All,
Rejected for high in frame and low contrast:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... fd9e6b35f6
Not really uploaded for a good while so maybe my acceptance compass is off but don't understand either to be honest - positioning in frame looks passable to me (based on what I see accepted daily), as does contrast. Also rejected for category (forgot to tick cargo) so no chance of appeal - just seeking a second opinion as I really can't see anything wrong. By the way, this would be only the second image of this new girl in the database.
Cheers,
Karl
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- CassidysVacay
- Posts: 143
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
I'm still new to the a.net screening standards so keep that in mind.
The high in frame rejection seems valid to me. At first I was scratching my head thinking it looked fine but the issue is the shadow that goes across the bottom of the photo in the grass. It was tricking my eyes thinking thats where the bottom crop was.
The title and the fuselage look a tad soft to me so that could have been the reason for the low contrast rejection. I'd go easy or just add no contrast in the sky though. Those types of clouds and the departing aircraft will look like trash.
Cassidy
The high in frame rejection seems valid to me. At first I was scratching my head thinking it looked fine but the issue is the shadow that goes across the bottom of the photo in the grass. It was tricking my eyes thinking thats where the bottom crop was.
The title and the fuselage look a tad soft to me so that could have been the reason for the low contrast rejection. I'd go easy or just add no contrast in the sky though. Those types of clouds and the departing aircraft will look like trash.
Cassidy
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Thanks for the reply.
I deliberately place the subject slightly higher in the frame for A.net uploads than I'd personally like - it's something I've been doing since I started uploading as the site's preferences didn't seem to match my own, although seems to be pot luck these days. I have had a quick look through the latest uploads and have found two or three that are higher in the frame, but hey-ho.....
As for contrast, the blacks looks black, while there isn't enough white to really judge. It'd be fine with additional contrast but I feel that this was well within A.net's limits - especially since this is only the second shot of this aircraft in the database (and no offence to Dave but his shot looks too contrasty to me eyes).
Finally, I'm curious to know why you think slightly soft titles/fuselage would lead to a 'contrast' rejection?
Karl
I deliberately place the subject slightly higher in the frame for A.net uploads than I'd personally like - it's something I've been doing since I started uploading as the site's preferences didn't seem to match my own, although seems to be pot luck these days. I have had a quick look through the latest uploads and have found two or three that are higher in the frame, but hey-ho.....
As for contrast, the blacks looks black, while there isn't enough white to really judge. It'd be fine with additional contrast but I feel that this was well within A.net's limits - especially since this is only the second shot of this aircraft in the database (and no offence to Dave but his shot looks too contrasty to me eyes).
Finally, I'm curious to know why you think slightly soft titles/fuselage would lead to a 'contrast' rejection?
Karl
-
- CassidysVacay
- Posts: 143
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Titles are dark fuselage is light. The edges of West Atlantic and the logo beside it look like they could be more defined to me. If they are blurry contrast wont fix it but if they are "soft" then increasing contrast in that area would be the first thing I do. Followed by local sharpening.
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Hmmm. Perhaps I've lost my eye for this site lately but, having taken time to look very closely, parts of the starboard main wheel are completely black (at least on my screen). I'm not saying a touch more contrast wouldn't be better, but consider that this would have been only the second shot of this aircraft in the database. As for high in frame, I completely agree, however my experience of this site's preferences has always lead me to centre my subjects similarly; I maintain that, compared to a lot of what's getting in, it's within tolerance.
Thanks anyway guys. It's no big deal - just thought it was time to try a few uploads after abstaining for a long time.
Thanks anyway guys. It's no big deal - just thought it was time to try a few uploads after abstaining for a long time.
-
- trevisan26
- Posts: 440
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Agree with high in frame. For contrast I would push the blacks to 10 and whites to 240 (if not 235) on the levels.
Cheers
Cheers
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Hi Karl,
A bit high in frame, but the contrast looks nice.
A bit high in frame, but the contrast looks nice.
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Thanks, Kas - like you I really don't see the contrast problem, and suspect the fuselage being grey rather than white could compound any perceived issue. I would like to see a little more consistency re subject centring as I deliberately put it slightly higher in frame than I normally would, based on how I've edited in the past for this site. Last night I looked at the first few pages of new uploads and right away came across five or six that were either similarly centred or higher, including the one below.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air- ... bath3vli33
Coincidentally the same type, we have the opposite below (too low in frame).
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air- ... bath3vli33
There are hundreds more similar examples. The difference is quite striking, yet both passed screening.
I'n not looking to reupload, but it's demonstrated that inconsistency is still a huge problem.
Cheers,
Karl
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air- ... bath3vli33
Coincidentally the same type, we have the opposite below (too low in frame).
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air- ... bath3vli33
There are hundreds more similar examples. The difference is quite striking, yet both passed screening.
I'n not looking to reupload, but it's demonstrated that inconsistency is still a huge problem.
Cheers,
Karl
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
The first photo should never have been accepted. I’ve actually sent him an E-mail already some 45 mins ago, asking for a reupload.
Second one looks low, but unable to properly judge on my phone (will check tomorrow).
Second one looks low, but unable to properly judge on my phone (will check tomorrow).
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Karl, I think your centering is fine, particularly when taking into account how the dark area adds weight to the bottom of the photo. The first example you linked is high, the second is very low.
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
The second photo is indeed a bit low, but within tolerable limits. Having had a fresh look (as far as fresh goes at 5:30AM), I'm a bit 50/50 on your photo. It's a bit high in frame, but maybe also within tolerable limits.
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Thanks again fellas. I shan't be reuploading it but the feedback is appreciated. An appeal is out of the question since numpty here forgot to tick the 'cargo' box when submitting!
Karl
Karl
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
JakTrax wrote:An appeal is out of the question since numpty here forgot to tick the 'cargo' box when submitting!
We can fix that while screening and it certainly shouldn't lead to a rejection.
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
Some think it's too high, some think it isn't; some think the contrast's slightly weak, others think it's fine. An appeal will likely be upheld and I can't be bothered with the hassle if I'm honest.
-
- dutchspotter1
- Posts: 532
- Joined:
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
airkas1 wrote:JakTrax wrote:An appeal is out of the question since numpty here forgot to tick the 'cargo' box when submitting!
We can fix that while screening and it certainly shouldn't lead to a rejection.
Got several "category" rejections in the past too and was always wondering why screeners didn't fix such a minor (yet important) thing themselves.
Re: Post-screening - puzzled.
If category is the only problem, we will fix it (and if not, let me know please). If there are other issues involved, category will be listed as a rejection.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests