Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

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

  • 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

    Comment


    • 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:	90
Size:	813.7 KB
ID:	1109690

      Comment


      • 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:	90
Size:	813.7 KB
ID:	1109690
        I appreciate your time to answer, I understand now. Kudos to whoever spotted it like that

        Comment


        • 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

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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!

                  Comment


                  • 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

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


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

                        Comment


                        • 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.

                          Comment


                          • 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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by gdinscoll View Post
                              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
                              You could certainly try. Age/rarity would play in its favour, at least for me.

                              Comment


                              • Hi,

                                Had this rejected for bad motive, is it because of the faces in the background? If so, what can I do for this image to be acceptable, as its the only one I have of this type, which isn't in the database yet, the manipulation was to remove the scratches amongst the faces which I tried to do as best as possible, which I have uploaded a photo of the unedited version

                                Cheers

                                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8977196
                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X