It's the same as always:I should visit the photo rejection forum again sometime
>Nice pictures being rejected because 0.0000000005 degrees of rotation are needed (fixable), or a leave of grass is covering a single pixel of a wheel (Not_fixable).
>EVERY SINGLE PICTURE appears to have contrast issues (too low), and the lack of disctinct reasons for rejection gets on the nerves of some jetphotographers. Many are not salvageable for JP (like a white aeroplanie in a grey sky).
>Sharpness. All images are soft until they become oversharpened.
>Digital manipulation/overprocessing. Not_Karlie is always amused by the fact that every picture must be cropped, rotated, have its color-contrast-white balance-exposure-etc. adjusted, sharpened, have its dust pots cloned out, etc., without overprocessing or manipulating them.
Many of the imperfections listed above are invisible to my crappy screen and untrained eyes.
Then, there are some real issues. Not_Karlie agrees with the screeners in the following examples.
>A jetphotographer trying to upload really crappy jetphotos, and getting angry when they are rejected.
>Awkward croppings cutting important aeroplanie parts.
Fortunately, I didn't died see beautiful shots in misty sunrises or derelict aeroplanies being reclaimed by nature being rejected lately. Or maybe we learned that Jetscreeners don't like them and stopped submitting them .
We should. I would like at least to get a signature-worthy insult from herFootnote: Does Emma like to discuss aviation in addition to taking jet pictures? If so, we could invite her to join here-assuming she has a good sense of humour.