Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you! - Page 151 - JetPhotos.Net Forums

PMN · 04-28-2010, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Liepa

I got this shot rejected for bad composition, can someone explain what is actually wrong with it.

Hi Zach,

Possibly a slightly harsh rejection but not one I can say I disagree with as such. The angle of the plane and the fact it's sitting ever so slightly high in the frame means there's quite a bit of dead space underneath. I think this could benefit from either placing the aircraft a little lower in the frame or rotating counter-clockwise slightly (or possibly a bit of both). Try adding a touch more sharpness as well just to bring a bit more detail out, a pass of USM at around 50% with a radius of 0.3 should do it.

Paul

Zach Liepa · 04-28-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMN

Hi Zach,

Possibly a slightly harsh rejection but not one I can say I disagree with as such. The angle of the plane and the fact it's sitting ever so slightly high in the frame means there's quite a bit of dead space underneath. I think this could benefit from either placing the aircraft a little lower in the frame or rotating counter-clockwise slightly (or possibly a bit of both). Try adding a touch more sharpness as well just to bring a bit more detail out, a pass of USM at around 50% with a radius of 0.3 should do it.

Paul

Thanks Paul for the explanation, I have re-edited so would it be acceptable now?

Thanks, Zach

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2730574...27270/sizes/o/

PMN · 04-28-2010, 12:59 PM

Looks OK to me, Zach.

Paul

Joop · 04-28-2010, 05:48 PM

Hello all,

can anyone explain me what is dark about this photo?
Thanks in advance,
Joop

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2969576

PMN · 04-28-2010, 06:11 PM

Joop, the highlights are fine but the mid tones and shadows look a little too contrasty. If you lighten the mid tones a bit then that should help.

Paul

Bjorn1979 · 04-28-2010, 08:27 PM

Hello everybody,

Can someone explain to me why i got this rejected for horizon unlevel ?
I'm thinking about appealing this one but i'm not sure

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2970694

Kind regards,

Bjorn

cja · 04-28-2010, 10:10 PM

Bjorn,

That's a tough one. I would say that the aircraft appears to be going uphill but there are no clear vertical references to go by. An appeal might just go your way, (but there are no guarantees).

Bjorn1979 · 04-28-2010, 10:23 PM

Okay thanks for your reaction. I justed appeald it, now i just have to wait

Bjorn

Joop · 05-01-2010, 04:54 AM

Hello,

I got below rejected because of too much or too little contrast. Can someone explain me why and what I should do to improve it?

Thanks in avance,
Joop

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2973051

Rtyrpics · 05-01-2010, 06:41 AM

Hiya Joop,
The KLM is lacking contrast, looking at the histogram we can see the graph does not spread all the way across the graph.

I have moved the black slider to a value of 24.
I have moved the white slider to a value of 216.

The image also appears quiet oversharpened.

Hope this helps.
Ryan

Joop · 05-01-2010, 07:40 AM

Thanks Ryan!

Derice · 05-01-2010, 09:23 PM

This image has been rejected. I however disagree on the reasons. I appealed but that was rejected without further comment.

Image looks fine on my screen, not to dark and not to much contrast.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2975000

PMN · 05-01-2010, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derice

This image has been rejected. I however disagree on the reasons. I appealed but that was rejected without further comment.

Image looks fine on my screen, not to dark and not to much contrast.

It doesn't look fine on my iMac screen. The shadows are too strong and the mid tones need lightening. It was rightfully rejected but can be acceptable with appropriate correction.

Zach Liepa · 05-02-2010, 06:44 AM

Hi,

Got this shot rejected for being soft and I was going to appeal it but just wanted to check what you thought first as, to me, it is definately not soft.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2974881

Rtyrpics · 05-02-2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Liepa

Hi,

Got this shot rejected for being soft and I was going to appeal it but just wanted to check what you thought first as, to me, it is definately not soft.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2974881

Hiya Zach,
I am with the screeners on this one, however I do think its just the side of borderline. However the further along the fuselage the softer the photo seems to get. If you look at the number 3 engine and the window line just a I have done 6 passes at these settings
Amount 25%
Radius 0.3

Hope that helps.
Ryan

PS - The titles are now slightly oversharpened, but just so you can visualize the photo with a little more sharpening.

PMN · 05-02-2010, 11:30 AM

Hmm... That's definitely a touch too much sharpening, Ryan!

I'll be honest, I think that rejection is possibly a little harsh although I do agree with ryan that it's borderline. In my sad, purist ways I'm not a fan of messing with those poor compressed bits of digital information any more than is absolutely necessary, so (while it works fine for some) personally I'm really not into the idea of doing 5 or 6 passes of USM because you're processing more and more with each successive pass, and JPEG's by their compressed nature don't really like to be processed. On an image like this I'd rather do 1 pass at around 40%, 0.3 just to add a little more clarity, although obviously re-editing from the original will give you the best results.

Paul

Zach Liepa · 05-02-2010, 12:35 PM

Thanks Paul and Ryan for the help

I have sharpened the photo so is it ok now?

Thanks, Zach

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2730574...73872/sizes/o/

Scandinavian · 05-02-2010, 04:18 PM

Anyway I can fix these to an acceptable standard for this site? Both were btw accepted over at airliners.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2976130

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2973394

brianw999 · 05-02-2010, 06:20 PM

As is my wont ("arse about face Whitelegg" is a known nickname for me !!! ) ...I'll talk about the second shot first.

Very definitely breaks the backlit rules for JP. Shame really because I quite like it but "rools is rools" !

The first shot is a bit more difficult. Strictly speaking, it's toplit as evidenced by the roof lighting rather than truely backlit. Try brightening the midtones to a value of around 1.30. Then apply +25 of contrast followed by 2 - 3 passes of USM sharpening at 50_0.2_0.

As far as I can see that's about the only way it might make it here...and because it was accepted at Anet means not a lot. Some of our acceptances they reject...and vice versa. At least our screening tools are far more robust

.

Derice · 05-02-2010, 07:51 PM

I've had these images rejected twice now.

PH-BFK:
1. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2964339
2. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2976284

PH-BXT:
1. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2964345
2. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2976289

The first rejections I agreed with, and on those rejection reasons I acted. Corrected the rejection reasons outlined.
So after I changed it, I assumed these images would be accepted (after a week in the queue).

Today they got rejected again for totally different reasons (that can't be the result of the corrections I've made). This feels really frustrating.
Had I known these reasons all at once, I would have either acted on them or wouldn't have spend time on correcting these images at all.
In my opinion these are worthy of JP.

How come there is such inconsistency in the screening process?

I also appealed to the rejection, but that got rejected without further comments (feels rude). I still disagree on the rejection.
Hope one of you guys can clarify the reasons and the inconsistency.