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

[Alberto U.]

I've had my fair share of rejections, but the only one that I was wondering if it was worth an appeal was this one;

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3904840

What do you think? Worth an appeal or does should I re edit?

best rgds,

ALberto

Originally Posted by B7772ADL

Erez,

Jan is only telling you how it is. The photo is soft/blurry. We can give you composition advice if that's all you want but it wont solve the soft/blurry problem will it? Your persistance in not wanting to listen to the screeners is really infuriating sometimes. And please don't go blaming the language barrier...you do understand...it's your willingness to not accept advice that is the issue.

Good morning...

Unfortunately it's not accurate what you wrote.
I actually really want to learn and willing to accept recommendations.
I don't go blaming the language barrier...But the language barrier is actually one of my problems. Or It's maybe a difference in mentality, not a language barrier.

I think that the main problem is different: there are things you can see, and in all fairness I'll say I do not see them, and can not see them.
Also, I'm not blaming anyone, and never I'm not blamed anyone.
And when anybody wrote here that I have more than 7000 images on the database, and I have to be "expert" ... Yeah sure, but a large part of that number were accepted many years ago when there was no clear criteria and the site accept almost every shot... Also I have no doubt about worsening in recent decisions.

And although you might have expected from me that I should be professional, I take the liberty with all humility to say:
Yes, I already have over 7000 pictures on this site, but I'm still an amateur photographer, On my long way to this number I had many mistakes and failures, not only successes, and unfortunately I'm still no expert in photography, and still not an expert in working with Photoshop.

If a person have difficulties it's does not mean he does not want or not willing to learn, I think that we should respect any person even if it has errors and failures, and he is not ashamed to show his mistakes and ask questions.

So, I've always written in the forum in my messages that I have respect to everyone, but on the other hand I also expect to respect, and unfortunately sometimes I see a little contempt in some of the answers .
Of course it's just in a small part of the answers, but also it causes disappointment, and don't helps so much to learning.

In summary this answer, I'm just old human... maybe I have many mistakes...
Thanks everyone about all suggestions, about all the answers, and about all the help.

All the best,
Erez.

PS
I would like to emphasize that for a very important point:
It is possible that there are problems you can see, but I do not see.
That seems a logical thought, Is not it?

[Simpleboy]

Originally Posted by Alberto U.

I've had my fair share of rejections, but the only one that I was wondering if it was worth an appeal was this one;

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3904840

What do you think? Worth an appeal or does should I re edit?

best rgds,

ALberto

Hey Alberto,

While parts are indeed sharp enough, it definitely could use some selective sharpening. Areas which catch my eye as being soft include, engines, vertical stabilizer, and between the main landing gears.

[Alberto U.]

Originally Posted by Simpleboy

Hey Alberto,

While parts are indeed sharp enough, it definitely could use some selective sharpening. Areas which catch my eye as being soft include, engines, vertical stabilizer, and between the main landing gears.

thanks! will take the advice and re edit.

all the best,

Alberto

[TomEPKK]

Thank you for reply.

[Fredda9000]

Got this rejected a while ago for unlevel. To my eys stuff is leaning in all directions so can anyone tell me how much ad in what direction I should rotate it.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3907404

[magic48]

Originally Posted by Fredda9000

Got this rejected a while ago for unlevel. To my eys stuff is leaning in all directions so can anyone tell me how much ad in what direction I should rotate it.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3907404

Using the verticals in the middle of the frame, I'd rotate it 1° CCW. I'd also brighten it up a bit.

[Oliver P.]

So even though the airport and all of Boston is in the frame, this should not be labeled as in Boston?

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3922069

Thanks for the help.

[pdeboer]

It should be labelled as KBOS, unless the airport is clearly in view, which isn't the case here.

[Oliver P.]

Originally Posted by pdeboer

It should be labelled as KBOS, unless the airport is clearly in view, which isn't the case here.

OK...still a little confused. What should I upload the location as? I put in KBOS for this one and it was rejected.

Thanks again for the clarification.

[pdeboer]

Sorry Oliver, understand you confusion I should have said: It should not be labelled KBOS,...
Because the airport is not in clear view, it should be labelled as Inflight

[BangaloreAviation]

Greetings.

