Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you!

[andyhunt]

Ever scanned a photo, downloaded a digital image from your camera, worked like mad on it and thought

1) Doesn't quite look right?? :shock:
and
2) but don't quite know what to do with it :(

or

1) It looks great, I'm going to upload it to j.net :nod:
and
2) It got rejected :nonono:

Well if you are suffering from either syndrome, the crew of screeners at j.net are here to try to help you.

What can we offer you??
1) Some experience in post photo processing
2) Some experience in photography
3) Time and effort to try to help you get your photos uploaded.

We would love to see your images uploaded here. "We look for reasons to accept, not reasons to reject" is our motto.

Therefore, if you have a photo would you would like us to work on, whether rejected or sitting on your hard drive, this is what you can do:

1) Start a thread in this forum titled Request for help : (Insert name)
2) Tell us what the problem is in the message body
3) Upload the full size image using the screen when you are posting messages in the forums.............you'll see it on the left hand side and it says

Upload Images:
Upload images from your computer to our server, for inclusion in your post, conveniently and free of charge.

or read this thread

http://www.jetphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2947

4) After that one of the screeners will take the photo, try to work on it and bring it up to a good enough quality for upload.

So you'll get one of two results (a) A photo good enough to get past us screeners or (b) You'll know to move on and say "that one is for my personal collection" and hopefully will have picked up a few tips on how to process and what meets the standard here. Whenever we can, we'll try to let you know what we did.

Hope this helps everyone and looking forward to trying to work with your photos.

Another part of the customer oriented, open culture that we are trying to have here at jetphotos. net.

Andrew Hunt and the Rest of the Screener Team

[egll]

This sounds like a great idea and I hope it becomes a useful tool for fellow contributors past and present. On a personal level I would love to see Jason's PS tutorial taken a step further, I often hear people referring to masking an image and despite my best efforts with the online manual (PS7) I don't seem to be able to use this technique, a good explanation of how to use the levels function would also be really helpful as this is another area that I just don't know very well.

I've learnt a lot mostly from the A.net forum on how to improve my PS technique and would love to learn more and maybe turn some of those borderline pictures into acceptable ones!


Matt

[SWA733Captain]

I just got a rejection from a.net. It says photoshop has a feature which reduces grain. I am yet to come across this feature. What is it and where is it??

[CcrlR]

here is minehttp://www.jetphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3359

[CcrlR]

I just got a rejection from a.net. It says photoshop has a feature which reduces grain. I am yet to come across this feature. What is it and where is it??

I'm wondering too.

[Stefano Rota]

Ok,

I have a few questions, maybe u guys can help me. :(

I have a UMAX Astara 3400:

I scan at 600 DPI= Should i scan at more DPI?

How can I make my pictures less darker?

How can I make them less granier?


Thanks, please help me out. All my pictures say BAD QUALITY in the reject so, if you would id be very happy! :clap:

STEFANO

[FUAirliner]

Stefano,

regarding your questions:

scan at the highest possible optical resolution and then resize your pictures in a photo editing program
increase the gamma value
if you don't already use them, take ISO 100 films; in your photo editing program, apply some blur to plain monochrome areas and use a higher threshold when using USM

[Leftseat86]

Sorry to be blunt, but I don't think he's familiar with USM, monochrome areas, ISO or gamma...
Jasons PS tutorial is a good start.


-Clovis

[AndresDuque]

Oh man this is like a dream that comes to reality!

Hey guys thank God for this. I've had a really hard time with the "edit" part of my pictures, I have great pictures but whenever I scan them they look granny, soft and the colors are like dead. PLEASE help me I have many many pictures that I would like to upload.

Please help me they are all sitting in the cold side of my hard drive.


Andres

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/Airshow1b.jpg>


my pictures never show here on the forum why is that?

[SWA733Captain]

Here ya go...

http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/Airshow1b.jpg

You are using HTML instead on BBCode. You do this...URL HERE

[AndresDuque]

Thank you Mr. Captain :) :clap: :topicoff:

[SWA733Captain]

Remember "Virtual Captain"

[9M-MRE]

Here. Good luck :nod:

http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/9m-aae.jpg

[gbasco]

Can't do much since the original pic is too compressed. If you could upload a less compressed picture it could come out better.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/testo.jpg>

Remember, try uploading images without modifications right out of the camera/scanner to try to help you.

Cheers

Gabe

[9M-MRE]

I would, but the file size is too big to upload here

[gbasco]

You have a max of 500 K, try saving it to that filesize without re-sizing.

Cheers

Gabe

[9M-MRE]

Cutting it close... but here it is...

http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/Aircraft001a.jpg

[gbasco]

How about this? Still, the original was very grainy and blurry.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/test-1.jpg>

[Patrick P - rth.info]

Hi! :)
I think this is a really good idea for a forum topic.
Now here we go - I've got a question :D

I have been learning English at school for five years now and I think I have become quite familiar with that language by now... :wink:
But today I recieved a photo rejection. The image was rejected because it was "unerexposed". I think I know what the word itself means... :shakehea: but how shall I improve my picture so it could be accepted?
The rejected photo can be viewed by clicking here (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=43116)...

Thanks for any kind of advice

Patrick

[Patrick P - rth.info]

Hi! :)
I think this is a really good idea for a forum topic.
Now here we go - I've got a question :D

I have been learning English at school for five years now and I think I have become quite familiar with that language by now... :wink:
But today I recieved a photo rejection. The image was rejected because it was "unerexposed". I think I know what the word itself means... :shakehea: but how shall I improve my picture so it could be accepted?
The rejected photo can be viewed by clicking here (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=43116)...

Thanks for any kind of advice

Patrick

[Patrick P - rth.info]

Hi! :)
I think this is a really good idea for a forum topic.
Now here we go - I've got a question :D

I have been learning English at school for five years now and I think I have become quite familiar with that language by now... :wink:
But today I recieved a photo rejection. The image was rejected because it was "unerexposed". I think I know what the word itself means... :shakehea: but how shall I improve my picture so it could be accepted?
The rejected photo can be viewed by clicking here (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=43116)...

Thanks for any kind of advice

Patrick

[Patrick P - rth.info]

Aaaaahh! What did happen there?? :shock:
At first nothing was submitted and now my entry was posted three times... :shakehea: Would be nice if an admin could solve this problem... sorry :roll:

[Freightdogg]

I went with an attempt to make the sky more dramatic for this shot. Here's what I got:

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/Aircraft001d.jpg>

[9M-MRE]

wow, freightdogg, thats nice! i'll give it a try.

[fallingeese]

I still don't think that it can be saved. The quality just isn't there.

[dlarenas]

Hi! Please help me with this pic. I think is a great photo but it was rejected. Thank you very much!!...:)
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/DSC03590.JPG>

[dlarenas]

Hi, please, I have one more pic that was rejected, if you can help me thanks a lot!! :)
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/DSC03705.JPG>

[LX-A343]

D@VID,

first of all, crop tighter!! You're leaving too much wasted space around the aircraft. I cropped the LanChile B763 in Photoshop and came across a picture with the size of 958x718 pixels.

Then, the pics are underexposed. I tried a few things with the Lan Chile B763, but wasn't able to get something good enough.

Perhaps somebody has better results, I wouldn't upload them.

Cheers
Gerardo

[dlarenas]

Gerardo, thank you very much for try with these photos!!! :clap:

Regards,

[LX-A343]

Gerardo, thank you very much for try with these photos!!! :clap:

Regards,

¡De nada, hombre!

Cheers
Gerardo

[Freightdogg]

dlarenas,

The Avianca shot was just too low in contrast to improve enough to be worth trying, but the Lan Chile shot had some potential so I played a little with it. It's still kind of marginal but might be worth trying an upload. The post in the foreground is distracting and it would have been better if you had taken the shot a second or so sooner to keep that out of the frame. In any case here's what I got from it...

