Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

llpilch - prescreening request

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

  • llpilch
    replied
    Hi, do you think I have any chance appealing this photo? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11330450

    In fact, the quality is not good enough due the high crop needed here (the focus didn't want to work when the airplane was closer ), but, as I said about that Latam B777 taking off at night, it's a challenging image with an awesome result with the glowing engines' core, something rare to see.

    Again: maybe an image like this deserve a less rigorous screening, but I admint that this time the quality really is a bit low.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post

    Thank you! So, there aren't any notes on my account for digital manipulation, right?
    There is nothing on your account for manipulation.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    I talked with the screener. It seems it was a mistake on their part, so you can disregard that part of the rejection. Sorry for the confusion.
    Thank you! So, there aren't any notes on my account for digital manipulation, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post

    Thanks, appreciate that.
    I talked with the screener. It seems it was a mistake on their part, so you can disregard that part of the rejection. Sorry for the confusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Soft/compressed maybe, but not really sure why manipulation. I can see the note the screener left, but it doesn't make sense to me. I'll contact them to see if it can be explained.
    Thanks, appreciate that.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hi,

    I get really upset with this rejection
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11330443
    • Since "digital manipulation" is something really serious here, which can cause a ban or suspension (item 1.1.1 from the upload guidelines), I kindly would like to know: what did the screener see that led to this conclusion? I have 3 raw files from this take off sequence that I'm willing to send to a screener to verify that the image is actual, just provide me an email to do so. Even if the rejection isn't going to be reverted, I'll be pleased to show that I'm honest;
    • About the "soft" it is perfectly fine for the site standards, looking just ok;
    • Now about the "JPG artefacts", I don't see it and the file was saved in high quality, I only see some color noise in the sky.

    Plus: It is not an usual/ordinary image, it's an airborne plane taking off at night!! Even with 2.8 lens, high ISO is needed, 16,000 to be precise in this case, and with it comes the noise, even in a full frame sensor. It's a very challeging photo to make and the result is stunning! Please, look at the image, it's nice!! I respectfully believe the screeners should take into account the difficulties to take a picture like that and be a little less rigorous, I say this to both this color noise in the sky (barely visible without equalizing) and the sharpness (what can led to more noise, that's why I apllied only the minimun necessary).
    Soft/compressed maybe, but not really sure why manipulation. I can see the note the screener left, but it doesn't make sense to me. I'll contact them to see if it can be explained.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hi,

    I get really upset with this rejection
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11330443
    • Since "digital manipulation" is something really serious here, which can cause a ban or suspension (item 1.1.1 from the upload guidelines), I kindly would like to know: what did the screener see that led to this conclusion? I have 3 raw files from this take off sequence that I'm willing to send to a screener to verify that the image is actual, just provide me an email to do so. Even if the rejection isn't going to be reverted, I'll be pleased to show that I'm honest;
    • About the "soft" it is perfectly fine for the site standards, looking just ok;
    • Now about the "JPG artefacts", I don't see it and the file was saved in high quality, I only see some color noise in the sky.

    Plus: It is not an usual/ordinary image, it's an airborne plane taking off at night!! Even with 2.8 lens, high ISO is needed, 16,000 to be precise in this case, and with it comes the noise, even in a full frame sensor. It's a very challeging photo to make and the result is stunning! Please, look at the image, it's nice!! I respectfully believe the screeners should take into account the difficulties to take a picture like that and be a little less rigorous, I say this to both this color noise in the sky (barely visible without equalizing) and the sharpness (what can led to more noise, that's why I apllied only the minimun necessary).

    Thank you for your attention, best regards!
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hello! Does this framing have a chance? I like the composition but the aircraft is not 100% centered
    Subjective call, but I would guess probably not.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hello! Does this framing have a chance? I like the composition but the aircraft is not 100% centered
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by cyx323 View Post

    It looks like serial number was missing in your upload.
    That's weird, every time I try the Auto-fill with "PP-MIG" it fills correctly the serial number with "3159".

    If it was really the case, ok, I could've seen that the SN field remained empty and manually filled it, but let's be honest: the upload in JP is so simply and works so good that it's easy to just look over and see that the airport and aircraft model was correctly filled, assuming everything is ok to upload as the database already has the data of this aircraft screened before. Since there are another photos accepted of this aircraft with the serial number, I believe that some error occured with the Auto-Fill and I didn't pick it up.
    Well, that's not completely my fault, can this rejection be reverted? It's sad to loose a slot and get the acceptance ratio reduced by a "site induced error". The photo is ok and just fill the serial number is pretty simple to do...

    Leave a comment:


  • cyx323
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hello! Need some help here, I really didn't understand this rejection:

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


    On the email was said the wrong info is the Serial Number/CN. Well, on the queue or the rejected photos the serial number field is always empty, so now I can't see which serial number I sent when uploaded this image, but the Auto-Fill was used, and simulating another upload for this registration, the Auto-Fill fills the serial number field with "3159", which is correct for this aircraft, so, what is the matter here?
    It looks like serial number was missing in your upload.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hello! Need some help here, I really didn't understand this rejection:

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


    On the email was said the wrong info is the Serial Number/CN. Well, on the queue or the rejected photos the serial number field is always empty, so now I can't see which serial number I sent when uploaded this image, but the Auto-Fill was used, and simulating another upload for this registration, the Auto-Fill fills the serial number field with "3159", which is correct for this aircraft, so, what is the matter here?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hi!

    It was rejected once because of the blues on the ground, they were "unnatural" and I had to agree... I admit I've appealed it but after the second rejection I find out the hue was strange on the blues and uploaded it again after fixing that. But now I really think it's ok... The airplane was lit by the yellow airport sodium lights, the sky was something like a blueish white/gray, the very wet tarmac was reflecting the sky and after doing the white balance, what was white became blue! That's normal and doing white balance was always allowed here, so, I really don't understand what is the issue now. I think this blue is ok for this time of the day, very dark already but not night yet. Take a look on the taxiway lights, which are blue, they looks normal, if I had changed the hue and modified the blue color, those lights would the the color changed also. Again, all I did was the white balance, the colors are consistent whith this WB.

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


    thanks
    Try with a warmer setting on the WB.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hi!

    It was rejected once because of the blues on the ground, they were "unnatural" and I had to agree... I admit I've appealed it but after the second rejection I find out the hue was strange on the blues and uploaded it again after fixing that. But now I really think it's ok... The airplane was lit by the yellow airport sodium lights, the sky was something like a blueish white/gray, the very wet tarmac was reflecting the sky and after doing the white balance, what was white became blue! That's normal and doing white balance was always allowed here, so, I really don't understand what is the issue now. I think this blue is ok for this time of the day, very dark already but not night yet. Take a look on the taxiway lights, which are blue, they looks normal, if I had changed the hue and modified the blue color, those lights would the the color changed also. Again, all I did was the white balance, the colors are consistent whith this WB.

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


    thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Thank you!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X