Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

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

  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Hi would this be acceptable for a night shot? off centre crop to give a sense of the scene that was once at this airport

    Thanks
    Night shot yes, but crop is too wide. Such a wide crop would actually need to show something to be justified.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi would this be acceptable for a night shot? off centre crop to give a sense of the scene that was once at this airport

    Thanks
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
    It should be acceptable. However, it is not a first for the database. It is a Bede BD5-B and there are several images of them in the database.
    Ah, my mistake, one photo on ABPic had it down as a BD-5, the other which I didn't see had it down as a BD-5B, hence why. Ithought it was a different variant to those in the database. Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    It should be acceptable. However, it is not a first for the database. It is a Bede BD5-B and there are several images of them in the database.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi, Bearing in mind the photo is almost 30 years old, would it be rejected under motive because there are people visible in the frame? It would be a new type to the database
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Yes, we use the registration as displayed on the aircraft.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/NL98CF
    But as I said, "NL98582" as registration doesn't exist, if you check google. Whereas "N98582" does exist. This page covers this aircraft http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51re...1-4474976.html

    This aircraft has G-DAKS displayed on the aircraft, but was a fake reg. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9781406

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Hi,

    Again, another bad info, this time I have double checked everything . https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8835302
    I didn't get an email so couldn't see what was the rejected bad info exactly. But I am guessing it is the registration? Because the screener see's it has "NL98582" on its tail, but that is not an actual registration, whereas N98582 is.

    http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51re...1-4474976.html
    Yes, we use the registration as displayed on the aircraft.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/NL98CF

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Hi,

    Again, another bad info, this time I have double checked everything . https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8835302
    I didn't get an email so couldn't see what was the rejected bad info exactly. But I am guessing it is the registration? Because the screener see's it has "NL98582" on its tail, but that is not an actual registration, whereas N98582 is.

    http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51re...1-4474976.html

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Would you have any avice on this, I am trying to get the horizon level, and I've rotated it off the pole behind the aircraft.. would this be correct or does it need an adjustment purely off the ground?
    I'd use a combination of the vertical references (pole & fence), in which case looks like it needs a little CW.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Would you have any avice on this, I am trying to get the horizon level, and I've rotated it off the pole behind the aircraft.. would this be correct or does it need an adjustment purely off the ground?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Did you check the info before uploading, or even after the rejection? It says Navy on the aircraft, and 15-3016 is not a valid AF reg, so...
    Apologies.. thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Evening,

    I had this rejected. I assume the categories missing was Warbird/Vintage - I didn't tick this because it was built after 1970 but after I checked the guidelines it says any aircraft in a museum should have this ticked, fine.
    But the bad info airline/registration I am a little confused, can a screener assist what is wrong? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8831172

    Cheers
    Did you check the info before uploading, or even after the rejection? It says Navy on the aircraft, and 15-3016 is not a valid AF reg, so...

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Evening,

    I had this rejected. I assume the categories missing was Warbird/Vintage - I didn't tick this because it was built after 1970 but after I checked the guidelines it says any aircraft in a museum should have this ticked, fine.
    But the bad info airline/registration I am a little confused, can a screener assist what is wrong? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8831172

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
    Morning,

    would this these baggage belts be enough to cause an obstruction rejection?

    Cheers
    Normally yes, but looks like a scan, so there might be some leeway if that frame/color scheme is rare (fewer that ~5 images) on the DB.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    Morning,

    would this these baggage belts be enough to cause an obstruction rejection?

    Cheers
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X