Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

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

  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Morning,

    Would this photo be accepted? There isn't a photo in the database currently, and it was displaying various artifacts related to the aircraft so unfortunately not one without them in the way

    This aircraft is the one Bill Signs completed several of his friendship flights around the world, landed on all 7 continents, and visited Russia, among other endeavors.
    Cheers
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Thanks. This registration is not in the database, although the sun is on the wrong side, would this be rejected ?
    Age and rarity should overcome the poor lighting in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Thanks. This registration is not in the database, although the sun is on the wrong side, would this be rejected ?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Hi,

    would this scan be acceptable with the scratch marks in the corner outside the aircraft, pretty annoyed as this is a nice photo and the scratches would be pretty impossible to amend
    Hard to say..there is a good balance between age/nice subject and pretty severe damage. Couldn't say for sure which one would win in screening, but if I had to guess, probably the latter.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi,

    would this scan be acceptable with the scratch marks in the corner outside the aircraft, pretty annoyed as this is a nice photo and the scratches would be pretty impossible to amend
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    I screened that one. Aircraft type was missing on the screening page, but as it appears on the rejected image, must have been a bug. You can appeal it, and if the type shows up properly there, it will be accepted.
    Understood, thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Hi, had this rejected for bad info, but I have no emails, can a screener say what was bad? I provided the data in the comments box about why it is submitted as Bolivian Air Force as it was bought by them https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8929379

    Thanks
    I screened that one. Aircraft type was missing on the screening page, but as it appears on the rejected image, must have been a bug. You can appeal it, and if the type shows up properly there, it will be accepted.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi, had this rejected for bad info, but I have no emails, can a screener say what was bad? I provided the data in the comments box about why it is submitted as Bolivian Air Force as it was bought by them https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8929379

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Afternoon,

    got this rejected for bad info. Can a screener confirm if it is the type? As I was a little unsure which one to go for and went with the one that was already for this frame but under a different reg

    thanks

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8917304
    Different reg.? Do you mean same reg.?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/N472AF

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Afternoon,

    got this rejected for bad info. Can a screener confirm if it is the type? As I was a little unsure which one to go for and went with the one that was already for this frame but under a different reg

    thanks

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8917304

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Hi, I handled your appeal.



    That was indeed helpful, as it was enough to confirm that some editing had been done in the suspected areas.



    No need to prove anything. As I mentioned on your appeal, there was no assumption there was anything malicious happening. We know it can be a challenge to clean up old scans, and we appreciate the effort you are making. On the other hand, such editing needs to be done carefully, lest it appear malicious, or even just unsightly.



    Repeating patterns are visible in the lower right, and after comparing to the original scan, it's obvious these areas are indeed where some scratch repairs were done.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	90868_1612997094 (1).jpg
Views:	88
Size:	813.7 KB
ID:	1109690
    I appreciate your time to answer, I understand now. Kudos to whoever spotted it like that

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Afternoon,
    Hi, I handled your appeal.

    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    I did include the unedited scan in the appeal,
    That was indeed helpful, as it was enough to confirm that some editing had been done in the suspected areas.

    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    I also attach a few other un-edited photos which may help prove that I haven't done anything malicious
    No need to prove anything. As I mentioned on your appeal, there was no assumption there was anything malicious happening. We know it can be a challenge to clean up old scans, and we appreciate the effort you are making. On the other hand, such editing needs to be done carefully, lest it appear malicious, or even just unsightly.

    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Afternoon,

    I had this photo rejected for digital manipulation and I appealed on the basis that I didn't grossly manipulate the photo which the screener deemed that I had done attaching the unedited photo as proof. I'd just like to know where the "lower right" area shows a manipulation that has caused the rejection?
    Repeating patterns are visible in the lower right, and after comparing to the original scan, it's obvious these areas are indeed where some scratch repairs were done.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	90868_1612997094 (1).jpg
Views:	88
Size:	813.7 KB
ID:	1109690

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Afternoon,

    I had this photo rejected for digital manipulation and I appealed on the basis that I didn't grossly manipulate the photo which the screener deemed that I had done attaching the unedited photo as proof. I'd just like to know where the "lower right" area shows a manipulation that has caused the rejection?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8889680

    I did include the unedited scan in the appeal, but I want to know what part of the photo is shown to be manipulated too much. I also attach a few other un-edited photos which may help prove that I haven't done anything malicious

    Cheers
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post

    I understand, I left a wide crop so it allows the landscape in the shot, otherwise cropping would either put the aircraft in the top corner too much or cause the land to be out of shot
    It's a pleasant enough photo, but a wider crop like that would work much better if you're actually showing something more, especially the airport. Check out other shots from Kai Tak with a wide crop that actually show a little bit more:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/38431
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8372710
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6961897
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7681585

    I couldn't promise something like the last one would get accepted today, but at least the land is more visible and importantly, aviation-related (Checkerboard hill).

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Night shot yes, but crop is too wide. Such a wide crop would actually need to show something to be justified.
    I understand, I left a wide crop so it allows the landscape in the shot, otherwise cropping would either put the aircraft in the top corner too much or cause the land to be out of shot

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X