot from this sequence accepted. Appears to my non-screener eyes to be on par with these.......
sausten wrote:Happy new year all,
Hoping for some feedback on these rejections....
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 42b2c5c7f5
Rejected fo rOversharpened Noise Heat Haze. To me seems on par with these...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c80ed31b85
Rejected for Blurry Soft. I see no evidence of blur. Seems better than this similar shot of mine.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7a0b201908
Rejected for Info Oversharpened Underexposed. Not sure what the info problem is. I see no jaggies severe enough to warrant a rejection and exposure is consistent with the low light at the time. Comparable to this one
and this one...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6dc23895ea
Rejected for Blurry Compression Oversharpened Quality Noise. I have struggled to get a shot from this sequence accepted. Appears to my non-screener eyes to be on par with these.......
As always thanks for the feedback. Hopefully the acceptance ratio can go up this year!
Cheers
Steve
airkas1 wrote:Hey Steve,
Comparing both photos side-by-side, the rejected one has sharper titles. The quality is about the same though.
sausten wrote:Rejected for Blurry Personal Message - "blurry tail" - Tail looks fine to me. Thoughts?
sausten wrote:Rejected for Blurry Overexposed Oversharpened Low in Frame