planespotter.lars Editing/Pre-screening advice

[dlowwa]

Oh there is indeed some kind of a power plant around, that must be the explanation.


Exported it again and attached it now, I must have surely made a fault when previous exporting, hope you can now see a difference.

Also would like to know if this AC Rouge would be acceptable, already reduced the size to 1200px as it has a bit of heat haze.

1. a bit soft yes, though not sure if that's from haze or other. Also close to clipping some highlights.
2. better (and completely different) edit, sky doesn't look so overprocessed now. Slightly dark, but otherwise ok for me.

[planespotter.lars]

1. a bit soft yes, though not sure if that's from haze or other. Also close to clipping some highlights.
2. better (and completely different) edit, sky doesn't look so overprocessed now. Slightly dark, but otherwise ok for me.

Thanks, Dana. Yes it really looks like I uploaded the same version of the HiFly the other time, sorry for that.

[planespotter.lars]

Good day again,
As I haven't been receiving the Screening Mails for several months now, I would like to get to know a status of an appeal of a picture that got wrongly rejected for 'Invalid Hot'.
The link is: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9028220
If you want to I can easily explain you why this is indeed a valid hot pic, drawing upon your very own guidelines.
Have a nice evening and stay safe,
Lars

[dlowwa]

Good day again,
As I haven't been receiving the Screening Mails for several months now, I would like to get to know a status of an appeal of a picture that got wrongly rejected for 'Invalid Hot'.
The link is: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9028220
If you want to I can easily explain you why this is indeed a valid hot pic, drawing upon your very own guidelines.
Have a nice evening and stay safe,
Lars

Sure, I can help you. How has the livery/appearance of the aircraft changed from the most recent photo?

[planespotter.lars]

Thanks. There are indeed at least two changes made in comparison to the last picture in the database.
First of all, it is the very first picture of the new airline Margaux Aviation, which has its own AOC, in the database. The livery itself has not changed, there you are completely right.
But the major and decisive feature which made me tick the Hot Photo Box is following text line in your guideline:
New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force.
As it is the first A340-300E for Margaux Aviation (Actually even the first jet for them) it then qualifies for hot according to your guidelines.
I hope you can now add the picture to the database.
Best regards,
Lars

[dlowwa]

Thanks. There are indeed at least two changes made in comparison to the last picture in the database.
First of all, it is the very first picture of the new airline Margaux Aviation, which has its own AOC, in the database. The livery itself has not changed, there you are completely right.
But the major and decisive feature which made me tick the Hot Photo Box is following text line in your guideline:
New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force.
As it is the first A340-300E for Margaux Aviation (Actually even the first jet for them) it then qualifies for hot according to your guidelines.
I hope you can now add the picture to the database.
Best regards,
Lars

Hi,

Since there is no visible change to the livery, there is no reason for this to receive priority screening. The airline info will be updated automatically on FR24, and again, since there has been no change to the livery, there is no need to update the photo.

The "New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force" guideline is for when an new type appears in the livery of an airline for the first time. Hopefully you can see now why this is not the case for your image.

[planespotter.lars]

Hi,

Since there is no visible change to the livery, there is no reason for this to receive priority screening. The airline info will be updated automatically on FR24, and again, since there has been no change to the livery, there is no need to update the photo.

The "New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force" guideline is for when an new type appears in the livery of an airline for the first time. Hopefully you can see now why this is not the case for your image.

Good Morning Dana,
Ah yes, I got your point now and first of all thanks for explaining it again to me. Maybe you see my point, too. As Margaux Aviation wasn't already added to the airline database here, but yes on planespotters, I first uploaded the pic there and they took it as hot so I was quite of confident you'd, too. Maybe the New aircraft type / subtype for an airline or air force guideline is not precised enough or I just misunderstood it, latter is not unlikely, but even though the color scheme of Klaret and Margaux are the same, this picture was the first time, that an A343 appeared in the colors of Margaux, that was my thought behind uploading it as hot. I hope you understood my thoughts behind it and I am sorry for all the inconviniences I caused.
Have a good day though,
Lars

[planespotter.lars]

Good day Dana,
Would be lovely if you could prescreen tha attached pics.
Best regards,
Lars

[dlowwa]

Good day Dana,
Would be lovely if you could prescreen tha attached pics.

Some softness/heat haze visible on a couple of them (2, 3 especially), but don't see any other major issues.

[planespotter.lars]

Some softness/heat haze visible on a couple of them (2, 3 especially), but don't see any other major issues.

Yes, I was sadly already aware that you'd come to that conclusion even though I reduced the pics to 1,2K px. Would the Softness on the EK lead to a reject or would you say that its still borderline?

[dlowwa]

Yes, I was sadly already aware that you'd come to that conclusion even though I reduced the pics to 1,2K px. Would the Softness on the EK lead to a reject or would you say that its still borderline?

I'd say the EK would probably be a rejection, but wouldn't guarantee it.

[planespotter.lars]

I'd say the EK would probably be a rejection, but wouldn't guarantee it.

Thanks a lot for your estimation . Gonna let it in my private gallery then as I really dont want to ruin up my ratio shortly before hitting 100 accepted pics. But the other 4 pics would be ok then?

[dlowwa]

Thanks a lot for your estimation . Gonna let it in my private gallery then as I really dont want to ruin up my ratio shortly before hitting 100 accepted pics. But the other 4 pics would be ok then?

Would be ok for me, but as always, that's just my opinion.

[planespotter.lars]

Hey Dana I recently went to my towns little airfield to do some Marc Ulm alike shots so it'd be great if you could share your opinion on these:
To start with I got this new reg hanging to some ropes in the hangar but as I dont know if it is ok or it would count as an obstruction I wanted to ask before uploading(actually I've seen a shot like this some time ago). Furthermore I am severely concerned about the really overexposed outside highlight clipping . These two would be the 'creative shots' of the day and I would like to know if the crop is alright, I'd be only uploading one due to the similar pic rules though I am aware of the a little overexposed outside and the soft background on this one, is it enough to lead to a rejection? That Helitowcart thing shouldnt cause a reject as it is always on if that helicopter is on ground and therefore is actually part of it, right?
As I have never ever uploaded a cockpit shot before I'd be glad to know if this meets the requirements apart from being a tad soft, I will reduce it to 1400 after you gave me your opinion.
Best regards,
Lars

[planespotter.lars]

Hey guys,
I hope you are fine.
I just want to know if this shot of the takeoff sequence is better regarding softness/heat haze.
Best regards,
Lars