Airliners.net Rejection

[Ben Montgomery]

Just had a mass bunch of "Soft" rejections. Thing that confuses me is I havn't changed my editing technique, and they look just as sharp as the ones I have accepted.

Did I get a harsh screener, or are they all actually soft, and I can't see it?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 0130bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 3519bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 8033bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 0086bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plus another two similar ones in the appeal queue (which I think are sharper than the above).

[awacsfan]

Ben, they look good to me on my monitor and not soft at all. Had a bunch of mine rejected for the same reason while other passed with the same editing technique. Guess it all depends on the screener but it's quite frustrating I have to admit.

[garethbrum]

4 out of 5 accepted from my last batch - and I forgot to tick the cargo category for the fifth one, very annoying!

[Ben Montgomery]

4 out of 5 accepted from my last batch - and I forgot to tick the cargo category for the fifth one, very annoying!

That is one thing that gets me about these sites, surely the screener can just tick a box if you have forgotten it? Takes next to no time, and would cut down on the amount of irritation from people uploading? It's caught me out a few times, and is extremely frustrating!

[KarlADrage]

Hey Ben,

I reckon your first one's fair enough - quite a few soft spots on it, IMHO. Second one's the harshest for me. It would benefit from a little more sharpening, but I wouldn't describe it as being soft. Third one, few soft spots due to efflux? Last one looks a bit soft around the nose and down (what you can see) of the starboard side of the fuselage.

Just my 2p...

[Ben Montgomery]

I suppose considering it the other way - if they had to do it on hundreds of photos a day, the time would slowly clock up?

In odds with all my rejection complaints - I've had a pleasant surprise for once! Got my B-1B shot accepted, and is currently sitting on the front page in the Top 5. Considering I didn't even think it would get accepted, I'm quite proud of it! (NOTE: Yes, this is a shameless plug! )

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

[DeltaCharlieKilo]

Just had a look at that B-1B shot Ben. Excellent. Currently No. 3 by the way. Well done.

[SteveS]

Can someone explain how this got accepted?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 791997.jpg

It's not even in focus, look at the tail!

[MarkG]

Can someone explain how this got accepted?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 791997.jpg

It's not even in focus, look at the tail!

Looks like one of your shots Steve

[SteveS]

That's what I mean!

[DeanW]

Had a shot rejected for contrast and soft..
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... riat09.jpg
I can see that maybe it needs another little kick of USM but whats the contrast all about?!

[Seamus]

More rejections, all for contrast. The first two included category, so I'm assuming these are not warbirds then? The Demon seemed to be the first time I uploaded a shot of it.....

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 10_034.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 10_058.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This one they decided was not level. The runway looks level to me, perhaps the screener doesn't realise the Sea Hawk sits nose up?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 10_016.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I really don't see any problem with the contrast, so if I missing something I'd appreciate some feedback

[vortex003]

I've superimposed the grid in photoshop


Follow the line across the top edge of the runway - it's a teeny bit out.(Assuming that's what they are referring to)

[SteveS]

Yeah, I just did the same thing with the bottom of the "window". It's a tiny bit out. First two rejections are very harsh though.

[Ben Montgomery]

More rejections, all for contrast. The first two included category, so I'm assuming these are not warbirds then? The Demon seemed to be the first time I uploaded a shot of it.....

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 10_034.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 10_058.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This one they decided was not level. The runway looks level to me, perhaps the screener doesn't realise the Sea Hawk sits nose up?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 10_016.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I really don't see any problem with the contrast, so if I missing something I'd appreciate some feedback

Did you include single engine prop for the first two? I didn't on some Tucano shots, forgot about it, then got confused as I thought they were being rejected for "colourful special" (they were display birds).

[Seamus]

Cheers guys,

Fair dos then with the Sea Hawk, will sort that out. As for the category, I don't think I did anything different from the other warbirds I've had accepted regarding the category, indeed I've had a Spitfire shot accepted using the same categories as those rejected. It's a PITA that you can't re-upload shots with a new category when that's the reason for rejection.

Speaking up re-uplaod, I've sorted the dust spot they found on the Yak below (good luck finding it btw), but doesn't seem to like the ID and/or e-mail address I've entered, both of which are correct?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 10_078.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Had 9 out of 10 shots rejected from my latest batch, pretty rubbish really....

[KarlADrage]

Had a shot rejected for contrast and soft..
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... riat09.jpg
I can see that maybe it needs another little kick of USM but whats the contrast all about?!

Dean - I'm not one for lifting the shadows but the underside looks extremely dark to me....

[KarlADrage]

I really don't see any problem with the contrast, so if I missing something I'd appreciate some feedback

Hey Shaun,

Your two look the exact opposite of Dean's to me; they've got a rather 'washed out' feel about them.

[DeanW]

Dean - I'm not one for lifting the shadows but the underside looks extremely dark to me....

Thanks Karl, much appreciated. Half the time I get rejected for contrast and never know what they mean!

[Seamus]

Ditto what Dean said Karl, I've tweaked the contrast a bit and re-uploaded them, so will see what they say.

As for my category rejections, seems I was being a donut and not ticking the right boxes all along