Airliners.net Rejection

[TonyO]

It's well worth the effort of uploading photos there, the exposure of images is unparalleled compared to any other database website.

[apgphoto]

And if your a screener it doesn't matter about dust spots *cough*

http://www.airliners.net/photo/MK-Airli ... 1708484/L/

[Ben Montgomery]

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 0028bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Grainy in the shadows"

What do you reckon?

I'm not sure, but don't want to just send in an appeal if you guys can see their point as well.

[SteveS]

Hmm, I think I can see some graining under the fuselage and the port flap - not much though.

Steve

[Ben Montgomery]

Right - thanks for that Steve. That's probably what they are referring too!

[SteveS]

Speaking of wacky decisions, I know for a fact I've over-sharpened the back end of this Tiffie which was accepted yesterday -

[Ben Montgomery]

Got that C-5 shot I was talking about earlier on, as well as 3 others.

[nick197]

I had these two rejected today

Reasons:
Dark
contrast
Info, wrong reg??? 96205
and this one

Reason:
Soft
Dark
Contrast

[nick197]

Going to try and get these on, What are my chances .

[Ben Montgomery]

That F-16 is nice Nick!! I'd say it would get on but then what do I know!

Think the second might be slightly oversharpened? Not sure.

[Ben Montgomery]

Just had this rejected for "Borders"

Screeners comment was "right side". What?

[Ben Montgomery]

Actually dont worry, I see what he means! You can't see it on this page (light background) but on the A.net page there is a 1px grey border down the right hand side. Havn't the foggiest how it got there though, this image was cropped from the middle of the original!

Ah well, just a simple reupload and hopefully second time lucky.

[Ben Montgomery]

Never!! Must....submit....to A.net...

Im not too bothered by it to be honest, it just gives me something to do as a revision break.

[TonyO]

nck197:

F-16 is probably worth a go, but the Tucano is clearly blurred and won't be accepted regardless how much its sharpened.

As for the F-15 the correct serial is '96-0205', as for the contrasts, its looks like you've tried to lighten it up, try and make the blacks as black as possible, while the RN Hawk is definately soft, although I would say it was blurred looking at the lettering on the middle of the fuselage, as for the rest its difficult because you were shooting into the light, what little there was.

[nick197]

ok thanks, i shall try and improve

[BOLLO]

I've had this rejected off AIRFIGHTERS,can any one point out what they think may be wrong with it as can not see any thing wrong with it.

[SteveS]

There might be a slight red cast to it? If you look at the clouds, they look slightly red. Maybe a little bit soft as well?

Steve

[Ben Montgomery]

Tiny bit of compression on the tail MAYBE Paul, but apart from that??

[DeanW]

I'd say that C-17 needs a little bit of clockwise rotation too.

[Macc]

All that technical s t like a small 1px border to reject something and a photo like this.. - http://www.airliners.net/photo/Saudi-Ar ... 2f8a212ee0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; gets through.

Unsharp and overexposed, taken with digital in 2009 and hardly that rare anymore..