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

[pvupilot]

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!

[Oliver P.]

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.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Oliver P.

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.

Originally Posted by Oliver P.

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.

[Fredda9000]

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

[magic48]

Originally Posted by Fredda9000

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.

[pvupilot]

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

[pdeboer]

'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

[Geo-G]

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

[Oliver P.]

Originally Posted by AJ

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.

[hdgrubb]

Originally Posted by Geo-G

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

[Simpleboy]

Originally Posted by Geo-G

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.

[Atamvir Multani]

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

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Atamvir Multani

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.

[mtaylor334]

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

[pdeboer]

Originally Posted by mtaylor334

Would love some help/advice on this one

It really is soft and can be easily fixed with some sharpening.

cheers, Pamela

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.

[Fredda9000]

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

[Simpleboy]

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.

Originally Posted by Simpleboy

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?

[Fredda9000]

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.