gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

[dlowwa]

Thanks. I would really like to get this one uploaded if possible, do you see an improvement with this?

Still a bit soft, but may be acceptable given its relative rarity/uniqueness.

[gdinscoll]

Morning, I had this photo rejected due to overexposure,https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8367082, would this be an acceptable adjustment?

[dlowwa]

Morning, I had this photo rejected due to overexposure,https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8367082, would this be an acceptable adjustment?

Looks a bit better, and would be acceptable for me at least.

[gdinscoll]

evening, I uploaded a very old photo dated in 1968 but I do not know the day/month date exactly, I mistakenly wrote its date as 01/01/1968 because a lot of the “dateless” photos in the database are labelled as 0/0/0000, which I guess was a very old setting on the website.

i should’ve checked the delivery and first flight of the aircraft which turned out to be in March 68, which the screener rightly puts my 01/01/1968 as “bad info”.

How would I go about uploading a photo where there is no trace online of the event taking place? Is it possible to label the date as “0/0/000” and then in the photo remarks state the year 1968? Or do I just put “01/08/1968” as that would then be after the aircraft was delivered?

thanks

[dlowwa]

evening, I uploaded a very old photo dated in 1968 but I do not know the day/month date exactly, I mistakenly wrote its date as 01/01/1968 because a lot of the “dateless” photos in the database are labelled as 0/0/0000, which I guess was a very old setting on the website.

i should’ve checked the delivery and first flight of the aircraft which turned out to be in March 68, which the screener rightly puts my 01/01/1968 as “bad info”.

How would I go about uploading a photo where there is no trace online of the event taking place? Is it possible to label the date as “0/0/000” and then in the photo remarks state the year 1968? Or do I just put “01/08/1968” as that would then be after the aircraft was delivered?

thanks

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8529049

Make your best estimate based on known facts. Quick googling shows the aircraft was delivered 6 March 1968, so any time after that should be acceptable.

[JamesDC152]

Evening, would it be possible to upload this with the category as RAMP? and a wider crop than usual to allow the spectators in the crop as it was a huge turnout for the Concorde's visit to Leeds

[dlowwa]

Evening, would it be possible to upload this with the category as RAMP? and a wider crop than usual to allow the spectators in the crop as it was a huge turnout for the Concorde's visit to Leeds

You could try, but I couldn't guarantee you'd be ok for motive (horizon also off).

[gdinscoll]

Evening all,

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8541910

I had this rejected for grain yet I have had other photos accepted with a similar degree of grain, I know there is a proportion of grain but with the age of the negative slides surely this is common and given the rarity of the photo it is taken into consideration? Especially as the guidelines say that a "lower standards are applied" for any scans

What can be done for it?

Cheers

[dlowwa]

Evening all,

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8541910

I had this rejected for grain yet I have had other photos accepted with a similar degree of grain, I know there is a proportion of grain but with the age of the negative slides surely this is common and given the rarity of the photo it is taken into consideration? Especially as the guidelines say that a "lower standards are applied" for any scans

What can be done for it?

Cheers

I'm going to accept this one given it's a new reg., but when looking at poorer quality old scans, we need to balance age and rarity with just how bad it is as well as how easy it would be to fix. Somethings like color, centering and leveling are relatively easy to fix, even for scanned slides/negatives. Grain is something that's a bit harder, but honestly, I'd bet this particular one would have been relatively easy to clean up. Something to consider with future uploads

[gdinscoll]

I'm going to accept this one given it's a new reg., but when looking at poorer quality old scans, we need to balance age and rarity with just how bad it is as well as how easy it would be to fix. Somethings like color, centering and leveling are relatively easy to fix, even for scanned slides/negatives. Grain is something that's a bit harder, but honestly, I'd bet this particular one would have been relatively easy to clean up. Something to consider with future uploads

Honestly, I am still getting used to editing such types of photos. And I can't see how much editing I can make before the changes become too apparent and degrade the quality of the scan. I'd be intrigued to see what results you may get from it, I am happy to send you a copy of the original and see where I should be aiming?

[gdinscoll]

Evening,

Would this negative be acceptable with the small obstruction? If so, should it be submitted under hot as there is no photo in the database that has the airframe in these colours and under the "Canadian Airlines" airline: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/keyword/C-FCRB
reg: C-FCRB

Secondly, would the reflection on the left-hand side cause this Korean to be rejected?


Cheers

[dlowwa]

Evening,

Would this negative be acceptable with the small obstruction? If so, should it be submitted under hot as there is no photo in the database that has the airframe in these colours and under the "Canadian Airlines" airline: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/keyword/C-FCRB
reg: C-FCRB

Secondly, would the reflection on the left-hand side cause this Korean to be rejected?


Cheers

Given the age and rarity I think the first should be ok, though the second I'm a little less certain. It is a new reg., but the reflection is rather distracting and more importantly covers part of the aircraft, so couldn't guarantee its acceptance.

[gdinscoll]

Morning,

I have a few negatives that seem to have developed some sort of central vignetting on the negative itself. I have attempted to edit them out, would such defects still be acceptable as a scanned upload?

Thanks

[dlowwa]

Morning,

I have a few negatives that seem to have developed some sort of central vignetting on the negative itself. I have attempted to edit them out, would such defects still be acceptable as a scanned upload?

Thanks

It is quite noticeable, so it will depend on just how rare/old the scans are. It's unfortunate, but I don't think there's really much you can do to edit that out.

[gdinscoll]

Morning,

Would this negative scan be accepted? There isn't a photo of this airline/registration combo in the database, but the scan has a vignette which I didn't edit

Cheers