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,

    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
    I think it might be the NR filter you used? It's the guy in the yellow shirt who looks like his face has been blurred. The guy sitting doesn't look that bad. Motive should be ok given the age, so should be fixable if you feel like putting in the effort of giving it a better edit.

    Leave a comment:


  • gdinscoll
    replied
    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

    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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.?

    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

    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

    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

    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:	145
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:	145
Size:	813.7 KB
ID:	1109690

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X