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

[ErezS]

Erez,

It's very obvious the the whole side of the aircraft are in the shade.

Dear Erwin,

Please look on the right shoulder of the pilot in the cockpit.
Please look also on the number "492" on the second photo (The closeup shot) It's not in the shade in my opinion.

So, from which direction light is coming from?

The sun was definitely behind me, on the right side, and not opposite me.

Best regards,
Erez.

[Mr Chips]

Dear Erwin,

Please look on the right shoulder of the pilot in the cockpit.
Please look also on the number "492" on the second photo (The closeup shot) It's not in the shade in my opinion.

So, from which direction light is coming from?

The sun was definitely behind me, on the right side, and not opposite me.

Best regards,
Erez.

Erez, the lighting in your photographs is far from perfect, the simple fact is the side of the fuselages of both the aircraft have little to no sunlight hitting them (they are in the shade) and thus they are not adequately lit to be accepted into the database. The original rejection stands.

[Mr Chips]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3905339

Screener's Comments: Too similar Felipe, which is a shame, the colours in this one are much better

And that got me wondering: Is there a procedure I can follow to get the shot in the database replaced? (Maybe request a removal and then use the appeal function to say hey, I removed it because this one is much better) I didn't feel it was that similar so I didn't request a removal first, and I'm not willing to waste anyone's time (or my time, for that matter) appealing on the grounds that it's not *that* similar to my eyes.

Felipe, that was me who left the comment, as far as I am aware, you can delete the similar image from the database and appeal, and simply mention you have deleted the similar image as you feel the newer image is better quality, although I'd be more confident if another crew member could confirm that.

[hdgrubb]

Dear Erwin,

Please look on the right shoulder of the pilot in the cockpit.
Please look also on the number "492" on the second photo (The closeup shot) It's not in the shade in my opinion.

So, from which direction light is coming from?

The sun was definitely behind me, on the right side, and not opposite me.

Best regards,
Erez.

But the shadows are not angled right for the sun to be behind you. They suggest the sun is directly in front of the aircraft.

[Felipe Garcia]

Felipe, that was me who left the comment, as far as I am aware, you can delete the similar image from the database and appeal, and simply mention you have deleted the similar image as you feel the newer image is better quality, although I'd be more confident if another crew member could confirm that.

Same here, just don't want to do that only to find out that I did it the wrong way.

Thanks Dave!

[ErezS]

But the shadows are not angled right for the sun to be behind you. They suggest the sun is directly in front of the aircraft.

Hans, (And all other respondents),

Let's assume that you're right, it's still not backlit ...

By the way, Is it a case of "Black and White"?
Or perhaps it might be a borderline case?

It's clear to me one hundred percent that sunlight does not come opposite.

So I allow myself to think it's exactly the case to think "outside the box".

Best regards,
Erez.

[brianw999]

Erez,
The shadows show that the sun is quite clearly straight on the nose and is also quite low. The cross-section of the aircraft defines why the rear is backlit/in shadow and the nose is not. This little diagram shows why....




If the sun had been higher you would probably have had a better lit side to the aircraft. The combination of the low and head on sun has caused the shading.

[ErezS]

Erez,
The shadows show that the sun is quite clearly straight on the nose and is also quite low. The cross-section of the aircraft defines why the rear is backlit/in shadow and the nose is not. This little diagram shows why....

...
If the sun had been higher you would probably have had a better lit side to the aircraft. The combination of the low and head on sun has caused the shading.

Brian,

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I really appreciate it.
In all honesty, I have no intention to argue.

I absolutely agree, the sunlight's conditions in these photos it's not the ideal.

But I see on the database, over time, many photos with sunlight's conditions like in these photos, or so, more or less.

So I thought and I still thinking, that with a thinking outside the box have you little space on the database for these photos.

But as I wrote above, I do not want to argue, therefore I rest my case in this issue.

Best regards,
Erez.

[Brenden S]

Erez, I did write you a very long message saying to you that with nearly 7000 photos in the database you should fully understand back lighting conditions. You are certainly not new to this, and we have been extremely lenient to you during the screening process. People who genuinely try the best we know about and screen to a standard that fits across the complete site.

[ErezS]

Hi,
Is it too much or too little ?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3906103

In my opinion it's good contrast.
So, what do you say about it ?


and now another rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3906394

I'm not see too much noise or grain.
Where do you see it?
I am photographing with a Canon 450D camera and with 70-200L lens and usually I haven't such problem.
Is it so bad?


Best regards,
Erez

[Felipe Garcia]

and now another rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3906394

I'm not see too much noise or grain.
Where do you see it?
I am photographing with a Canon 450D camera and with 70-200L lens and usually I haven't such problem.
Is it so bad?


Best regards,
Erez

I see quite a bit of it. It looks like you may have cropped an area that was smaller than the final size (eg it was 1100px wide and you forced it to be 1200px wide), sorry, I can't find the right word in English for that; or, you created a crop that was nearly 1:1, which will cause a lot more defects (like noise, heat distortion, etc) to show.

Obviously I'm not a screener, but that is my opinion. I took your image and applied to 100% passes of Dfine 2.0 (noise reduction) and it improved, but you do get a significant decrease in details.

[ErezS]

Hi,
Is it too much or too little ?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3906103

In my opinion it's good contrast.
So, what do you say about it ?


another rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3906394

I'm not see too much noise or grain.
Where do you see it?
I am photographing with a Canon 450D camera and with 70-200L lens and usually I haven't such problem.
Is it so bad?


Best regards,
Erez

-

I see quite a bit of it. It looks like you may have cropped an area that was smaller than the final size (eg it was 1100px wide and you forced it to be 1200px wide), sorry, I can't find the right word in English for that; or, you created a crop that was nearly 1:1, which will cause a lot more defects (like noise, heat distortion, etc) to show.

Obviously I'm not a screener, but that is my opinion. I took your image and applied to 100% passes of Dfine 2.0 (noise reduction) and it improved, but you do get a significant decrease in details.

Felipe,
Thank you, but I waiting to answers on two issues from the screening crew members, please.
Thanks in advance.
Erez.

[Simpleboy]

Hi,
Is it too much or too little ?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3906103

In my opinion it's good contrast.
So, what do you say about it ?


and now another rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3906394

I'm not see too much noise or grain.
Where do you see it?
I am photographing with a Canon 450D camera and with 70-200L lens and usually I haven't such problem.
Is it so bad?


Best regards,
Erez

First one, as indicated to you by the screener requires some more dark dones. Not a huge amount, and would probably be best done with the curves than the contrast tool. This should be an easy fix.

The second one not only has noise, but looks like it was originally blurry, and sharpened to within an inch of its life. This has brought out the noise, but has also resulted in a poor quality image. This unfortunately is one for the personal collection.

[ErezS]

First one, as indicated to you by the screener requires some more dark dones. Not a huge amount, and would probably be best done with the curves than the contrast tool. This should be an easy fix.

The second one not only has noise, but looks like it was originally blurry, and sharpened to within an inch of its life. This has brought out the noise, but has also resulted in a poor quality image. This unfortunately is one for the personal collection.

Thanks,
Is it better now ?

[Simpleboy]

Thanks,
Is it better now ?

Much.