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/DSC03590_c.jpg>

[LX-A343]

Looking at the original and the comparing it with your pic, Freightdogg, the result would be "rejection for bad manipulation" :shakehea: :shakehea:

Cheers
Gerardo

[Freightdogg]

Gerardo,

Not to disagree with you but now you have me curious as to what would be considered bad manipulation. Can you clarify that a little?

Here are the steps I took in my attempt to improve the shot:

-Crop down to 1024 x 768
-Brighten the image
-Increase the contrast
-Adjust white balance using the airframe as a white reference (Which brought out the sunset colors in the sky)
-Sharpen using USM
-Filter for grain
-Resharpen with one more shot of USM

At no time was any portion of the essential image altered other than the intial crop, and as far as I know all the other steps I took should be valid post-processing. Which of those is considered overmanipulation?

[dlarenas]

Freightdogg thank you very much by your work!!! :clap: . It seems to me that the result is wonderful. In fact I am going to send the photo again and I will communicate to you if JP reject it or no. :wink:

It is certain what you say about the post, I am going to cut the photo in such a way that the post disappears.

Thanks again!!! :)

Regards from Chile

[Freightdogg]

Gerardo,

I don't give up easy :D - same basic process but to a lesser degree on each step - is this more what you would look for?

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/DSC03590_h.jpg>

[LX-A343]

Heya

What made me suspicious was the difference in the sky. The sunset colors weren't THAT yellow in the original pic. :wink:

Your second try shows, what's possible: not very much. The colors are dull.

Nice try, anyway, Freightdogg

Cheers
Gerardo

[Petertenthije]

Can anyone help me with this one. It was rejected because there is "Too much color saturation". What does that mean?

http://jetphotos.net/images/images2/p/pskovavia-ams-an26-ra26134.jpg.85186.jpg

[JeffinDEN]

It looks like the white balance was off more so then saturation. In other words, it is too blue.

[Chris_SE]

It is way oversharpened and too blue. Go back to the original, add yellow and brighten it up, sharpen a little less. My advice....

[Petertenthije]

Thanks all, also a lot of thanks to mr Smith for your e-mail.

[Pacific]

Ok, screeners rejected this http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=58226 because I did not submit the reg of this aircraft which seems to be seen at the back.

HOWEVER, there is no way I can tell the last letter. The last letter vaguely looks like an "A" but HS-UTA belongs to Orient Thai's L-1011!

[Freightdogg]

It appears to be HS-UTH, which is actually a 747-146.

[Pacific]

Thanks for your help.

I just realised how GRAINY my picture was so I won't be bothering to re-submit it.

I looked up UTH and this aircraft is not UTH because it does not have the Orient Thai titles written at the front. It is more likely UTP.

Thanks anyway!

[Sandro]

hey guys.. i have read that whole thread now and always read about USM.. bud in fact i think there are a lot people that dunno what USM means (like me :roll: ) so it would be nice if anybody could explain that to us.. seemes to be a sharpen process..

but what about it?? i maybe know it but just dunno that it's named USM :smilewin:

greez mates

sandro

[LX-A343]

USM means "Unsharp masking" (in german: "Unscharf maskieren"). This is one possibility to sharpen images offered in many photo editing software packages, as for example Photoshop (also in the LE version).

If available, I'd strongly suggest to only use this feature.

Cheers
Gerardo

[numloxx]

This sounds like a great idea and I hope it becomes a useful tool for fellow contributors past and present. On a personal level I would love to see Jason's PS tutorial taken a step further, I often hear people referring to masking an image and despite my best efforts with the online manual (PS7) I don't seem to be able to use this technique, a good explanation of how to use the levels function would also be really helpful as this is another area that I just don't know very well.

I've learnt a lot mostly from the A.net forum on how to improve my PS technique and would love to learn more and maybe turn some of those borderline pictures into acceptable ones!


Matt

Can someone please tell me where I can find this Jason's PS tutorial?
Also any other guides to PS7 would be great, Particularly in the aviation photography area.

Thanks.

[Longreach747]

i ran you through the technique for photoshop7.

did you forget it?

[xiphias]

How about this? Still, the original was very grainy and blurry.

Damn.. How did you get all that grain out.. I've got some grainy images but I've given up on uploading and now also on fixing. Some tips on the technique used would be nice.

Let me know if you want some of the grainy pics. Also have some grainy pics in bad weather, great water fx but loads of grain.

Any help welcome.

Thanks,


-Michael

[punkydawg]

Hello,

New to this uploading malarkey (been getting wallpaper from jetphotos.net for quite some time).

I thought I had a photo of a good quality to share with the outside world but it got rejected for "Too much noise"

This confuses me somewhat - can anyone elaborate on what "noise" is on a purely visual medium??

andy

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=134244

[JeffinDEN]

Andy,
Visual "noise" is most likely to be interpreted as grain. Though it is hard to say what the particular screener had in mind.

[Spotter]

Can someone explain me what the setting do when using USM? (so threshold etc)

[JeffinDEN]

Why don't you just try them and see the results first hand. You will understand the cause and effect much better that way.

or...

go to one of the photo sites and read.

[Freightdogg]

Punkydawg,

As Jeff said noise in a digital photo is generally seen as grain. It can also be seen sometimes as a color shift or as overall softness of the image. Your photo also had a slightly tilted horizon. This is one of the first things you should correct in post-processing a photo.

I worked on your photo a little and came up with this:

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/N839RPc.jpg>

[dlarenas]

Hi Freightdogg!!

I am David from Chile. You helped me with a pic some months ago. :)

Please, can you help me with this pic, I love this pic, but it was rejected. Thank you very much!! :nod: :smilewin: If you want I can send you the original to your mail.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=138205

[ErwinS]

All of a sudden I have got these rejects. I dont think that they are fair rejects. You must also look at what camera I use and at my previous uploads. That photos are not beter than these rejects.Dont compare them with photographers with better equiptment.

I hope you can shed some light at my rejects. From the screeners serious replies, thanx in advance.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=219242
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=219241
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=219240
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=218876

ErwinS 8)
http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/ews2.jpg

[LX-A343]

The screeners try to help with the rejection reasons. You should really read the mails and try to figure out yourself, what's wrong with the rejected pics.

Here some further advices:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=219242
A tad more sharpness will surely help.
The rear part of the fuselage doesn't show any details anymore. Perhaps working on color tones and levels will help here.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=219241
Clearly overexposed. The white areas doen't show any details anymore.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=219240
Again a bit unsharp. A tad more USM (for example) will help here. The levels and tones could also been improved to get more contrast.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=218876
No comment here. Read the rejection message again. It's clear enough.

Cheers
Gerardo

[Airbus330Fan]

Guys, I need help with this photo. Can I still modify this photo to make it right?


<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/SwissA343.JPG>

[tsentsan]

basically charles, what you have to do is to remove the grain/noise on that image using the neatimage application. think this can be found at www.neatimage.com. secondly you have to make it brighter i think its abit dark at the moment. also i think it might help if you levelled the image, maybe 0.5 degree CCW.

[Renato]

Airbus330Fan

I have a question and maybe also an sugestion.

Even that photo beeing a tails shot,wouldn´t be better if you had the Swiss vertical stabilizator(the little wing on the tail,in case you didn´t understood that) on the photo too?I don´t think that could be a rejection reason,of course,but I think that the photo would be a little better(I liked it anyway :D )

[Bruce]

What can I do with this reject? I realize that it was cloudy overcast weather but the plane itself came out real nice. Now on the original the lower fuselage/bottom was dark, not showing any detail so I created a levels layer and brightened only that part. Should I have left it dark? I can take this version and increase the contrast on the overall which would make the bottom more dark but it just doesnt look right then.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=378652

bruce

[LX-A343]

Bruce, I rejected this pic. Would it have been with any other sky - dark coulds or blue sky - it would probably have been accpeted. But the worst combination for any aviation photographer is a white aircraft on this light grey background. In my opinion, there's not much you can do here.

Gerardo

[Curtis K]

I have never, until today, had so many photos rejected for what I would call questionable reasons. I have noticed through my uploading that some screeners are very picky in their process and I feel reject quality photos. Here are the rejected photos:
http://www.jetphotos.net/members/viewrejected.php?userid=2880
I hope you can give me a hint as to why I recieved so many rejections, I feel these are quality pictures.

Thanks

[LX-A343]

Please post those, which are questionable to you here. I'm not going thru 20+ shots now.

Gerardo

[Curtis K]

It is nearly every one of them:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408822
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408821
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408820
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408817
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408816
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408815
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408814
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408812
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408811
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408807
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408806
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408804
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408803
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408797
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408788
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=408787

These are the ones I honestly have questions about. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look, I think they deserve it. I'm not trying to accuse any screeners but I before had photos rejected and then, if I attempt to upload them again, maybe a week later or whenever, I will have them accepted.

[LX-A343]

I won't go thru all pics you posted, for obvious reasons.

1: either crop closer to the engines or show the whole wing
2: what exactly are you showing? the engine? the zoom in closer
3: crop closer
4: a tad more USM
5: ditto
6: crop closer

etc.

Hope this helps
Gerardo

[Curtis K]

Wouldn't it have been a whole lot better if the screener would tell me those instead of just rejecting it for "bad quality". That's the part that really annoys me! Then I would have to ask what is wrong with every one of them.

[LX-A343]

If you want the screeners to always write an individual rejection reason, then you would have to live with a much longer screening time and with screeners quitting their job :wink:

If you have a "bad motive", look at the pic and ask yourself, if there is anything, which could be improved. "unsharp" is pretty self-explanatory.

Gerardo

[Curtis K]

That is true, but most of these rejections I got where actually just "bad quality" whih i find much more descriptive. I can usually decifer what they mean by bad motive or some of the other rejection reasons.

[Pikas]

hello guys! well, for a long time now i've been struggling against my amateurism and my analogic camera, trying each day to become the greatest photographer I can be, with the precious help of the jp screeners I must say...just by rejecting a photo, I learn a little bit more!

However, with this one I don't know what to do! :( It's a good photo in my opinion and really has a meaning for Oporto spotters... can you help me? Rejection reason was: Over/Undersaturation, Hue; besides, Gerardo says colors are not balanced.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=520641 (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=520641)

Thakx a lot

[indian airlines]

The photograph has a greenish hue to it. I'm not the best at editing photos, but here's what it would look like closer to normal colors (except the tail, which is wierdly pink).

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/psedit.jpg>

[Pikas]

[QUOTE=indian airlines]The photograph has a greenish hue to it. I'm not the best at editing photos, but here's what it would look like closer to normal colors (except the tail, which is wierdly pink).

Thank you very much for your help! A little before I checked your message, I was working in Photoshop and manage to fix the photo without the wierd pink in the tail, but don't know if it is good enough to upload it...I'll try it and see what happens... 8)

[sluger020889]

Hi! I recently had this photo rejected for too much jpeg compression. This has been the reason for most of my rejections and wanted to know how to fix it.

This is the original...


http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/IMG009.JPG

And this was the pic I submitted...
http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/Song_752_APPR_18R_USM.jpg

Can someone help me??? Sorry about the huge pics...

[mikecweb]

Here is my best go at it.
What are u using to edit?

[sluger020889]

I'm using Photoshop 8 CS. HOw can i fix the jpeg compression problem?????

[Airbus_A320]

I'm using Photoshop 8 CS. HOw can i fix the jpeg compression problem?????
Make sure you save the JPEG at the highest quality setting (12) in Photoshop. Also make sure you are using the highest quality setting in your camera.

[mikecweb]

I'm using Photoshop 8 CS. HOw can i fix the jpeg compression problem?????
Pretty sure this came from film because there was alot of grain in it.
Take a look at your scanner equipment. Make sure your scanning on the highest setting. Also your scanner may not be of high enough quality for online pictures. But your compression problem specifically comes from how your saving your photos. Make sure you resize them to 1024 before saving them and save them at quality 12.

[sluger020889]

I resize all my pics to 1024x681 when possible and I normally save with a quality of 12.

[atcvector]

We would love to see your images uploaded here. "We look for reasons to accept, not reasons to reject" is our motto.



What an excellent attitude. You all just became my favorite airplane photo web site (not that you weren't my favorite before). Thanks all.

[sluger020889]

Well I took another crack at editing this pic and started with the original and this is what i got...
http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/Song_752_2.jpg

I adjusted the levels, croped, adjusted brightness and contrast, USM (settings 150, 0.2, 0) resized to 1024x681, and USM with same settings. I think it's a little better.

Mikecweb, I noticed some details in you edit that aren't in mine for example the dirt or whatever in the engine, what did you do in editing my pic????

[atcvector]

Cannot seem to get the sharpness, and contrast/brightness correct. This photo was taken just about sunset from about 1/2 mile away. I know that it is not much to work with. Good Luck.
Thanks.
Scott

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/atcvector.JPG>

[sluger020889]

Well I'm not an expert but I took a shot...
http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/UA_744.jpg

[atcvector]

Well I'm not an expert but I took a shot...
http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/UA_744.jpg

Looks good to me. I just had my version of this photo rejected for various reasons.

I did get one of my pictuers of this airplane accepted here at JP. For that I am very happy.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=390778
As far as I can tell, JP published the very first picture of this airplane in the new United colors.

I get the feeling that there is just not enough to work with. You can tell by the long shadows that I took this picture right before sunset. Any screeners input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Scott

[JonyJay2]

I just got a rejection from a.net. It says photoshop has a feature which reduces grain. I am yet to come across this feature. What is it and where is it??

It is called "Despeckel" This tool is on Photoshop 7 and CS. Idon't know if it is on earlier versions of Photoshop.
To find it, click on "Filters">>"Noise">> then click on "Despeckel"
It does remove some grain, but softens the picture a bit. :nod: Better results using Neat Image.

Hope this helps

[Pikas]

This photo looks allright to me, but it was rejected with "Poor lighting (backlit)" rejection reason... is there anything I can do for this one in order to get it accepted?...
http://jetphotos.net/images/r/R6.F12_OO-DJV_29dez04.JPG.92811.jpg

Thanks for helping

[Simpleboy]

There seems to be some noise very apprant on the darker sections of the fuselage and there is some apparent on the whiter parts. The photos seems quite soft (see titles), use USM at .2,200%,0 a couple of times. If you returned to teh original, while brightening the photo up, it could stand a chance at being accepted but i would bother.

There also seems to be a lot of JPEG compression visable, make sure when you save it, you save at the highest quality setting.

[LX-A343]

Cristiano, as I told you already, sometimes, the sun is not the photographer's best friend, as for example on noon, when the sun is too high. The biggest parts of your pic are simply backlit and therefore a bit underexposed, thus noisy. Add to that, that the pic is also a bit too soft.

Backlit can add a lot to a photo, but not on a "normal" side on shot.

Cheers
Gerardo

[Pikas]

Thank you so much Simpleboy and Gerardo (LX-A343) for your reply and for trying to help me! It's no doubt about what's wrong with this pic (except that concerning jpeg compression, as I always use the higest quality settings when save), but it's a pity 'cause it's a "wave pic", and I don't now if I can fix it to be accepted...I'll try...
Once again, thnkx for sharing with me all your knowledge about how to photograph...with your help, someday I'll be a great jp photographer (you can bet on that :) ).

Best regards,

[Pikas]

Hello guys! Here I'm again on my on, asking for help, as I was a little bit shocked about this rejections...tell what you think, please? is there any thing I can do?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=536590

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=536592 (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=536592)

Thank You!!

[E-Diddy!]

Dude I don't know what's gong on but all of a sudden my internet went wierd (like this page is twice as wide as it should be), and your first photo link in your post was a redirect to this:

http://www.isu.edu/itrc/resources/webct/BrowsSettingWebCT.pdf

[Curtis K]

I really really really love this photo but I recently had it rejected for Blurry. I'd really love to get this on JP.NET! Any help would be greatly appreciated!

This is the edited ver. that was rejected: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=540520

Any help would be greatly appreciated, I think you can all agree this is great lighting and of course a great bird!

Thanks a lot,
Curtis Kreklau

[seahawk]

Well the pic is blurry and nearly oversharpened already. Unfortunately there is not much you can do to save a blurry pic. I think it will be one for your personal collection.

[Curtis K]

I personally do not see the blurriness and I always always always get undersharpened (soft) rejections which leads me to sharpen a ton.

[LX-A343]

If you don't see the blurriness, check the nose area again. It's more than evident.

Gerardo

[seahawk]

Yep, there the blur is clearly visible.

Just look how unsharp the nose gone looks, while the titles are already showing small jaggies.

So it is not soft, but blurry.

An easy way the check this for yourself is to intentionally oversharpend a pic in your editiing software. If some areas do not respond to the sharpening (or clearly much less then others), then the pic is most likely blurry and not just soft.

[MH332]

Can somebody help this dumb photographer here

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=544230
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=544228
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=544106

I do understand the bad color rejection because I took the photo through glass window but in link #2 the pic was also rejected due to bad cropping. But strangely I didn't crop the pic :confused: .

P/s: I dun have a good photo editing software like photoshop :-(

[seahawk]

All pics are soft to start with.

1. seems you understand the problem
2. You did not crop, but you should have. Crop the pic so that you cut away all this empty space on the left and the right of the pic. Crop from nose to tail.
3. seems also clear

Try downloading "The Gimp" it is freeware and nearly as powerfull as PS. Otherwise there are many cheaper programms like Paint Shop Pro, Photo Impact ...

[atcvector]

I have worked and worked on this photo. I cannot get the cropping and the constrast/brightness correct. The sky always comes out very grainy after resizing and I cannot seem to get a good effect with neatimage. Any help would be great.

Thanks.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/atcvector-C5.JPG>

[dlarenas]

Hey guys, somebody can help me with these pics. I really love them. Hope can get a solution. Thanks! :-)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=554872
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=555723

[JeffinDEN]

Same plane, same day? Pick one and work it.

I would adjust the mid-level curves a bit as it appears overall dark, then re-check your levels. On a new layer, mask the a/c and sharpen it some more, it does appear soft.

Do this to the original file.

[dlarenas]

Thank you very much for your tips! Now the pic was accepted :-)

Regards...

[seahawk]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=566865

I´m really clueless -what is wrong ?

[indian airlines]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=566865

I´m really clueless -what is wrong ?

I don't think that's a 747-400.

That said, I also don't know which variant of a 747 it is :uhoh:

EDIT: Nevermind...I just noticed the winglets on it...

[Simpleboy]

747-48EF
and
HL7420 no dash in the registration.

[bobby]

Alright, I know this one can use some editing..can anyone help?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=581046

[kcmh]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=582602
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=582610
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=582612

How are we adding Airport shots to the DB now?

[indian airlines]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=582602
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=582610
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=582612

How are we adding Airport shots to the DB now?

They made new rules for airport shots. Check out this thread:

http://www.jetphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23441

[kcmh]

Thanks Tanuj

[seahawk]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=589672

I would understand bad cropping (perharps) but part of the subjet cut-off/missing ??

Any help would be apreciated.

[JeffinDEN]

I would understand bad cropping (perharps) but part of the subjet cut-off/missing ??



Same thing. It's just a bad angle. You should of went wide an got the whole plane in, or went tight when you had it oblique. Drawing attention to the bird doesn't help anything either. What's up with that? Most would assume you want people to look at the airplane.

[seahawk]

But I got comparable perspectives accepted.

[Simpleboy]

I tried cropping a lot closer, removing the brid and getting closer to the landing gear. Came up with this.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/cropedforexample.jpg>

[seahawk]

Yes, that looks better. Thank you.

[JeffinDEN]

But I got comparable perspectives accepted.

I don't doubt it. It's not a great angle, but if it's what you like........... ;)

[Genessee]

I was wondering, is it better to have an slightly unlevel horizon and straight lines on the runway and taxi ways? or would it be better to have the horizon level and sloped lines for the runway/taxi way?

[LX-A343]

Make the pic look level. If you have lines, which should be level (for example a building), then these have first priority.

Gerardo

[Genessee]

I've been looking at one that was rejected, it should have been correct the first time.

I leveled the picture so the runways were level, the rest looked ok too. (it was rejected :P) There's a tower in the background. I'm not sure why I didn't use it to level things off. Though when the tower is level, the fence slopes downward and doesn't look right.


Live and learn I guess, unless a screener beats me to death first, "So, you like the picture eh? *SMACK*" :)

Edit: After comparing the fixed picture with the original, the difference is like night and day.

[seahawk]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=603186

You mean vertically - right ?

[sluger020889]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=620868

Yeah I can't seem to get this one right. I believe it's a good shot and has a chance at getting in but things go wrong in the processing, more specifically sharpening I'm guessing. Any ideas????

[Leftseat86]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=620868

Yeah I can't seem to get this one right. I believe it's a good shot and has a chance at getting in but things go wrong in the processing, more specifically sharpening I'm guessing. Any ideas????


Compression, noise, grain, soft under sharpened and over-sharpened at the same time.


Without the original we can't help.

[fallingeese]

Compression, noise, grain, soft under sharpened and over-sharpened at the same time.

Without the original we can't help.

I don't think the original is going to help...

[sluger020889]

Heres the original....

http://www.abelair.com/uploads/images/Collura_06-08-05_N6702_Original.jpg

I'm sorry about the size if needed I can scan it bigger.

[LX-A343]

Sorry, but I'd forget this one. All I could achieve with some standard procudures I ususally do, was this
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/www.abelair.com_Collura_06-08-05_N6702_Original.jpg>

Gerardo

[sluger020889]

Ok, thanks for your help.

[Genessee]

I was wondering, should 'special scheme' be selected for any livery that is not a normal one the airline uses, but is still plastered on dozens of planes all over the place?

I mean things like the Star Alliance colours:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=624876

For some reason or another I didn't really think of it as 'special', probably because they are all over the place..

Also, what about small logos added to a plane?

Or did I miss a totally different thing I should have hit for that picture?

Thanks :)

[LX-A343]

Well, even if the Star Alliance scheme is plastered on dozens of planes all over the place, it still remains a special scheme.

Regarding stickers: if a special sticker is good visible in your pic, then select "Special Scheme".

Gerardo

[Genessee]

Thanks LX-A343.

[Genessee]

I have one more :)

Is the Jpeg Compression in this photo showing where the blue colour of the belly and the white meet? After spending quite a bit of time staring at the picture, and others of the same aircraft at the same time, the blue doesn't seem very clean where it meets up with the white.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=624867

Just checking if what I'm seeing after staring is correct, or if I'm missing it all together. When I was looking at the picture originally, I thought it was ok.

Thanks again!

Edit; I looked at this picture on three other monitors now, and I'm quite confused :) They look ok, but on the CRTs, engine3 looks funny.

[madtoonfan]

Hey all, i have just purchased a digital camera and began shooting images and was wondering if anyone could supply me with in depth help to render and enhance my images for uploading to jp.net.
Any help would be great!!!

Many thanks guys
Adam
a.k.a Madtoonfan!:wiggle:

This was my first image, the apache!

How dark and noisey does it seem to you?!!!

Madtoonfan:nonono:

[RingwaySam]

I have one more :)

Is the Jpeg Compression in this photo showing where the blue colour of the belly and the white meet? After spending quite a bit of time staring at the picture, and others of the same aircraft at the same time, the blue doesn't seem very clean where it meets up with the white.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=624867

Just checking if what I'm seeing after staring is correct, or if I'm missing it all together. When I was looking at the picture originally, I thought it was ok.

Thanks again!

Edit; I looked at this picture on three other monitors now, and I'm quite confused :) They look ok, but on the CRTs, engine3 looks funny.

I've looked at the photo to late and the link is'nt working no more. I know I have'nt seen the image but try looking round the wings, fuselage, engines etc.. Usually it's like (Don't know how to explain it) little bubbles kindof.

Remeber to save at the highest quality.

[Genessee]

Thanks Sam ;) Got caught up in other things around here and didn't see the reply, guess I thought it was forgotten :)


I got another one though!

I can't see the noise in this one:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=651237
Not sure at all here :)

Unlevel I can see, I'm not sure how that got by. Being careless I guess, went a little fast and didn't use the grid in PS.

Also, is this one:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=651224
an example of the "painted" look that has been discussed?

Thanks :)

[CcrlR]

I wanted some help with this picture with the Midwest 717 that was rejcted. it was on the rejected images but I've been busy so I haven't gotten some free time to get this one checked out with you all. Here it is.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/N906ME_7_21_05.JPG>

[JordanD]

Wayyyy to soft. What kind of camera are you using?
It looks like the camera did not focus properly on the plane. Could do with some darkening and contrast. I'll try something.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6730/n906me721059xg.jpg
This is all I could do to try to make it sharper. It looks like there is some JPEG compression. Make sure that you are saving your images at the highest possible quality setting, on both your camera, and after editing.

[ash414]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=673148

Rejected for bad cropping (photo edges) and I'm a little confused as to what specifically the problem is.....any suggestions?

[Sonny]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=673148

Rejected for bad cropping (photo edges) and I'm a little confused as to what specifically the problem is.....any suggestions?

There is more dead space at the front of the plane than there is at the rear of the plane

[Will M]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=673148

Rejected for bad cropping (photo edges) and I'm a little confused as to what specifically the problem is.....any suggestions?

Theres too much dead space , try cropping closer to the nose ant tail of the aircraft so that the a/c fills the frame .

[ash414]

Thanks! I'll try that!

[CcrlR]

Wayyyy to soft. What kind of camera are you using?
It looks like the camera did not focus properly on the plane. Could do with some darkening and contrast. I'll try something.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6730/n906me721059xg.jpg
This is all I could do to try to make it sharper. It looks like there is some JPEG compression. Make sure that you are saving your images at the highest possible quality setting, on both your camera, and after editing.


I am using a Canon Powershot S1 and I try to save them as a higher setting but I have to do it to 1024x768. I don't know if I could get it larger but I can try.
I was on a taxiway(with a tour group) getting this taking off

[paulc]

Have been getting a lot of rejections for horizon unlevel - now when I crop thei mage i use the crop box line to check vertical / horizontals yet this does not seem to get it 100% correct - any tips on the best / quickest method to avoid the horizon unlevel rejections

[Greg Wilson]

......any tips on the best / quickest method to avoid the horizon unlevel rejections
If you are using PS use the GRID. view/show/grid.
Or ctrl+'

In preferences you can change colour and spacing of the grid lines.

Greg

[paulc]

Greg,

I do use the grid but it does not always work 100% - I try to find a vertical or horizontal somewhere in the middle of the frame and use that - have used buildings in the distance only to get a rejection because something closer to the subject is not level.

[Greg Wilson]

Greg,

I do use the grid but it does not always work 100%..........................................
Well can you put an example of one of your rejections up here.....or email it(see my profile).

Greg

[seahawk]

Those 2 are giving my serious trouble

Both were taken at around 19.00 at LPA on Gran Canaria and that is exactly the light as it was then. Yet they get rejected for bad saturation.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=689011
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=689010

Any help appreciated

[Greg Wilson]

Both were taken at around 19.00 ....................
Did you check the night shot (night /dusk/dawn lighting) box?

Greg

[seahawk]

First time yes, second time no.

[Greg Wilson]

Stefan.
You will need a screeners comment.
It is certainly what I would see nearing sundown lighting.
As for soft........... borderline.I am seeing a big variation in what is accepted as far as soft/blurry.This seems to be an area where screeners appear to have vastly differing views. :confused:
Well that may cost me some cool mints but what the............ :-P

Greg

[AJ]

Hi Stefan, for the colour I would say too pink, not quite the natural orange glow of a sunset!

The Iberia A320 is too soft unfortunately.

[seahawk]

It was a sundown. And the sky was pink in that direction. If I try to get rid of the pink sky, the aircraft turn funny colored.

I have no problem wuth the soft rejection. I just don´t know how to fix the color problem.

[Greg Wilson]

You don't want the cool mints AJ........... :smilewin:

Greg

[atcvector]

I have uploaded this picture a couple of times with 2 rejections. I cannot seem to get the cropping and contrast etc... just right. I realize that the airplane is a bit far away but this is the best that I could do. I did manage to catch the wing and tail strobes in mid flash. If anyone could crop and adjust USM etc I would greatly appreciate the help. Or is it just one for the personal collection.
Sorry for the large image.
Thanks
Scott.

[magic48]

Hi.
I got this shot rejected for being undersharpened and because of bad motive. Why is that?? Can anyone further explain to me what "bad motive" means. Is there any chance to improve the photo in order to re-uplaod it?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=700995

Thanks!

[LX-A343]

Bad motive was given, because there's not enough aviation related in the pic. You basically show a pic of Honolulu and a tiny bit of a wing in the upper right corner.

All in all, nothing you can do about here.

Cheers
Gerardo

[magic48]

Ok thanks, I understand. But one more question: How is the following shot bad quality? (Just trying to figure out which photos not to put into the queue) Can this one be improved?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=700867

Thanks a lot!

[jid]

The bad quality for that shot is a combination of things but the main two being soft, contrast. Then there is a little noise and an amount of colour correction.

Hope this helps ... Jid

[magic48]

Well ok, now I know what's wrong with it, but what can I do to improve the shot in order to put it back into the queue?

[sluger020889]

Seeing as you shot the pic from behind a window it kills any chance it might have had. But as for improving the shot you've been given what's wrong (soft, contrast and color balance) try fixing these in Photoshop. However, due to the window, I'm afraid it doesn't stand a chance.

[seahawk]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=721760

leaves me a bit clueless.

[AJ]

Stefan, it is not Futura's standard scheme so 'Special Scheme' should have been checked.

I presume that "leaves me a bit clueless" was asking for feedback?

[seahawk]

Thx for the answer. And also thx for the quick answer to the apeal. I hope it was clear, that I just wanted to know the fault. But now I know -> hybrid livery -> special :)

[Star Alliance]

Wow, I'm not getting this! I had 4 rejected already, but that was a bit ago. Here is the new one: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=761986 . I don't know how to fix this , and I'm not quite sure what "Noise" is. I downloaded GIMP, but I'm not quite sure how to use it. I really need some assistance:-(! Anyone who can help is highly appriciated.
Cheers
330

[seahawk]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=768904

Leaves me clueless.

[twr75]

Stefan,

Try this:

Registration: 603
c/n: 394

[seahawk]

603 ? As registration ?

Ok, now I see where you are coming from. The plane is in the databse as 3-IM and as 603. I thought 3-IM would have been correct.

[twr75]

"3-IM" is the code and is an indication of the squadron the aircraft is assigned to.

[seahawk]

I know. I thought that would be correct to use as a registration. Kind like we use NXXXX and D-XXXX for airliners, where the registration is also not fixed to the aircraft during its entire life.

[sluger020889]

They got me for digital manipulation and I'm not seeing it. I see over sharpened but not the digital manipulation. What sucks is I accidently deleted the original and wasn't able to retrieve it through my recovery software so......

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=769404

[E-Diddy!]

Way oversharpened, there's a halo around the entire aircraft.

[MH332]

The first time I uploaded this photo, it got rejected for "too much noise" and "bad cropping" but the second time I uploaded this it got rejected for "Poor lighting" How to improve this photo?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=803253

[M11]

Hi, I really don't think there's anything wrong with the lighting and contrast of this pic:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=807825

I've appealed two other pics this week successfully, and I don't want to come across as appealing everything, so I'd appreciate feedback on this picture now. Granted it's quite difficult to get it right with the cloudy background and the sun behind/above it, but I really think it is correctly lit/exposed/processed.

Thanks!

[JordanD]

M11: The main problem with the lighting is that the plane is backlit. As for the contrast, I can't say, but to me it looks like a little too much. There's not really anything you can do about this photo being backlit. I'm afraid it's for the collection.

http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/DSCF1278.JPG.66792.jpg
Delwin, you might want to try something like this.

[M11]

Thanks for the reply. Still, I want some more clarification. What is backlit? Have a look at my pic, you'll see that the sun was to the right behind the plane, i.e. to the right of where I was. That's different from a pic that is completely obscured because all you see is shadows, when the sun is directly behind it.
Even so, why is "backlit" a problem if you do not miss any detail, and the colour is realistic? Just want to know...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=807825 (../viewreject.php?id=807825)

[JordanD]

You should shoot with the sun behind you. I don't make the policy, but I know that jetphotos.net (and almost every other sight) does not accept backlit photos.

[LX-A343]

Hi there, Ward

As you see in the pic, the sun was behind the aircraft, probably not completely opposite to your position, but enough to have 'your' side of the aircraft in the shadow. This, together with the bright almost white sky kills the photo.

I had a quick go at the curves to correct this a bit. The result is a more pleasant sky, but there's still this backlight.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/wcallens_gedo_V2-LGB-SKB-20060107.jpg>

Unfortunately, my suggestion is to forget this one.

Regards
Gerardo

[M11]

Thanks Gerardo. I think I may need to work on a different screen for pics like this because to me it doesn't look bad. But no big deal anyway... Thanks!

[magic48]

Hi there.
Here's a shot I took last year while I was at LAX. I tried to upload it at least 4 times, but now I've pretty much given up on it. However, I still think it has some potential, I'm just not an editing pro at all.

Link to the original unprocessed version:
http://iciclelanding.com/aperture?photo=82184&view=photo&size=0

Thanks in advance for your help!

[magic48]

Anyone?

[LX-A343]

In my opinion, the motive simply not there. In my eyes it's basically a snapshot taken ou t of a window on the taxiway. The main subject - the Hawaiian B767 - would have been better off taken from somwhere outside.

I also don't know why - perhaps the windows - but the quality seems bad to me, very noisy.

My advice - unfortunately - would be to put this one into your personal collection.

Cheers
Gerardo

[Andy777]

Hi There,

I have had this photo rejected for "digital manlipulation" and I am not sure what I have done wrong. I appoligise if a rejection email is sent out with more information but I am away from home so cannot access my mail. I really just need a pointer to what I have done wrong.

The link is http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=820434

Thanks in advance for any help

Andy

[LX-A343]

Andy, your pic shows some halos around the aircraft. This can either be caused by the "shadow/highlight" tool in Photoshop, or by the sharpening. Some "auto-correct" features in Elements or so also produce this kind of halo.

Gerardo

[Andy777]

Hi Gerardo,
Thanks for the help there, I guess I need to brush up on my workflow.

Andy

[DRS-Spotter]

Hi.
got this rejected for Sensor Dust spots.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=826905
But I don't see them. Might be because the screen at work isn't too good...but I won't be at home with my beloved Samsung SM 959NF for a while so I ask you here.

Thanks for your help.

Georg

[RingwaySam]

Hi.
got this rejected for Sensor Dust spots.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=826905
But I don't see them. Might be because the screen at work isn't too good...but I won't be at home with my beloved Samsung SM 959NF for a while so I ask you here.

Thanks for your help.

Georg

Theres a HUGE one just above the USA...

[DRS-Spotter]

Thanks, now I can see it too.

Georg

[exmanx]

Right. I have thousands of slides that I can scan. I have a Nikon Coolscan V. I now need the help to work the damn thing properly. So far all my attempts have been appalling.

Does anyone have a workflow for scanning and processing slides?

Andy

[LX-A343]

In my opinion, this depends a little bit on the original scan. But manly I scan(ned) at the highest possible optical resolution and saved as JPG with no compression.

In Photoshop I manly used to rotate, resize, adjust colors and contrast and finally sharpen the pic. However, nowadays, Photoshop has greatly improved and noise reducers can help as well.

If you want, place an original somewhere and I'll have a look at it.

Gerardo

[mfz]

Hi guys!

I am somewhat lost with two rejections. Both are airport overviews and I always get them rejected for "bad info in field: registration"

Well - they're airport overviews. So consequently I leave the field "registration" empty, right?! So what's the problem with the photos then???

In apprecation of your help,
Mike

Here's the rejections in question:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=858260
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=858216

[RingwaySam]

Hi guys!

I am somewhat lost with two rejections. Both are airport overviews and I always get them rejected for "bad info in field: registration"

Well - they're airport overviews. So consequently I leave the field "registration" empty, right?! So what's the problem with the photos then???

In apprecation of your help,
Mike

Here's the rejections in question:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=858260
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=858216

In the regerstration bit you have to put the airport ICAO. Exaxple - EDDM

[LX-A343]

From the "addphotos" pageNOTE: For airport shots as Control Tower, Terminal, etc... type in the Airport 4 letter code in both the Registration and Airport fields.

;-)

Do this and everything will work ok.

Gerardo

[mfz]

Thanks a lot Gerardo! I guess I would not have worked that out for quite a long time myself - but I admit: reading the instrcutions definitely helps.

Thanks a lot for your quick answer!

Cheers, Mike

[LX-A343]

You're welcome. As I am screening reight now, I guess, I will see those pics soon?

;-)

Gerardo

[akerosid]

Here's this lovely Egyptair A330, landing at LHR ... it looks fine to me, but here's the rejection notice ...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=868386

Right, what do I do here? I've had this issue come up before (sensor dust spots) and I don't understand it; I took a good 20-30 photos at this spot (a few of which have already been uploaded successfully), so I'm not sure what happened with this one!

Help would be appreciated!

[CPH Aviation]

Here's this lovely Egyptair A330, landing at LHR ... it looks fine to me, but here's the rejection notice ...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=868386

Right, what do I do here? I've had this issue come up before (sensor dust spots) and I don't understand it; I took a good 20-30 photos at this spot (a few of which have already been uploaded successfully), so I'm not sure what happened with this one!

Help would be appreciated!

Hi John

If you look at the picture and look at the nosegear, go down a little and then right you'll se a dark round spot, that is a dust spot. The dust is on the sensor inside your camera and will appear on almost all your photos where there is blue sky or white areas. You can clone out the dust spot in programes like photo shop, its quite easy. Or you can get the sensor cleaned at a photostore or get a cleaning kit and do it your self.

Soren

[LX-A343]

First of all, the photo is clearly underexposed. The poblem I saw with that photo is, that any attempts of brightening it up will bring a lot of noise, above all in the shadows.

As for the dust spot: I see one right in front of the right engine. That's nothing too serious, it's a common thing on DSLR's. This dust spot can easily be cloned out.

To usm it up: judging by the rejected photo and without seeing the original photo, I'd say, this one can not be saved, due to the underexposure.

Cheers
Gerardo

[exmanx]

Can anyone shed any light on what Digital Manipulation I have used on this picture?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=872450

Apart from the normal processing I carry out on my pictures I have done nothing different. I would be intrigued to hear what's wrong.

Andy

[LX-A343]

Have you appealed it, or was that the first rejection?

Gerardo

[exmanx]

I haven't appealed Gerardo, I rather thought I'd get some feedback first.

Andy

[jid]

Hi Andy, well there is a light halo around the underside of the aircraft possibly caused by the S/H function in CS. I am quite sure that will be where the screener got the manipulation rejection from.

Cheers .. Jid

[exmanx]

Thanks Jid, it's always useful to have details when picsare rejected for Digital Manipulation. It's also difficult to get rid of halos in Elements I find. Guess I'll give it another crack and see how it fares.

Andy

[jid]

Not had any dealing with Elements here but just try some gradual adjustment of your rgb curves and that should stop any halo effects.

Jid

[exmanx]

Of course, i could just upload the one of it taking off instead :D

Andy

[exmanx]

Continuing, I have just cancelled 3 pictures from the queue after viewing them at work. I do my processing at home on a TFT monitor. Here at work I have a normal CRT monitor - quite a crap one actually!

However, looking at home I cannot see any halo's. Looking at work I can. Now, which is right, flat screen or CRT? Do I need to buy a new CRT monitor to process my pics?

I did see something somewhere once that said a CRT was better for processing. What's the general opinion here?

Andy

[jid]

A good CRT is far better than any TFT monitor at the moment.

[exmanx]

Thanks! More bloody expense!!:eek: And Just where in my "study" (aka coal-hole) am I going to put a CRT screen? Damn the hobby - I think I'll take up crochet instead!:shakehea:

Andy

[LX-A343]

On the other hand, I process ONLY on my TFT ;-) Of course, it's good to compare different models before buying.

Gerardo

[mfz]

Ever since I traded my (very good) Sony-CRT in for a (high-quality) TFT two years ago I never wanted to go back. I also do all my editing and processing on this TFT screen and I am quite happy with it. I guess it all depends on not switching between different screens. Always use the same screen when working on your photos, and you get a feeling for the settings you need in Photoshop to get decent an uploadable results.

Cheers,
Mike

[ecapdeville]

Hello!

I´m having a ton of rejected pictures because "Poor lighting (backlit)" problems, I dont know what to do, maybe some filters in my lenses, maybe wait for a better our in the day to take them...

Sometimes posting pictures and having a bunch of rejected ones are really sad and discouraging for me...

I live in mexico city, and there always are a lot of things around the airport, and there is no way to get inside the airport to take pictures, its imposible to get rid of them, so I have to take planes from the very street where I can take electric poles, cables, cars, espectacular publicity, etc...CLUTTER is other reason of my rejected pics.

Please Help me!

And by the way, this is my first post in this forum :)

[Olli Vainio]

A good CRT is far better than any TFT monitor at the moment.
This is quite worn out statement IMHO. Couple years ago I would have agreed but TFT's have evolved quite a bit recently and are now(the good ones) on par with CRT's...

[Will M]

Hello!

I´m having a ton of rejected pictures because "Poor lighting (backlit)" problems, I dont know what to do, maybe some filters in my lenses, maybe wait for a better our in the day to take them...

Sometimes posting pictures and having a bunch of rejected ones are really sad and discouraging for me...

I live in mexico city, and there always are a lot of things around the airport, and there is no way to get inside the airport to take pictures, its imposible to get rid of them, so I have to take planes from the very street where I can take electric poles, cables, cars, espectacular publicity, etc...CLUTTER is other reason of my rejected pics.

Please Help me!

And by the way, this is my first post in this forum :)

hello !

Welcome to the forums ,

In order for us to help you out would you mind pasting a link to the photos you are inquiring about :)

[E-Diddy!]

I actually only edit photos on a TFT. I've tried my parents CRT, but it isn't up to snuff at all (It's so soft that in order for it to appear sharp to me, it will be horridly jagged everywhere else [and still soft to me]).

So TFT is the only way to be.

[exmanx]

So, looks like the field is split. OK, guess I'll carry on for a bit and save my money for AMS and YYZ! :D And hope for the best LOL!

Andy

[akerosid]

Here's one that's just been rejected ... for "Bad quality". Can anything be done to rescue this.

Unfortunately, Mumbai is not the best airport in the world (and that's putting it very kindly) for aviation photography; there's really not too much opportunity from the terminals, so this photo was taken from the roof of a nearby hotel.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=874320

At the end of the day, you can keep rejecting photos from India for minor technical faults, but you have to accept that you're not dealing with Schiphol or St. Maarten. You're simply not going to get photo opportunities of that quality from Indian airports.

Here's another one that's just been rejected.

Can anything be done to rescue this?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=874322

[ecapdeville]

hello !

Welcome to the forums ,

In order for us to help you out would you mind pasting a link to the photos you are inquiring about :)

I will go today to take new pics, I will try to Add them normaly and if there are problems I will post them here...

Thank you for answer!

[E-Diddy!]

Here's one that's just been rejected ... for "Bad quality". Can anything be done to rescue this.

Unfortunately, Mumbai is not the best airport in the world (and that's putting it very kindly) for aviation photography; there's really not too much opportunity from the terminals, so this photo was taken from the roof of a nearby hotel.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=874320

At the end of the day, you can keep rejecting photos from India for minor technical faults, but you have to accept that you're not dealing with Schiphol or St. Maarten. You're simply not going to get photo opportunities of that quality from Indian airports.

Here's another one that's just been rejected.

Can anything be done to rescue this?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=874322

The first one looks a little blurry and there's purple haze everywhere, the 2nd one can be fixed easily with just a little bit of curves and brightness/contrast.

[JordanD]

As Eric said, the second one should be acceptable with some brightening up.

[akerosid]

Okay, guys, thanks for the responses. Here are a few more you might like to look at. I really like this first one and I'd love to get it approved. It was rejected first for being too dark and then, the second time, well, have a look.

I think I may have ruined it with my "corrections", but I still have the original, so I can go back to that if necessary. The backlighting wasn't a reason for rejection first time around.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=877637

This second one is an Indian A300; another pretty rare one for JP.net and again, I'd love to get it accepted.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=877469

I think my problem with these (among others) is that when I'm correcting them, I go way overboard and make a mess of it. With this one as well, I may need to go back to the original.

Thanks for any help you can offer!

[JordanD]

They both have too many quality problems that can't be fixed. Don't worry though, just keep shooting.

[E-Diddy!]

I don't think these ones can be fixed. You have to remember that with a backlit subject, the exposure has to be dead on perfect.

Check this one:
[photoid=5653960]

Note that even though the subject is backlit, there's still light hitting it after it's reflected off other objects out of the frame. That helps too, makes the subject more interesting. A basic rule of thumb is to overexpose (what your camera meter tells you) by one full stop when shooting backlit, I find that when you do that however you loose alot of the deep blues in the sky, so I basically experiment with my results. You'll know when I come up with something cause i'll probably upload it here but so far I haven't found a better way to expose the aircraft perfectly...

[atcvector]

Can this one be saved? I don't think so but maybe one of you people that are MUCH better at this than me can help fix it.

Thanks
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/Douglas-DC-6-N620NA-a.jpg>

[JordanD]

Unfortunately I don't think so. It appears not only soft, but out of focus aswell.

[akerosid]

Hi, I was under the impression that to avoid backlighting, you didn't shoot into the sun. I have had six photos rejected - all with backlighting issues (there were ones with other issues, which I can fix), but I really want to get this whole backlighting issue understood.

In all of these photos, the sun was quite definitely behind me (and it was just before sunset), so how can they be backlit? Can I do anything on Photo Editor to sort this out; frankly, they seem like perfectly good shots to me - but of course I would say that!

