James Dinsdale - Pre-Screening/Editing Advice

[JamesDC152]

Hi! can a screener please tell me what the bad info and missing category was for this photo? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10408788 cheers!

[dlowwa]

Hi! can a screener please tell me what the bad info and missing category was for this photo? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10408788 cheers!

Please use the info as with other images of this registration already in the DB:

https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/N29UB

Special Scheme/Warbird do not apply.

[JamesDC152]

Please use the info as with other images of this registration already in the DB:

https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/N29UB

Special Scheme/Warbird do not apply.

Okay I'm very confused, because the guidelines states "Privately owned warbirds (military aircraft) with a civil registration should be submitted as 'Civilian' with the Warbird/Vintage category selected." This is a military aircraft that is privately owned, how would it not be applicable?

[dlowwa]

Okay I'm very confused, because the guidelines states "Privately owned warbirds (military aircraft) with a civil registration should be submitted as 'Civilian' with the Warbird/Vintage category selected." This is a military aircraft that is privately owned, how would it not be applicable?

Please read the upload guidelines again. This aircraft is not a warbird:

Warbird / Vintage
This category is to be selected for old planes (anything that was not built after 1970, or where the production started before 1970), planes that are no longer in regular service and planes in museums. Also, replicas of vintage aircraft need the "vintage" category.

[JamesDC152]

Please read the upload guidelines again. This aircraft is not a warbird:

Warbird / Vintage
This category is to be selected for old planes (anything that was not built after 1970, or where the production started before 1970), planes that are no longer in regular service and planes in museums. Also, replicas of vintage aircraft need the "vintage" category.

Then an amendment to the statement I quoted is probably best to avoid contradictions, as it was indeed a military aircraft.

[dlowwa]

Then an amendment to the statement I quoted is probably best to avoid contradictions, as it was indeed a military aircraft.

There is no contradiction in what you quoted, it being a former military aircraft is irrelevant to the Warbird category, which applies to any aircraft manufactured before 1970, military or civilian.

A privately owned, former military aircraft manufactured before 1970 qualifies for the warbird/vintage category.

A privately owned, former military aircraft manufactured after 1970 does not qualify for the warbird/vintage category. (as with your MiG-29)

A privately owned, civilian aircraft manufactured before 1970 qualifies for the warbird/vintage category.

A privately owned, civilian aircraft manufactured after 1970 does not qualify for the warbird/vintage category.

[JamesDC152]

Hi!

I believe there is some issue with rejection emails but would like to see a senior screeners comment for this photo https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11717180 as I believe its sharp enough with no softness from nose to tail?

cheers

[dlowwa]

Hi!

I believe there is some issue with rejection emails but would like to see a senior screeners comment for this photo https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11717180 as I believe its sharp enough with no softness from nose to tail?

cheers

Appeal comments: Overal very soft appearance might be over use of noise reduction