gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

[dlowwa]

I mentioned it in the screener comments that I changed the registration, as I had a typo on the first attempt (like with the serial number being one number wrong).

As you know aircraft nowadays display part of the registration on the nose gear doors but on this aircraft it isn’t. However here is the aircraft with the registration https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/registration/F-WZLI

would this make the second submission accepted?

As long as you explain that in your comments upon uploading, that should be ok, yes.

[gdinscoll]

Looks like it probably should have been a Bad Info rejection, as you had uploaded it several minutes prior with a different registration. As the registration is not visible in the image, you would have needed to explain why the change between the two images.

I mentioned it in the screener comments that I changed the registration, as I had a typo on the first attempt (like with the serial number being one number wrong).

As you know aircraft nowadays display part of the registration on the nose gear doors but on this aircraft it isn’t. However here is the aircraft with the registration https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/registration/F-WZLI

would this make the second submission accepted?

[dlowwa]

Like previously mentioned I don’t receive any submission result emails so I’m not sure if there was any additional comments to this rejection but as it’s a new registration I’d unsure why this would be classed as invalid hot?


cheers
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8284846

Looks like it probably should have been a Bad Info rejection, as you had uploaded it several minutes prior with a different registration. As the registration is not visible in the image, you would have needed to explain why the change between the two images.

[gdinscoll]

Like previously mentioned I don’t receive any submission result emails so I’m not sure if there was any additional comments to this rejection but as it’s a new registration I’d unsure why this would be classed as invalid hot?


cheers

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8284846

[gdinscoll]

The appeals says "Exposure ok, but strong yellow cast."

Thank you. I don't know where you fit in the admin side of the website, but are you able to help me with this email problem? I did submit a message to the admin side about my problem, but as I don't receive submission/appeal result emails I do not know if I will even receive an email responding to my message

[LX-A343]

Cheers.

I had appealed this Air China (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8258209) because I felt the exposure was correct, and any more exposure would've caused heavy highlight clipping and the darkness of the grey skies is not something that should be changed. The colour wasn't edited in the processing of this photograph so I was a little unsure what caused that to be a reason for rejection too.

As I mentioned I haven't been receiving emails and so I haven't seen why the appeal was declined, are you able to give me some advice on it? Thanks!

The appeals says "Exposure ok, but strong yellow cast."

[gdinscoll]

2584

Cheers.

I had appealed this Air China (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8258209) because I felt the exposure was correct, and any more exposure would've caused heavy highlight clipping and the darkness of the grey skies is not something that should be changed. The colour wasn't edited in the processing of this photograph so I was a little unsure what caused that to be a reason for rejection too.

As I mentioned I haven't been receiving emails and so I haven't seen why the appeal was declined, are you able to give me some advice on it? Thanks!

[dlowwa]

Thanks!

This was rejected due to colour, but I have not amended it whilst editing, is it because of the yellow belly? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8260615 I feel that isn't the fault of the photo when an aircraft is either dirty or reflects the colour from the ground

Whole image is yellow, not just the underside of the aircraft.

[dlowwa]

Thanks, are you able to tell me what serial number I had put for this photo as it appears serial numbers never seem to appear on photos that get rejected. Cheers.

2584

[gdinscoll]

Interesting. Not sure exactly what happened, as a comment was left with the rejection. In any case, the comment indicated the correct cn for this airframe: 3584.

Thanks, are you able to tell me what serial number I had put for this photo as it appears serial numbers never seem to appear on photos that get rejected. Cheers.

[dlowwa]

Evening. No, no screener comment on the rejected list. I haven’t been receiving emails for about 5-7 days from the JP screening results email, at first I thought it was a delayed bug. But after today still no submission results email came through.

Interesting. Not sure exactly what happened, as a comment was left with the rejection. In any case, the comment indicated the correct cn for this airframe: 3584.

[gdinscoll]

In fact a comment was left with the correct cn. Can you not see it in either the rejection email or on your list of rejected images?

Evening. No, no screener comment on the rejected list. I haven’t been receiving emails for about 5-7 days from the JP screening results email, at first I thought it was a delayed bug. But after today still no submission results email came through.

[dlowwa]

Hello,

I had this photo rejected for bad info, but no screener comment was left to indicate what the bad info was. Is anyone able to enlighten me?

Cheers

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8279026

In fact a comment was left with the correct cn. Can you not see it in either the rejection email or on your list of rejected images?

[gdinscoll]

Hello,

I had this photo rejected for bad info, but no screener comment was left to indicate what the bad info was. Is anyone able to enlighten me?

Cheers

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8279026

[gdinscoll]

I think you've answered your own question:

Just seems odd the guidelines essentially penalises you for blurring a face that potentially leads to identification but you must blur a number plate for privacy reasons