I agree with Kas that this one seems over-sharpened. Especially the tail , jaggy seem to be very obvious.

Thanks again. I did like the shot with the boat in the foreground but I think I'll try another shot in the sequence.

Had another batch or rejections last night....
UPS MD-11F - https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fb7a73536d
for Blurry Compression Oversharpened Motive Personal Message Underexposed
Personal message read "motive issue for cropped stabilizer was noted from previous rejection, Please correct all rejection reasons when re-uploading otherwise a warn/ban will be issued again."

Now I believe this crop is in keeping with these accepted examples
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United-P ... P4mgMJU%3D
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United-P ... P4mgMJU%3D
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapor ... TrugGtuysf
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Jetstar- ... crHg%3D%3D
etc, etc, etc....

Have the rules changed for this style of crop?
Thanks
Steve

I think the crop is fine and I don't think rules have changed for that.

I am honestly a bit shocked that you got threatened with a ban for that (though of course I cannot tell what happened behind the scenes).

sausten wrote:

Have the rules changed for this style of crop?
Thanks
Steve

I believe the ban warning was because they issued a rejection and that you didn't correct the obvious reason for the rejection (with a motive behind the explanation).

It does seem a bit surprising (that the motive was not accepted) - but I'm sure the screener in question will show us an example of the previously rejected shot to prove their point.

Here is the first edit I uploaded.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... bc08f89cb0
First edit rejected for Blurry Oversharpened Motive Personal Message Noise
My decision to upload a new edit with same crop was a result of years of experiences having this sort of crop being accepted. Hopefully we will get some clarification from the screener.
I should also cite these recently accpeted shots of mine with the same crop.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Etihad-A ... nWdQNjSirX
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapor ... nWdQNjSirX

Cheers
Steve

Hi Steve,

The crop is fine. The titles do look a bit iffy, but from experience I recall that the UPS titles always look fuzzy.

Thanks. I assume the screener has also been notified that this crop is acceptable.
Cheers
Steve

sausten wrote:

I assume the screener has also been notified that this crop is acceptable.

A general message was left that the crop is fine.

airkas1 wrote:

A general message was left that the crop is fine.

Had this one rejeceted the other day...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 0acffc4fe2

Originally rejected for Blurry Compression Oversharpened. Considering the MD-11 shot was accepted on appeal, I felt this one was of the same quality and may stand a chance. Rejection was upheld on appeal for - Blurry Motive Oversharpened Personal Message Quality.

What has me puzzled is that the personal message was "also not a great wing crop"

Hmmmmm...

Steve

Oversharpened, maybe the emblem of the United Arab Emirates on the tail? I can't see anything else obvious and even what I'm thinking is oversharpened is marginal.

I equalised the image to look at compression and I didn't see anything particularly noteworthy, but I'll defer to others there.

Motive looks the same as the MD-11 shot to my eyes.

Thanks Chris. I guess no one else feels comfortable commenting on this one.

Steve

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.

OK, so after the next shot in the sequence was rejected for ''Oversharpened Underexposed'', I went back to this shot given that feedback here did not suggest any blur, and I liked the composition with the boat in the foreground.

The latest edit was just rejected for ''Blurry Compression Oversharpened Personal Message Underexposed'' with the personal message being "Image has been rejected multiple times even after appeal its blurry/oversharpened."
Here is the latest edit - https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 27909baaad

Well this is a new edit that has not been through an appeal yet. Again, when compared to Mark's shot I see no more/less blur, no more/less compression, and I believe there are fewer jaggies.

So, I will repeat my request (which has also been made multiple times) for '' some further 'feedback' from the head screeners as to the differences between these two edits.''

I am not trying to be difficult, I genuinely would like to know where the screeners see the differences.

Thanks

Steve

sausten wrote:

Thanks Chris. I guess no one else feels comfortable commenting on this one.

Steve

Hey Steve,

the Etihad does seem a bit oversharpened to me towards the back -> Formula 1 letters, tail sign. I really can't see any blur, and don't see anything wrong with the crop. Plenty of similar crops in the db.

Speaking of the QR, I am not a headscreener, but I can still try some feedback.

It doesn't look underexposed at alll to me, but sharpening is a bit iffy. I can see some jaggies all over and the front doesn't look to be the sharpest (I don't like that blurry expression too much as this too hard to tell at 1.200px).

Julien

Hi , Steve
Regarding to the QR A388 the latest editing version. First of all, the crop is definite ok i think as i saw lots of similar crop in DB before. Besides, the exposure of it is ok to me too. I don't consider that this one has " Compression " issue. However, the sharpness is iffy i think. And i agree with Julien that there are some jaggies there. I do not see very obvious blurry from this one.

Cheers,
Harry

Thanks for the feedback guys. I understand what your saying about the sharpening. I do not believe the shot is blurry, or underexposed, or suffering from compression issues. If that is so, then this shot still has a chance of being accepted.
What is the likelihood of being threatened with/or being banned if I submit another version of this shot?

Steve

Hi Steve,

Regarding the EY 777; It does look a bit blurry to me, especially at the nose and nose gear. I also agree that has an oversharpened feel at the nose area (incl. gear, more like 'oversharpened to compensate blur'). Regarding the motive (crop), I can understand that one as well. The difference is marginal, but with the EY it looks like you ony cropped off the tip of the wing & hor.stab., where that looks to be less the case for the UPS MD-11. With that in mind, it would be better to just leave the wingtip/hor.stav. edge in the photo. But like I said, I understand that the difference is marginal and this will always be a bit subjective. But all in all I agree with this one.

The QR; for me it's not compressed or underexposed. But I've been flicking back and forth between your previous and current edit and it indeed strikes me as blurry with OS to compensate now. It's marginal, but it's there. It's also much more yellow than your previous edit. The oversharpened parts still look to be the tail, titles, windows. Mark's shot (which isn't superb either, but I guess that's due to the distance) is a lot softer and that kinda works. Perhaps I saw it wrong the first time, in which case I apologize for wasting your time.

If there is improvement in an edit, you should not receive a warning or ban. But in general, we also adivse that if an image has been rejected multiple times with quality issues, it's perhaps time to let go of it (how annoying that may be).

Regards,

Kas

Compression is back again.
This one was rejected for Compression Overexposed Soft Noise Heat Haze.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f34d42ec00
Again I was trying to emulate the work of Mark H who recently had this similar shot accepted
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Ai ... ExPw%3D%3D
I thought my edit was on par, certainly not suffering from so many issues.
Would appreciate thoughts on where the compression is, and overall quality.
Thanks
Steve

The exposure and compression and noise issue look ok to me. I don't see very obvious Heat Haze from it. But the sharpness is iffy i think. Besides, i think it's bit of low contrast to me.

I don't see the compression, noise and the heat haze and sharpening isn't that bad. It's a bit on the bright side though and seems like a big crop(?). Perhaps with a decrease in brightness it'll be better.

So I decided to roll the dice and appeal. Rejection was upheld for soft. I did take some comfort in the screeners personal message, "harsh rejections in total, but it is soft."

Does this edit look OK. Has another pass of USM and brightness brought down a touch.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 98fd1dcd58

Thanks
Steve

Just had two more rejections.
This
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2fd51c88b0
Rejected for Oversharpened Common Noise Underexposed
and this
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ad69b1ea81
rejected for Common Soft High Contrast Noise
Noise seems to be a common theme. I believe there is not sufficient noise to warrant a rejection, but would appreciate your thoughts. I also believe the sharpening is pretty similar on both, yet one is soft and another oversharpened.
Again, these seem harsh to me... but I would appreciate your thoughts as always.

Steve

Hi Steve,
From my perspective ,
I don't see very obvious Oversharpened from it but i have to agree with the " Underexposed " reason. It can be brighter and from its histogram it shows that it is underexposed. Noise looks not bad to me.
Regarding to the B744, Noise also looks not bad to me contrast isn't that bad but i agree with the soft issue. The sharpness of the whole aircraft isn't bad but the windows look pretty soft especially the front part. What's more i think it could be brighter too although is better than the SQ.

Cheers,
Harry

Hello Steve.

I was interested to read your thread, having recently come back to the site ofter a period away. I also had a recent photo rejected for 'compression' (which I posted in another thread by Jaktrax) and I haven't had any indication given to me about where that supposedly is. I don't think I have ever had that listed in a rejection reason for myself previously.

I accept that I am in the process of 'getting my eye back in' with regards to the standards of the site, but I feel as though I am seeing examples of very harsh decision-making at times. I don't fully understand it. I do accept screeners are looking at many hundreds of photos, and I am not. That evidently affects how you view things. But to the outsider, when looking at, say, your SIA A380, you have to think the screener's mindset has to be starting from 'how can I find fault with this image'. In many respects I understand why the job of being a screener will bring that about - so hard to continue to adopt the principle 'what are the reasons why this photo is good enough to be hosted here'.

I reckon it may be the case, as Harry says, that this shot could take some increase in midtones. But it doesn't look dark to me. Looks like lovely low lighting. And the SIA livery is a b*gger to sharpen, and your effort looks just fine to my eye. I have to say I think an over-sharpened verdict is very harsh (or even evidence that screener is seeing something different to that which I am seeing on my monitor).

For the Qantas - I would say it is that front section (fuselage windows and the word 'Longreach' which might bring 'soft' into your head). The tail looks nicely sharp to me. But, for both, noise is a total mystery. I see nothing and point the finger at the monitor - I am looking very hard for it and see nothing.

Cheers.

Paul

Thanks for the feedback Harry and Paul. I have made adjustments based on your feedback and submitted to the queue. Will let you know how they go.

Paul, I too am struggling to get a sufficient explanation/indication for compression. I started this thread in the hope of being able to learn more about, and hopefully minimise the effect of compression, however 75 posts in and I feel know more confident or enlightened about the issue. Sharpening has always been a roll of the dice, but these two rejections for noise just leave me scratching my head.

Steve

Hey Steve,

The Qantas does look a bit iffy, I would almost say slight blur and oversharpened to compensate. It's not underexposed and I don't see the noise either.
For the Qantas 747, I agree with Paul on the softish areas. Otherwise it looks fine to me.

As for the compression, I feel it's too loosely used recently, as I too struggle to see compression. Makes it difficult for me to explain a rejection as well.

I added the JAL 787 on appeal, but my colleague is right that it's a bit HIF and green. Writing this as a heads-up for a next time.

Thanks Kas. Appreciate the heads up. I would say though that HIF and colour cast were not mentioned in the rejection of previous edit, or the first rejection of this (now accepted) edit. I guess if we all look hard enough, we can always find a reason to reject, I am just appreciative of the fact that in this case, you did not. Again, thanks.

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

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

Hi Steve,

The second edit does look better to me. It's not a great shot, but falls within tolerable limits for me.

sausten wrote:

Should it be this difficult to get a sunny side on accepted?

Short answer, no.

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

I'd suggest to change up your editing process so that you bring in the RAW images into Photoshop (if you use that) as a smart-object.

And then make sure you apply sharpening as smart-filters, and if you need to selectively sharpen areas of the plane, you use a mask on the sharpening smart-filter. Save the resulting file as a PSD. Now if you need to adjust your edit (eg, for brightness/contrast) you can adjust only that and not touch the sharpening. Alternatively, if the brightness/contrast/colour is right, but the sharpening isn't, you can fix up just the bit that needs fixing and leave the rest untouched.

That should help to eliminate rejections for reasons other than the original ones. I can sort of see the softness that the screener might have been referring to around the flight deck windows in particular. But I don't think it's that bad.

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.

I feel your pain Steve. This is frustrating. I have both edits open next to each other and I can see that the sharpening is exactly the same. To one person's eye this is oversharpened; to another it is soft - but they are looking at the same thing from that point of view. For what it's worth, knowing what I know as a contributor about photographing/sharpening the SIA livery, both are completely acceptable - or should be.

Interestingly, to show how subjective all this can be, if it were my decision I would stick with the original edit because, though a little less bright, I would trade that for the absence of the exacerbating effect on that sun flash on the tail by brightening the image. I know these things often cannot be avoided, but that catches my eye when looking at the photo.

Take it easy.

Paul

Hi all,
Thanks for the feedback all. Second edit was just accepted on appeal.

Cheers
Steve

Hi again,
Scratching my head at this one.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... b215a7b135
Rejected for ''Personal Message High in Frame Low in Frame'' Personal message was "Needs more contrast based on lighting. Also, this image is high in the frame and needs centering...apologies for not stating that in prior feedback. Regards."
So I assume the rejections are high in frame and low contrast. The contrast seems comparable to these....

Maybe could have a touch more but looks within acceptable standards of the team. High in frame though has me stumped. Centre of the shot is along the window line. This edit does not look unbalanced or top heavy at all. Seems super picky to me. Would appreciate your thoughts... and those of the screener who rejected it.

Steve

PS. Despite the rejection, I do appreciate the politeness of the screeners personal message.Thanks.

Hi Steve,
First of all, i think the center issue should be ok to me it looks center to me. But regarding to th contrast issue, i agree with screener's choice. It indeed looks bit of low contrast to me. And if you compare the Jetstar 787 to the New Zealand and VN 787 you will see the contrast of them is enough because you can compare their Front Gear part and you will see that the NZ and VN is more black / darker than the Jetstar which has little bit grey. Besides, according to the Histogram in PS, it shows that it could be improved in contrast.

Cheers,
Harry

Thanks Harry, I adjusted the contrast and it was accepted a few days ago.

Here's another few for consideration.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f8c9436e3d
Common Sof tNoise Heat Haze
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9efd625923
SoftCCW RotationHeat Haze

To me they appear accpetable and comparable to these shots


Heat haze does not seem sufficient enough to warrant rejection in either shot as the whole aircraft is sharp, focussed and there are no wavies to indicate heat haze.

Thoughts?

Steve

HI Steve,

the Korean 380 looks indeed soft / heat hazed, especially towards the front.

The Etihad 380 Looks also a bit soft (especially the are around the titles and the lower window line). But I don't see anything else with it, level looks fine to me.

Julien

I guess they're passable for me, but they're not great.

Thanks Julien and Kas. Etihad was accepted on appeal. Will rework the Korean. Nice to know 'not great' shots still have a chance!

I have another question about a cropped stabilizer. This one was done for BlurryOversharpenedCommon.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 12f9aaf609

I appealed citing this example;

and with the remark 'Sharpening same as Photo #4273721. Clearly within acceptable tolerances of the screening team. No blur either. Thanks'

Rejection upheld for Motive Personal Message - "Revised rejection reasons poor crop on stabilizer. Also, applying the same amount of sharpening to different images does not mean they will bot be the same result, due to quality from atmospheric or focus differences."

Is this crop unacceptable?


Thanks in advance.

Steve

I think that crop falls in a grey area... For me, it has to be either complete stabilizer, or close to the fuselage. Now, how close is close enough?

From the examples you provided, I like the CX and the Delta, even though if those were my shots I would have cropped even a bit closer to the tail. Nothing too dramatic in any case. On the Virgin I would have cropped tighter on both sides. Something like at the right edge of the runway sign behind the plane. [edit: Most likely one just cannot crop tighter due to the required aspect ratio.]

I can understand, however, that in the Thai shot you wanted to include all four engines and engine pylons. In that case, I would just include the complete stabilizer, as there is only a small section missing in the shot.

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

sausten wrote:

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 42b2c5c7f5
Rejected fo rOversharpened Noise Heat Haze. To me seems on par with these...

Looks fine to me.

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.

It does have a slightly blurry look on some of the text, but I think it's just how the text looks. Overall doesn't seem blurry.

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

Looks fine to me.

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.......

Quality does look marginal on that one. Can't really say whether it's due to heat haze or what exactly.

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

Hi Steve,

The Embraer has a slightly soft look to the text - though that's probably the typeface they've used. The aircraft itself is sharp enough elsewhere, so I think it should probably be okay.

Qantas A330 with new scheme looks okay to me as well, especially for the distance.

Emirates A6-EUG looks maybe slightly oversharpened on the http://www.emirates.com web address, but other than that I completely totally disagree with under-exposed, you have captured the light perfectly there in the evening.

The F16 I have to agree doesn't look sharp. Seems slightly blurry all over. It could take some careful extra sharpening, but then I can see a bit of noise there too. I'm happy to try and do an edit on the original image if you want me to give it a go and you can see if it works out any better or not.

Thanks for the replies Vik and Chris. I do appreciate the feedback. Chris I may take you up on that offer. I'll try a smaller 1080 edit first and see how it looks.

I appealed the Qantas A330 and Embraer. Both rejections upheld.
A330 - BlurryOversharpenedQuality
Embraer - Blurry Quality

What a joke!

Steve

Just had a similar Qantas A330 shot accepted...

To my eyes, quality matches this rejection.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 42b2c5c7f5
Would love to know where the blur, oversharepened and quality issues are.

Steve

Hi Steve,
To me, i don't see obvious blurry on the A333. But for the sharpness problem, i think that the " Spirit of Australia " has slight OS maybe. Besides, i would make it brighter as well although that one you posted to compare was accepted (And the histogram shows that it could brighter).

Cheers,
Harry

Hey Steve,

Comparing both photos side-by-side, the rejected one has sharper titles. The quality is about the same though.

airkas1 wrote:

Hey Steve,

Comparing both photos side-by-side, the rejected one has sharper titles. The quality is about the same though.

Oversharpened titles? or within acceptable tolerances?

I have a few more rejections for feedback.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 71c47ca08b
Rejected for Blurry Personal Message - "blurry tail" - Tail looks fine to me. Thoughts?

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c7303957c4
Rejected for Blurry Overexposed Oversharpened Low in Frame - I do not believe the shot is Blurry, Overexposed or Oversharpened. Regarding Low in Frame, I did make a note to the screeners saying the framing was intentional to include the landing aircraft in the background. This creates a more dramatic shot. What do you think? Is the framing a killer for this shot?

Steve

Hello Steve,
IMO, i don't see very obvious blurry in the tail part. Regarding to the A380, I am not sure about the FRAME issue but the exposure of it looks ok to me. But the logo in the engines and the Letter of title look bluury to me. The REG in the front gear "EK" looks oversharpened which compensate the Blurry i think.

Cheers,
Harry

sausten wrote:

Rejected for Blurry Personal Message - "blurry tail" - Tail looks fine to me. Thoughts?

Actually does look a bit blurry to me toward the rear. It also looks a bit oversharpened to my eye.

sausten wrote:

Rejected for Blurry Overexposed Oversharpened Low in Frame

Again, does look a bit blurry to me. Doesn't look OS or OE, though.

If the originals aren't blurry and/or very soft, maybe it's something to do with the way you're resizing and/or sharpening?