gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

[gdinscoll]

Hi, I had this rejected https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8224534. The date obviously was in error, not normal that I set the date and so I forgot to change it. But the bad crop I'd like some advice. Screener commented, "bad cropping bottom right, wrong date", obviously I am aware engine 2 cowling is cropped, but thats the edge of the photo, I would think that the fact that the whole starboard side of the aircraft is in view then it doesn't matter if the wing in the background is visible. I understand that more room on the right would be better, but that is the end of the picture.

Also, I find that the histogram from JP is different to that of other histogram viewers, particularly Lightroom, does anyone have any advice on this? One of the benefits of the histogram tool is obviously that it allows you to check once uploaded and then you can make any more amendments that is necessary because that is the tool the screener will use.

As this photo was a new registration as soon as I submitted it it was already being screened, thus un-deletable.

I'll reference my lightroom histogram to point out what I mean, and as you can see it is indicting shadow clipping, whereas the JP is saying there isnt enough contrast across the histogram.

[LX-A343]

Hi, I had this rejected https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8224534. The date obviously was in error, not normal that I set the date and so I forgot to change it. But the bad crop I'd like some advice. Screener commented, "bad cropping bottom right, wrong date", obviously I am aware engine 2 cowling is cropped, but thats the edge of the photo, I would think that the fact that the whole starboard side of the aircraft is in view then it doesn't matter if the wing in the background is visible. I understand that more room on the right would be better, but that is the end of the picture.

Also, I find that the histogram from JP is different to that of other histogram viewers, particularly Lightroom, does anyone have any advice on this? One of the benefits of the histogram tool is obviously that it allows you to check once uploaded and then you can make any more amendments that is necessary because that is the tool the screener will use.

As this photo was a new registration as soon as I submitted it it was already being screened, thus un-deletable.

I'll reference my lightroom histogram to point out what I mean, and as you can see it is indicting shadow clipping, whereas the JP is saying there isnt enough contrast across the histogram.

First things first, the cropping rejection reason is because of the white border bottom right corner, probably after you rotated it.

[Jack Walker]

In lightroom to see the histogram that you see in jetphotos, just drop saturation to -100 and you will get the histogram you see in jetphotos right in lightroom!

[gdinscoll]

Hi all, would this slide scan be rejected due to the sign positioned at the front of the aircraft? Cheers

[dlowwa]

Hi all, would this slide scan be rejected due to the sign positioned at the front of the aircraft? Cheers

Should be acceptable, given the age and (I'm assuming) rarity.

[gdinscoll]

Hi, would the slide damage in the bottom left corner cause a rejection for this?

[dlowwa]

Hi, would the slide damage in the bottom left corner cause a rejection for this?

Hmmm.. that's a tough one. Again, I'm assuming it's new/rare, but the damage is pretty significant, and I'm not sure how you could repair that without overly manipulating it. You could try to clean it up a bit, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort.

[gdinscoll]

Thanks, Dlowwa,

I had this rejected as I stupidly missed checking the corner of this, but with the jpeg artifacts, are you able to elaborate what exactly this is and the problem with this photo, is it a no-go in terms of reuploading with the amended crop?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8247614

[dlowwa]

Thanks, Dlowwa,

I had this rejected as I stupidly missed checking the corner of this, but with the jpeg artifacts, are you able to elaborate what exactly this is and the problem with this photo, is it a no-go in terms of reuploading with the amended crop?
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8247614

Whole image is pretty heavily compressed, but it's most visible in sky and on fine details on the aircraft. If you can solve that issue, a tighter crop should fix the other issue.

[gdinscoll]

Whole image is pretty heavily compressed, but it's most visible in sky and on fine details on the aircraft. If you can solve that issue, a tighter crop should fix the other issue.

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks. I have a photo of a Delta schemed L-1011 from the 1970s. the registration is new under the delta scheme, but the sam reg is in the database all under TWA airliner. Upload guidelines say a hot photo can be a "Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe" - would this apply to a Delta aircraft with that reg? Don't want to get an invalid hot

[dlowwa]

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks. I have a photo of a Delta schemed L-1011 from the 1970s. the registration is new under the delta scheme, but the sam reg is in the database all under TWA airliner. Upload guidelines say a hot photo can be a "Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe" - would this apply to a Delta aircraft with that reg? Don't want to get an invalid hot

Technically hot if your image is more recent than the one in the DB. But even if so, hot screening was meant for FR24 to be able to get the most up-to-date image to display on the app. A 40+ year old image hardly fits that description, so you'd basically trying to take advantage of a loophole in the system to skip the other images queue. Do you really need to have that image accepted immediately, or would it hurt to wait another 8-9 days after the 40+ years to get it online? Pretty sure I know what all the other photographers with images waiting in the queue would say.

[gdinscoll]

Technically hot if your image is more recent than the one in the DB. But even if so, hot screening was meant for FR24 to be able to get the most up-to-date image to display on the app. A 40+ year old image hardly fits that description, so you'd basically trying to take advantage of a loophole in the system to skip the other images queue. Do you really need to have that image accepted immediately, or would it hurt to wait another 8-9 days after the 40+ years to get it online? Pretty sure I know what all the other photographers with images waiting in the queue would say.

No, that's fair of course

[gdinscoll]

Evening all.

I had a photo rejected because I had slightly blurred out the face of a person in the background of the photograph. I did this so I didn't 'expose an easily identifiable person' as per the upload guidelines 3.4.3 and thought it may have lead to rejection for this reason if I hadn't of done so.

Looking at the guidelines following the rejection, it says that "Blurring the (car number) plate to a minimum which makes the plate unreadable is accepted." Out of curiosity how come blurring out a person's face isn't allowed?

Cheers!

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8272242

[dlowwa]

Evening all.

I had a photo rejected because I had slightly blurred out the face of a person in the background of the photograph. I did this so I didn't 'expose an easily identifiable person' as per the upload guidelines 3.4.3 and thought it may have lead to rejection for this reason if I hadn't of done so.

Looking at the guidelines following the rejection, it says that "Blurring the (car number) plate to a minimum which makes the plate unreadable is accepted." Out of curiosity how come blurring out a person's face isn't allowed?

Cheers!

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8272242

Those were the guidelines we were given by FR24. Previously, neither would have been acceptable, but FR24 indicated to us that blurring car plates only would be ok.

[gdinscoll]

Those were the guidelines we were given by FR24. Previously, neither would have been acceptable, but FR24 indicated to us that blurring car plates only would be ok.

Okay, so if I was to remove the blur the photo can be reconsidered?

seems like a catch-22. Can blur plates but not faces but can’t have visibly recognised people in a photo