I am unable to understand why this photo has been rejected for "Bad Processing / Over Processing". Any help and suggestions please?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3924173

Similarly, this one for "part of aircraft cut off". Should I bring the crop closer to the engines?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3924138

On this reject, with the screeners kind permissions, I offer one suggestion. Once rejected we cannot see what category mistakes we have done. Wrong tick mark in the wrong box, it will be helpful if the screeners put a comment with the rejection on what category is missing. Helps us learn and improve.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3924225

Also on this photo, I have used the radar tower on the far left of the shot as a vertical reference, but still face rejection due to "horizon unlevel". What should I use as a reference? In the submission, I had indicated in the comments to screener about the radar tower.

Thanks in advance.

[Simpleboy]

Originally Posted by BangaloreAviation

Greetings.

I am unable to understand why this photo has been rejected for "Bad Processing / Over Processing". Any help and suggestions please?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3924173

Similarly, this one for "part of aircraft cut off". Should I bring the crop closer to the engines?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3924138

On this reject, with the screeners kind permissions, I offer one suggestion. Once rejected we cannot see what category mistakes we have done. Wrong tick mark in the wrong box, it will be helpful if the screeners put a comment with the rejection on what category is missing. Helps us learn and improve.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3924225

Also on this photo, I have used the radar tower on the far left of the shot as a vertical reference, but still face rejection due to "horizon unlevel". What should I use as a reference? In the submission, I had indicated in the comments to screener about the radar tower.

Thanks in advance.

Hello Devesh
Photo 1, Everything but the a/c appears like its been painted with watercolour, this may be from doing a blur to removed noise or a type of noise reduction. It is especially obvious around the cockpit.
Photo 2, A closer crop would work better.
Photo 3, requires some CCW rotation. When using short vertical references you must still evaluate the photo as a whole. As for categories, I am unable to see what was checked as well.

Hope this helps

Hi,

This time I will just briefly:

I guess I really do not see good ...

I see two beautiful pictures (1) (2) when the main objects are not blurry at all, may have blurred propellers, but it is a kind of acceptable pictures. Or did I not understand what the problems here.

Have a nice day,
Erez.

[brianw999]

Originally Posted by ErezS

Hi,

This time I will just briefly:

I guess I really do not see good ...

I see two beautiful pictures (1) (2) when the main objects are not blurry at all, may have blurred propellers, but it is a kind of acceptable pictures. Or did I not understand what the problems here.

Have a nice day,
Erez.

Hi Erez,

No 1. The aircraft body is soft, most easily seen in the number on the nose which is not clearly defined.

No 2. The front end is blurry and out of focus. I would also have considered a backlit reject here as well as most of the fuselage is in quite deep shadow.

Originally Posted by brianw999

Hi Erez,

No 1. The aircraft body is soft, most easily seen in the number on the nose which is not clearly defined.

No 2. The front end is blurry and out of focus. I would also have considered a backlit reject here as well as most of the fuselage is in quite deep shadow.

Dear Brian,

Thanks for the answer, I'm afraid that I really not see all of these things like you, but thanks anyway.

Best regards,
Erez.

[Fredda9000]

Got a few rejected for unlevel in the past days but there is one that makes me a little confused because it's the second time it gets rejected and this time after following magic48's advice above, are both photos unlevel?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3928631

The edit first rejected is attached below.

[Fredda9000]

Isn't there anyone who can help me with the rejection above?

[pdeboer]

Originally Posted by Fredda9000

Got a few rejected for unlevel in the past days but there is one that makes me a little confused because it's the second time it gets rejected and this time after following magic48's advice above, are both photos unlevel?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3928631

The edit first rejected is attached below.

I always use a vertical in the middle, in this image there is a pole that suits. In the first edit it leans a tad tot the right, on the second somewhat to the left. I think 1 degree CCW was to much for the initial edit, try 0,4 , and then check if the pole is straight.

[Siegi N.]

Hello all,

Ask for an explanation, what is the problem with this photo?
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3933624

Regards,
Siegi.