Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

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

  • 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

    Comment


    • 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...

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


              • 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

                Comment


                • 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

                  Comment


                  • 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

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • 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!

                        Comment


                        • 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

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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

                              Comment


                              • 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).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X