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=891377

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=891374

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=891384

[akerosid]

Further to my post above, the following photo was taken at roughly the same time as the three above (and another two) - from exactly the same spot, roughly the same time (5-6pm). Now, if this was taken at the same time, how could this not be backlit and the others are?

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5705776

[RingwaySam]

Further to my post above, the following photo was taken at roughly the same time as the three above (and another two) - from exactly the same spot, roughly the same time (5-6pm). Now, if this was taken at the same time, how could this not be backlit and the others are?

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5705776

Akerosid,

The problem with the 3 rejections is that the nose is fine but right side of the fuselage has been shadowed out due to the sun being on the wrong side of the aircraft. The Palmair is at a completely different angle.

[LX-A343]

John, look again at the pics and you will find the answer, why one was accepted and the other three not. To be totally honest: I wonder how you even came up with this question, why the Palmair one was accepted and the others not.

Gerardo

[akerosid]

Ok, when I look again, I see - fair enough. Right, how do we fix this? I know (and I'm not at my home computer now), that there is a backlighting button on Adobe photo editor, but I've never used it.

What can be done to fix these?

[Greg Wilson]

You will have to wait until they release Photoshop CS36.
Then you can clone a photo of the sun in the left hand top corner.
This version I am told,will then generate the correct lighting.

[LX-A343]

Oiiii, that will in the year 2063 or so .... :-)

Gerardo

[atcvector]

This photo got accepted but I think the quality could be better. Any suggestions? If you want to see the original photo look here.

http://www.geocities.com/atcvector/100_1763.JPG
Thanks.
[photoid=5707562]

[seahawk]

Yes, the original is not as overexposed as the accepted pic. Seems like you have adjusted the histogram to sharply. Using an autofunction perhaps ? Do it manually and it should look much better.

[E-Diddy!]

Nevermind.

[E-Diddy!]

I'm havin a hell of a time finding the dust spots, thought I got rid of all of them when I equalized the shot, can anybody point me in the right spot?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=908890

[atcvector]

I'm havin a hell of a time finding the dust spots, thought I got rid of all of them when I equalized the shot, can anybody point me in the right spot?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=908890

Nice photo. I think this airplane flew over AMA last week. The pilot told me that when the jet engines are running they use about 600 gallons an hour. I Think I found the dust spots. The one in the upper right corner seems to be the most prevelant. Hope this works and again very nice photo.
Scott.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/N9855Fspots.jpg>

[E-Diddy!]

thanks atc... now my question is can you find them without drastically manipulating the photo like that?

Those turbojets are pretty impressive when they're goin from what I've heard, they burn avgas and need an overhaul at 500 hours IIRC, but they're loud and they smoke like sailor.

[atcvector]

thanks atc... now my question is can you find them without drastically manipulating the photo like that?

Those turbojets are pretty impressive when they're goin from what I've heard, they burn avgas and need an overhaul at 500 hours IIRC, but they're loud and they smoke like sailor.

The best of both worlds. Jet engines smoking and screaming with a radial engine mixed in, doesn't get any better than that.

Here are the spots that I can see on the plain picture. They are VERY faint and you have to really look hard to see them. You might be able to see one just behind the tail as well. The spot above the middle of the airplane is the most noticable.

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/N9855Fspots-a.jpg>

[E-Diddy!]

Thanks I'll have to fix that.

[seahawk]

thanks atc... now my question is can you find them without drastically manipulating the photo like that?



Don´t you think that this is our job, to find thinks that are not visible on first look ?

[E-Diddy!]

Personally I still can't see them after they've been circled, save the middle one but just barely, I doubt the casual viewer could pick them out period. I also don't see the point of having to manipulate a photo beyond acceptable standards anyway just to find a reason to reject it.

[atcvector]

Personally I still can't see them after they've been circled, save the middle one but just barely, I doubt the casual viewer could pick them out period. I also don't see the point of having to manipulate a photo beyond acceptable standards anyway just to find a reason to reject it.

I agree. Look at how distorted I had to make the photo to be able to see any dust spots. You have to look very hard to see the spots even after you know where to look.

[seahawk]

Is your monitor correctly adjusted ? I can see at least 2 with a quick look.

[E-Diddy!]

Just recalibrated my monitor, redid the gamma, and still don't see a difference in dust spots.

Edit: I actually just recalibrated my monitor 5 different ways and didn't see a change... then spend the next 20 minutes trying to get it back the way it's supposed to be.

I'm all for a thorough screening process, but when that process goes to the length that screeners can manipulate a photo to find rejection reasons, I have serious issues with that. If you can't visually pick it out after several scans and need to equalize it only to reject it, there's something wrong.

[seahawk]

Perhaps some of us have a better trained eye to see such spots ? It really is a mtter of practice.

And sometimes you have to mainpulate a photot to check if your geeling was right. It is not about dustspots it is about other manipulations.

[E-Diddy!]

Perhaps some of us have a better trained eye to see such spots ? It really is a mtter of practice.

And sometimes you have to mainpulate a photot to check if your geeling was right. It is not about dustspots it is about other manipulations.

So... you think I'm manipulating photos? :skeptic:

[RingwaySam]

So... you think I'm manipulating photos? :skeptic:

Anyone can manipulate shots. I very much doubt that he is saying it's you but you did see that Condor A320 a few weeks back with the moon. Personally I cannot see the dust spot either... Just my opinion! :)

[E-Diddy!]

Anyone can manipulate shots. I very much doubt that he is saying it's you but you did see that Condor A320 a few weeks back with the moon. Personally I cannot see the dust spot either... Just my opinion! :)

Yeah, that was one of the dumbest manipulations I've ever seen :-P

There's nothing in my pic here that even vaguely hints at a bad manipulation though.

[MaxPower]

Got one right here.

This one have bugged me two times. Got rejected once. Is this worth getting into the database. How can I save this one ? I kinda like it as they're soon to be replaced anytime now.

Please help a man down regarding editing this one. TY

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=912105

[LX-A343]

Tough call, but in my opinion fixable. How about something like this?

http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/gedo_jetphotos.net_N224NW.jpg

It's still not perfect, as the engines for example, are still overexposed. But starting with the original, I think, it should be possible to bring it up to db standard.

Gerardo

[MaxPower]

Yup-. The engines is my biggest concern. There's very little I can do about it. I hope anyone can do a little miracle on this one. Otherwise I'll just trash this one in the pit.

Edit. I'll just have to try again tomorrow. Thanks for your sample , Gerard !

[LX-A343]

Post the original somehwere, if you want.

Gerardo

[MaxPower]

Its too large to be uploaded. Does anyone knows what sites that can handle such large imagehosting ?

[seahawk]

So... you think I'm manipulating photos? :skeptic:

No, I do not htink you are doing it, but now I know that there are people manipulating their pictures. And by equalizing the pics it is much more easy to find traces of such manipulations. Equalising the picture is also part of my standard workflow before submitting the pic to the screening process.

As I said, I can see 2 dustspots in your pic. If you think they are not that bad enough to reject apeal or re-upload.

[E-Diddy!]

No, I do not htink you are doing it, but now I know that there are people manipulating their pictures. And by equalizing the pics it is much more easy to find traces of such manipulations. Equalising the picture is also part of my standard workflow before submitting the pic to the screening process.

As I said, I can see 2 dustspots in your pic. If you think they are not that bad enough to reject apeal or re-upload.

So, if I'm to understand this correctly, you're opening the photo and equalizing it looking for manipulations first? I agree that's necessary, but then if a dust spot pops up upon equalization you reject the pic for being dirty, without scanning the un-equalized version to see if it's visable there as well?

[seahawk]

Nope, that is not the way we work. We equalize the pic to look for manipulations and dust spots, but only reject if those dust spots are visible in the original. And as I say, I can clearly see 2 in the picture we are discussing. . (which I did not screen if I remember correctly)