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?
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
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice
Collapse
X
-
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
The Jet landing at 13 runway. VHHH. Airport. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
I-DUPI. McDonnell Douglas MD-11C. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Shot off the Checkerboard hill looking down to the single opp runway with a 747 on short finals ,also this image shows some of the other operators that once used this fantastic but now sadly gone airport,scanned from a photo. VHHH. Airport. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Scandinavian Airlines - B767-383(ER) - OY-KDN. OY-KDN. Boeing 767-383(ER). JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
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).
Leave a 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gdinscoll View PostHi 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
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostIt 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:
-
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:
-
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
Yes, we use the registration as displayed on the aircraft.
https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/NL98CF
This aircraft has G-DAKS displayed on the aircraft, but was a fake reg. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9781406
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gdinscoll View PostHi,
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:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gdinscoll View PostWould 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?
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by gdinscoll View PostEvening,
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:
Leave a comment: