Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi

    Another bad info with no comment, can't find anything wrong with the details on the page, can you let me know what is bad?

    Cheers

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9003127

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Afternoon,

    Out of curiosity, would this shot be accepted? Im conscious of the backlight, but as its an air 2 air and its well lit I'm wondering if it would be sufficient, I have already uploaded one (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10095796), but on the other side, and would like to publish this one with a different background so I assume it wouldn't fall into the 'similar' rejection category

    Cheers
    Depending on age/rarity, it may be.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Afternoon,

    Out of curiosity, would this shot be accepted? Im conscious of the backlight, but as its an air 2 air and its well lit I'm wondering if it would be sufficient, I have already uploaded one (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10095796), but on the other side, and would like to publish this one with a different background so I assume it wouldn't fall into the 'similar' rejection category

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Hi,

    had this rejected, before I appeal as I believe everything is correct could you mention what is "bad" https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8990197

    Incase its the aircraft type, it has Air Wolf written on the side but that name is interchangeable with Iskierka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M26_Iskierka

    Cheers
    Hmmm.. there was a comment left for you, which should be visible on your rejected images page, but I can see that it is not. In that case..

    Click image for larger version

Name:	FireShot Capture 1141 -  - www.jetphotos.com.png
Views:	54
Size:	28.4 KB
ID:	1111701

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi,

    had this rejected, before I appeal as I believe everything is correct could you mention what is "bad" https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8990197

    Incase its the aircraft type, it has Air Wolf written on the side but that name is interchangeable with Iskierka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M26_Iskierka

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post

    Hi Julian, I understand, but as I said in the appeal, that is the code of the aircraft not the registration, as the FAA website says N17667 is the registration, there is a load of photos of aircraft with registrations not using the second letter on the aircraft which would be the same here. Surely we are to use the registration and not the aircraft code?

    Cheers
    As previously stated, we prefer as displayed on the aircraft. There are multiple examples of NC- regs. (and NX- for that matter) on the DB if you check.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by Julian S. View Post

    Hello.

    Yes, its because of the registration. Please use the reg which is shown on the Aircraft itself - "NC17667"

    Regdards
    Hi Julian, I understand, but as I said in the appeal, that is the code of the aircraft not the registration, as the FAA website says N17667 is the registration, there is a load of photos of aircraft with registrations not using the second letter on the aircraft which would be the same here. Surely we are to use the registration and not the aircraft code?

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • Julian S.
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Hi

    I appealed this photo but as I'm not receiving emails I cannot see any appeal comments: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8981027

    I assume the bad info was the registration, because the aircraft has the code written on it, and I have provided multiple references to show the registration is as listed in the upload details if you could provide some info that I am unable to see that would be great

    Cheers
    Hello.

    Yes, its because of the registration. Please use the reg which is shown on the Aircraft itself - "NC17667"

    Regdards

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi

    I appealed this photo but as I'm not receiving emails I cannot see any appeal comments: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8981027

    I assume the bad info was the registration, because the aircraft has the code written on it, and I have provided multiple references to show the registration is as listed in the upload details if you could provide some info that I am unable to see that would be great

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Thanks for your help, I have a question on this photo. Would it be best to upload it as untitled or with the previous owner Everts?
    You'd probably get a more definitive answer asking the DB editors, since this is the processing forum, but my guess would be Untitled.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Thanks for your help, I have a question on this photo. Would it be best to upload it as untitled or with the previous owner Everts?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post

    Ah, my apologies, I understood filters as some sort of blanket edit to the photo. Noise reduction as usual for negative scanning, as you can see from the original photo it was required no?

    Also, I just had two photos rejected for backlit, although they are still well lit, surely the new registrations are taking the backlit into account, as there are many photos that are in the database that are clearly backlit even those that have numerous photos already under that registration

    When there are new registrations I do upload the best lit photos as I can, but sometimes there is only one photo of the aircraft, such as these two

    Culprit images:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8978503
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8978475

    Cheers
    Yes, if you appealed those, I would accept them given age/rarity..but that's just me.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Yes.



    Ok, but..



    So..bit confused. NR used or not??
    Ah, my apologies, I understood filters as some sort of blanket edit to the photo. Noise reduction as usual for negative scanning, as you can see from the original photo it was required no?

    Also, I just had two photos rejected for backlit, although they are still well lit, surely the new registrations are taking the backlit into account, as there are many photos that are in the database that are clearly backlit even those that have numerous photos already under that registration

    When there are new registrations I do upload the best lit photos as I can, but sometimes there is only one photo of the aircraft, such as these two

    Culprit images:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8978503
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8978475

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Is that NR for noise reduction?
    Yes.

    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    As I haven't applied any filters..
    Ok, but..

    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    ..the noise reduction level I have used to remove the grain from the scan has caused his face to seem blurred
    So..bit confused. NR used or not??

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    I think it might be the NR filter you used? It's the guy in the yellow shirt who looks like his face has been blurred. The guy sitting doesn't look that bad. Motive should be ok given the age, so should be fixable if you feel like putting in the effort of giving it a better edit.
    Is that NR for noise reduction? As I haven't applied any filters, and yes I see what you mean about the yellow guys face, but if you see the original attached it is the same with no modifications. the noise reduction level I have used to remove the grain from the scan has caused his face to seem blurred

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X