Airliners.net Rejection

[Ben Montgomery]

Just for comparison - here is my Raptor that got accepted. Virtually identical in terms of lighting and sharpness!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Ai ... 41cea423b5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ben Montgomery]

My turn to be peeved.

I had this (and a similar photo of the other one) rejected for "Category":

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... f171bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I added the category "Colourful Special" - which apparently applies to the Hawk Display jet, but not to these???

EDIT: I'm a muppet and forgot to add Single Engine Prop. That'll teach me!

[Ben Montgomery]

Can someone explain to me how the hell this got accepted, and when did the Red Arrows change to Green smoke?!!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air ... 1780057/L/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You think thats bad - foreground clutter anyone? Just beyond me how that got accepted.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermar ... 2fa095ec2d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DeanW]

I got this Tucano shot rejected for category and the appeal rejected too! I'd selected military, colourful scheme and single engine prop - what did I do wrong?!

[POL]

I got this Tucano shot rejected for category and the appeal rejected too! I'd selected military, colourful scheme and single engine prop - what did I do wrong?!

You didn't clone in any green smoke!

[DeanW]

Ha maybe that's where I'm going wrong! Maybe it's just me but it feels like recently they've made it even harder to get photos accepted.

[Macc]

Can someone explain to me how the hell this got accepted, and when did the Red Arrows change to Green smoke?!!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air ... 1780057/L/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You think thats bad - foreground clutter anyone? Just beyond me how that got accepted.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Supermar ... 2fa095ec2d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How? Just, how?

[Ben Montgomery]

This was rejected for "dark":

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... r728bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


No, really?

Brighten it any more and you completely blow out the detail in the front section (roundel, for example).

Worth an appeal, or just not really the right photo for A.net?

[Phill318]

Had this one rejected for Soft and Rotation.
I can see that it need rotating so I'll do that but I can't see it being soft
How about you guys.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... anding.jpg

Also had this rejected for being dark.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... aunch1.jpg

Not sure about that one.

[Mike]

That's mad ! They are both fantastic shots,this one was the 3rd most viewed shot earlier (a chuffin' staircase !).

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Fran ... bf079832e5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Phill318]

Probably because people on these sort of threads are linking to it saying how annoying it is

[The Phantom]

That's mad ! They are both fantastic shots,this one was the 3rd most viewed shot earlier (a chuffin' staircase !).

That is a nice staircase though...

[viper3111]

Another 2 rejected,

To cap it of the patronising email that goes with it sickens me. Im not going to bother with them any more after some of the crap pictures that have been accepted.

[Ben Montgomery]

Had this rejected for "editing"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 027bm2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't see what they mean at all!

It must be an upload error, as looking at the shot as I saved it on my computer, that light bit at the bottom isn't there!

[viper3111]

Mine were rejected for level, apparently it wasnt level and soft.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 885199.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 582215.jpg

I know I ware glasses but to me they arnt soft and they look level to me. Maybe there screen is on the pee?

[POL]

Not sure about soft for either of them, but my screen makes everything pin sharp anyway!

First one, how you'd level that I don't know, the perspective is just wrong!
Second one needs a tad of CCW. Use the vertical wall to the left of the shot to gauge it.

[POL]

Had this rejected for "editing"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 027bm2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't see what they mean at all!

It must be an upload error, as looking at the shot as I saved it on my computer, that light bit at the bottom isn't there!

That's a darn server fault!

[DeanW]

Mine were rejected for level, apparently it wasnt level and soft.
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 885199.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 582215.jpg

I know I ware glasses but to me they arnt soft and they look level to me. Maybe there screen is on the pee?

I'd say they need a fair amount of anti-clockwise rotation, especially the Hunter, so that the yellow struts are vertical and not on the slant. Hope that helps!

[viper3111]

I personally dont agree with editing pictures with my pc as it defeats the object of photography. If I took a bad picture then thats my fault and I will learn from it but I dont see the point of altering it. I only use my PC to view photos and to upload them to FC.

[POL]

I personally dont agree with editing pictures with my pc as it defeats the object of photography. If I took a bad picture then thats my fault and I will learn from it but I dont see the point of altering it. I only use my PC to view photos and to upload them to FC.

Any photo that comes out of a digital camera will need post-processing (Usually referred to wrongly as editing) - A bit of UnSharp Mask, contrast, etc. If the picture is seriously c***, then it goes in the bin. The only real exception (In my eyes) is rotation, but only because it's darn annoying looking at things with a slant