Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre-screening advice

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post
    I had this rejected as invalid hot because the new livery scheme could hardly be seen. Could someone please inform me as to how I can upload this and it not be “too small”. Not my fault the special scheme is only small https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?
    id=8628334
    Did you read the comments with the rejection?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

      Did you read the comments with the rejection?
      Yes I did. I don’t care about fr24. You should be able to upload photos other than plain side ons. The comment said “can barely be seen from this angle” so what angle should I shoot it from then?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post
        Yes I did. I don’t care about fr24.
        Great. Then why does it need to be hot?

        Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post
        should be able to upload photos other than plain side ons.
        You're more than welcome to. There is no rule against it.

        Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post
        The comment said “can barely be seen from this angle” so what angle should I shoot it from then?
        If you want it to fall under the hot guidelines, then an angle where the change and the whole aircraft/livery can be seen. You uploaded it as hot due to the change. If the change can barely be seen from that, and the image will not be used for FR24 in any case, why should it be hot? If you want to submit it as hot, you'll need to follow the hot guidelines, as simple as that. If you don't, then upload it to the regular queue and there won't be an issue, will there?

        Comment


        • #49
          Sorry for coming across rude in my previous post, i appreciate the feedback. Taking that on board would this image be more suitable? Click image for larger version

Name:	20201121-_02A7867.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	1.39 MB
ID:	1103339

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post
            Sorry for coming across rude in my previous post, i appreciate the feedback. Taking that on board would this image be more suitable?
            Again, from this angle the change is really hard to see, though the angle is slightly better for FR24 use overall - but since you don't care about that, why does it need to be hot? If you don't need to have it screened immediately, then why not pick your preferred angle and wait? It seems to me that you do care about getting it screened as hot for FR24 since you've selected a better angle..I'm just having trouble reconciling the fact you said you don't care, yet this seems to say otherwise.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

              Again, from this angle the change is really hard to see, though the angle is slightly better for FR24 use overall - but since you don't care about that, why does it need to be hot? If you don't need to have it screened immediately, then why not pick your preferred angle and wait? It seems to me that you do care about getting it screened as hot for FR24 since you've selected a better angle..I'm just having trouble reconciling the fact you said you don't care, yet this seems to say otherwise.
              I didn't realise that getting it hot would mean fr24...it didn't click. For me to be able to get this accepted as hot would the best angle be a full side on?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post

                I didn't realise that getting it hot would mean fr24...it didn't click. For me to be able to get this accepted as hot would the best angle be a full side on?
                Best, but doesn't need to be. We generally exclude head-on shots, but anything 3/4 or more should be ok. And if you're going for hot because of the change to the livery, the change actually needs to be clearly visible, and in both the images you've posted above the mustache sticker is completely obscured by shadow. If you have a different angle where both the change (mustache) is clearly visible, as well as the rest of the heli, you should be good to go for hot screening.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                  Best, but doesn't need to be. We generally exclude head-on shots, but anything 3/4 or more should be ok. And if you're going for hot because of the change to the livery, the change actually needs to be clearly visible, and in both the images you've posted above the mustache sticker is completely obscured by shadow. If you have a different angle where both the change (mustache) is clearly visible, as well as the rest of the heli, you should be good to go for hot screening.
                  The issue with the mustache is that it is located where it is in shadow 99% of the time.. so getting it well lit is very unlikey

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Is the mustache in enough light to be accepted, as well as enough of a side on for fr24? Click image for larger version

Name:	20201121-_02A7655.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	1.09 MB
ID:	1103353

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post
                      Is the mustache in enough light to be accepted, as well as enough of a side on for fr24? Click image for larger version

Name:	20201121-_02A7655.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	1.09 MB
ID:	1103353
                      Borderline soft.
                      My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I personally would say this is "not similar" as its a head on, not RH side of a/c which I already have one in the db from this location. I also say "not similar" because the composition is different and this shot also has a water drop involved. Would you deem this "similar" if you were screening it? (Same day, same location) https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9939113
                        Click image for larger version  Name:	20201121-_02A7853.jpg Views:	0 Size:	517.9 KB ID:	1103711

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post
                          I personally would say this is "not similar" as its a head on, not RH side of a/c which I already have one in the db from this location. I also say "not similar" because the composition is different and this shot also has a water drop involved. Would you deem this "similar" if you were screening it? (Same day, same location) https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9939113
                          Click image for larger version Name:	20201121-_02A7853.jpg Views:	0 Size:	517.9 KB ID:	1103711
                          Yes, definitely similar.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                            Yes, definitely similar.
                            If I got a photo of LH side of helicopter would that be not similar. Even if same day/same location?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Joel Baverstock View Post

                              If I got a photo of LH side of helicopter would that be not similar. Even if same day/same location?
                              Depends. Could you post it here?
                              My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post

                                Depends. Could you post it here?
                                Yep. I'm yet to remove dust spots..
                                1200px
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	20201121-_02A7668.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	567.5 KB
ID:	1103763

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X