Old 05-05-2012, 08:26 PM   #4861
pvupilot
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!
__________________
pvupilot is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:04 AM   #4862
Oliver P.
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.
__________________
Oliver P. is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 03:43 AM   #4863
AJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,207



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.
AJ is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:46 PM   #4864
Fredda9000
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 53



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
__________________
Fredda9000 is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 02:02 PM   #4865
magic48
Jetphotos.Net Crew
 
magic48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,322



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.
__________________

magic48 is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 04:34 PM   #4866
pvupilot
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
__________________
pvupilot is offline  
Old 05-06-2012, 04:53 PM   #4867
pdeboer
JetPhotos.Net Crew
 
pdeboer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: near EHAM/AMS
Posts: 3,403



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
__________________
pdeboer is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 11:54 AM   #4868
Geo-G
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
Geo-G is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 02:09 PM   #4869
Oliver P.
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.
__________________
Oliver P. is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 03:13 AM   #4870
hdgrubb
JetPhotos.Net Crew
 
hdgrubb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lawrenceville, GA
Posts: 502



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
__________________

flickr

Last edited by hdgrubb; 11-24-2012 at 01:29 AM.
hdgrubb is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 05:42 AM   #4871
Simpleboy
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
Simpleboy is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 07:10 AM   #4872
Atamvir Multani
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 128
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
__________________
Atamvir Multani is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 08:58 AM   #4873
AJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,207



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.
AJ is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 12:07 PM   #4874
mtaylor334
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 34



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
mtaylor334 is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 02:31 PM   #4875
pdeboer
JetPhotos.Net Crew
 
pdeboer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: near EHAM/AMS
Posts: 3,403



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
__________________
pdeboer is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 06:22 AM   #4876
ErezS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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
 
Old 05-12-2012, 07:24 PM   #4877
Fredda9000
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 53



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
__________________
Fredda9000 is offline  
Old 05-12-2012, 09:55 PM   #4878
Simpleboy
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
Simpleboy is offline  
Old 05-13-2012, 04:38 AM   #4879
ErezS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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?
 
Old 05-13-2012, 08:03 AM   #4880
Fredda9000
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 53



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.
__________________
Fredda9000 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright JetPhotos.Net 2003-2011