This got rejected for quality and editing? I barely edit my photos now. I add a little contrast, sat, and a tiny bit of sharpening. The less I edit the higher my acceptance rate has been lately. This would also be the first upload of the registration. Is quality that bad for a brand new 787-10? Am I missing something completely? Size is 1600.
What kind of got under my skin tho is the screener saying in a personal message, "Quality is insufficient for size, Please stop uploading all images at large sizes when quality is not good enough for acceptance." Is 1600 that large of a size with my Nikon D500? I'll be honest I tried an 1800 upload first which I personally thought was a little bit of a reach but worth a try. And it's not like I'm spamming uploads. I only upload 1 or 2 photos at a time. With my time here I've uploaded just over 50 photos which is nothing. Especially for Charleston. I'm the only one here that uploads photos of Boeing Charleston. Maybe I don't have an eye for photos here. Maybe my monitor isn't calibrated right. But I feel like I've seen similar new registrations with, what looks like to me, the same quality of this photo.
I'm all for constructive criticism and be honest with me. If I'm just not seeing something please let me know. I'd like to improve.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 920a414e38
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: More New 787 Rejections
Hi Cassidy,
This one is not so bad for a new plane. But i have to agree with what the screener commented to you. Using smaller size would be better like 1280Px/1200Px.
I used to use 5D3 and 100-400 II to take some pics and edit. For me, the size of the image is determined by the quality of the picture.
[ Quality : Blurry or not, Heat haze or not , seriouness of Noise/Grainy, Sharpness of images etc..]
Thus, i think no matter what the camera or lens are, images' quality determines the size i think.
Remember that Larger Size = Higher Standard.
BTW, it's sort of soft / Blurry at this size i think.
Cheers,
Harry
This one is not so bad for a new plane. But i have to agree with what the screener commented to you. Using smaller size would be better like 1280Px/1200Px.
Is 1600 that large of a size with my Nikon D500?
I used to use 5D3 and 100-400 II to take some pics and edit. For me, the size of the image is determined by the quality of the picture.
[ Quality : Blurry or not, Heat haze or not , seriouness of Noise/Grainy, Sharpness of images etc..]
Thus, i think no matter what the camera or lens are, images' quality determines the size i think.
Remember that Larger Size = Higher Standard.BTW, it's sort of soft / Blurry at this size i think.
Cheers,
Harry
-
- CassidysVacay
- Posts: 143
- Joined:
Re: More New 787 Rejections
HarryLi wrote:Hi Cassidy,
This one is not so bad for a new plane. But i have to agree with what the screener commented to you. Using smaller size would be better like 1280Px/1200Px.Is 1600 that large of a size with my Nikon D500?
I used to use 5D3 and 100-400 II to take some pics and edit. For me, the size of the image is determined by the quality of the picture.
[ Quality : Blurry or not, Heat haze or not , seriouness of Noise/Grainy, Sharpness of images etc..]
Thus, i think no matter what the camera or lens are, images' quality determines the size i think.
BTW, it's sort of soft / Blurry at this size i think.
Cheers,
Harry
Thanks for the reply as always Harry. I'll try a smaller size and see how thst looks later.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests