Page 244 of 283 FirstFirst ... 144 194 234242243244245246 254 ... LastLast
Results 4,861 to 4,880 of 5648

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

  1. #4861
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Thanks a million! I just learned a ton more about making the right edits to a photo, never thought of the cropping size to take away uninteresting parts of the photo. I will give the photo you did a try, thanks a ton again!
    <CENTER><SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' SRC='http://www.jetphotos.net/jp_forum_sign.php?photogid=61410' TYPE='text/javascript'></SCRIPT></CENTER>

  2. #4862
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Hi,

    Just a couple questions. Re-equalized this guy and I cannot see any dust spots (I often miss a few).

    http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8159/7...72a45f6e_o.jpg

    Also, I did not cut anything off here, so what should I do to fix this one in the future?

    http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3821539

    Thanks for the advice as always.
    <CENTER><SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' SRC='http://www.jetphotos.net/jp_forum_sign.php?photogid=27650' TYPE='text/javascript'></SCRIPT></CENTER>

  3. #4863
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver P. View Post
    Hi,

    Just a couple questions. Re-equalized this guy and I cannot see any dust spots (I often miss a few).

    http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8159/7...72a45f6e_o.jpg
    Looks like the culprit is behind the left stab tip.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver P. View Post
    Also, I did not cut anything off here, so what should I do to fix this one in the future?

    http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3821539

    Thanks for the advice as always.
    Nothing to do with 'cut off' parts, it's to do with the ratio. Yours is 1024px 671px and the minimum is 1024px 683px.

  4. #4864
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Got this one rejected for oversharpen today. I'm having a hard time to find where it's oversharpen. Can anyone please tell me so I can fix it.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3828785

  5. #4865
    Jetphotos.Net Crew magic48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredda9000 View Post
    Got this one rejected for oversharpen today. I'm having a hard time to find where it's oversharpen. Can anyone please tell me so I can fix it.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3828785
    I'd appeal it.


  6. #4866
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Got this one rejected for over processed with a screener remark of "halos". Now I can see what they mean by over processed and I'll have to do a complete redo of the photo but I've never seen the remark "halos" and can't seem to see what they are talking about with it here.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3828374
    <CENTER><SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' SRC='http://www.jetphotos.net/jp_forum_sign.php?photogid=61410' TYPE='text/javascript'></SCRIPT></CENTER>

  7. #4867
    JetPhotos.Net Crew pdeboer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    near EHAM/AMS
    Posts
    3,658

    Default

    'Halos' is often used to say there is a halo visible, most around the aircraft, but sometimes also around other structures like a tree line.
    In this photo: above the top of the fuselage and around the vertical tail stab you can see a dark area. At the underside of the aircraft and around the wings a lighter area. Together this makes a sort of halo.

    cheers, Pamela

  8. #4868
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Hi guys, first post

    Keep getting rejections for undersharpened (soft).

    Can someone tell me where this one went wrong?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3815726

    Thanks

  9. #4869
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJ View Post
    Looks like the culprit is behind the left stab tip.


    Nothing to do with 'cut off' parts, it's to do with the ratio. Yours is 1024px 671px and the minimum is 1024px 683px.
    Thanks for the scoop on both....with help from another set of eyes I found the stab tip problem moments later, and the cropping issue was definitely my bad.
    <CENTER><SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' SRC='http://www.jetphotos.net/jp_forum_sign.php?photogid=27650' TYPE='text/javascript'></SCRIPT></CENTER>

  10. #4870
    Member hdgrubb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo-G View Post
    Hi guys, first post

    Keep getting rejections for undersharpened (soft).

    Can someone tell me where this one went wrong?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3815726

    Thanks
    Hey Geo, welcome!
    I'll let a screener give you the official word, but here is a quick re-edit of your upload. You can really see softness around windows, curves on fuselage and wingroots, titles and designs, anything with detail really. In this shot, it's most notable around the QantasLink and windows. The image might be considered blurry. Also, watch out for unlevel horizons

    Hope this helps!

    Hans
    Last edited by hdgrubb; 11-24-2012 at 02:29 AM.

  11. #4871
    Senior Member Simpleboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo-G View Post
    Hi guys, first post

    Keep getting rejections for undersharpened (soft).

    Can someone tell me where this one went wrong?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3815726

    Thanks
    To me it looks more blurry than soft. It can be seen pretty much over the entire a/c. Titles, windows, details arent as crisp as they should be. Without seeing the original it's a bit hard to determine if it can be brought up to DB standards.

    Also may i suggest uploading at 1024 pixels wide instead of 1200. The smaller size will make attaining the proper sharpness easier, as flaws stick out less.
    Sam Rudge
    A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash

  12. #4872
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Hi this shot got rejected in appeal for missing c/n

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3826618

    I hav filled the c/n and its clearly visible in the c/n column of pic.....any idea y rejecteD???

    thanks for ur time
    <center><script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.jetphotos.net/jp_forum_sign.php?photogid=56536" type="text/javascript"></script></center>

  13. #4873
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atamvir Multani View Post
    Hi this shot got rejected in appeal for missing c/n

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3826618

    I hav filled the c/n and its clearly visible in the c/n column of pic.....any idea y rejecteD???

    thanks for ur time
    Both the screener and the senior left you a note that you left a space after the CN. This corrupts the database.

  14. #4874
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    41

    Default Is this really soft?

    Hi there

    Would love some help/advice on this one:

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3831977

    I have tried to pan to get right speed for nice prop action, but has been rejected as being soft. It really does look sharp enough to me, or is that just my failing eye sight??

    Any help comments appreciated.

    Cheers
    Mark

  15. #4875
    JetPhotos.Net Crew pdeboer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    near EHAM/AMS
    Posts
    3,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtaylor334 View Post
    Would love some help/advice on this one
    It really is soft and can be easily fixed with some sharpening.

    cheers, Pamela

  16. #4876
    ErezS
    Guest

    Default About "Similar"

    Hi,
    A long time I did not ask questions here ...
    Now I asking something that it's difficult for me to understand.
    This shot was rejected about "similar".
    In my opinion I not have any similar photo on the database, so I appealed for it.

    Now It's rejected again, with comment:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your appeal for photo id 3825723 has been processed and has been rejected.
    Admin Comments >> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6782005
    >> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3825723
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    But, please note the big difference between two photos:
    The previous photo was taken during the landing, with his nose toward down, with the wheels down.

    The new photo was taken after takeoff, with his nose toward up, with the wheels up.

    So, why it's considered as "similar"?

    Best regards,
    Erez.

    PS
    It really does not help me and to other participants if there is no an answer after more than two and a half days.
    Last edited by ErezS; 05-12-2012 at 05:55 PM. Reason: Added PS

  17. #4877
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    56

    Default

    What categories did I get wrong on this one? I have fixed the other problems.
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3834984

  18. #4878
    Senior Member Simpleboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,060

    Default

    ErezS, what more do you want me to say? Three people have looked at it and all three have decided its a photo of the same plane, with the same background at pretty much the same angle and is therefore similar.

    Fredrik, a brief search of the database tells me that a/c is considered a special scheme.
    Sam Rudge
    A 5D3, some Canon lenses, the Sigma L and a flash

  19. #4879
    ErezS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleboy View Post
    ErezS, what more do you want me to say? Three people have looked at it and all three have decided its a photo of the same plane, with the same background at pretty much the same angle and is therefore similar.

    Fredrik, a brief search of the database tells me that a/c is considered a special scheme.
    I understood your answer, but unfortunately it's very difficult for me to agree with it.

    And if I may, about your response to Fredrik, I think that you're wrong, because there are only 10 photos of this aircraft on the database with "special scheme" category, only 10 of 62 photos [right now] All in all, while 52 photos are no markings as the "special scheme".
    Just for your information.

    Best regards,
    Erez.

    PS
    By the way, may I ask, because you do not unidentified, who are you?

  20. #4880
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    56

    Default

    With the fact ErezS pointed at, is the UR-WRG a special or not. Don't want another rejection for wrong category if I change it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •