llpilch - prescreening request

[dlowwa]

Hello! In a case where it's simply impossible to take a picture of a plane with no obstruction, is it possible to get an exception to this rule?

This plane will probably stay in this place forever, it was taken out of service in 2017 and recently sold to a couple who put it on their own garden, it's being reassembly (the wings and the stabilizers were removed for transport) and I think that even being allowed to enter the place (private property) will not be possible to photograph it without obstruction since it's too close to the trees. Even though, I think that the picture is worth, it's a pretty interesting final rest for PR-ONO, in a beautiful place.

If it is ok, can the aspect ratio 1:1 be accepted? the second photo looks amazing with the reflection on the river

EDIT: the quality of the pictures were reduced by the forum, they are soft and with JPG artifacts, but the objective here is just the motive/obstruction

Too much obstruction, I'm afraid.

[llpilch]

Hello! In a case where it's simply impossible to take a picture of a plane with no obstruction, is it possible to get an exception to this rule?

This plane will probably stay in this place forever, it was taken out of service in 2017 and recently sold to a couple who put it on their own garden, it's being reassembly (the wings and the stabilizers were removed for transport) and I think that even being allowed to enter the place (private property) will not be possible to photograph it without obstruction since it's too close to the trees. Even though, I think that the picture is worth, it's a pretty interesting final rest for PR-ONO, in a beautiful place.

If it is ok, can the aspect ratio 1:1 be accepted? the second photo looks amazing with the reflection on the river

EDIT: the quality of the pictures were reduced by the forum, they are soft and with JPG artifacts, but the objective here is just the motive/obstruction

[dlowwa]

Hi!

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9872489

Please, I would like a feedback about this rejection. I myself have some tail shots like this accepted, I have some engine close up shots accepted, it's common to see photos with parts cut off here, not cut off parts with no reason, like said on the guidelines, but photos that are clearly intended to do only a close-up of some part, maybe to show some detail or give more enphasis to an especific part like the tail or the fuselage, or maybe to do a different photo.

I like a lot pictures with close on the tail and the wingtip. Being honest, this plane was obstructed and was impossible to do a photo of the entire airframe ( https://www.draeronaves.com.br/img/f...1_P1310333.jpg ), but still being an "ok" photo with some details that are not so visible in normal shots, the frame looks cool with almost no empty spaces.

Subjective decision by the screener, but I think the crop at the bottom cutting the fuselage is the problem.

[llpilch]

Hi!

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9872489

Please, I would like a feedback about this rejection. I myself have some tail shots like this accepted, I have some engine close up shots accepted, it's common to see photos with parts cut off here, not cut off parts with no reason, like said on the guidelines, but photos that are clearly intended to do only a close-up of some part, maybe to show some detail or give more enphasis to an especific part like the tail or the fuselage, or maybe to do a different photo.

I like a lot pictures with close on the tail and the wingtip. Being honest, this plane was obstructed and was impossible to do a photo of the entire airframe ( https://www.draeronaves.com.br/img/f...1_P1310333.jpg ), but still being an "ok" photo with some details that are not so visible in normal shots, the frame looks cool with almost no empty spaces.

[llpilch]

People's faces are visible, and other portion of exterior badly blown out.

Yeah, I totally forgot about the faces until I had another rejection today by the same reason and a comment from the screener regarding this...

Thanks!

[dlowwa]

Hello!

Please, why bad motive here? Just a cockpit photo...
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9861221

People's faces are visible, and other portion of exterior badly blown out.

[llpilch]

Hello!

Please, why bad motive here? Just a cockpit photo...

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9861221

[llpilch]

1. ..shadow is visible, are you sure that's before sunrise? Not night shot in any case.
2. better if no obstruction, yes.
3. borderline. would be a subjective call.

1. yes, the sun rises behind that hills. ISO 400 1/50, was pretty dark yet.
2. I'll try another, thanks!

[dlowwa]

Hello, what about the 727 as night shot (taken before sunrise)?
The A330, will it be rejected by obstruction on the nose gear?
And the 737, can this framing be accepted? I choose to keep it in the bottom of the frame and not cut the A380

1. ..shadow is visible, are you sure that's before sunrise? Not night shot in any case.
2. better if no obstruction, yes.
3. borderline. would be a subjective call.

[llpilch]

Hello, what about the 727 as night shot (taken before sunrise)?
The A330, will it be rejected by obstruction on the nose gear?
And the 737, can this framing be accepted? I choose to keep it in the bottom of the frame and not cut the A380

[dlowwa]

Thanks Dana! Ok, I agree that the image 9699004 has a strange noise in the sky, I could have paid more attention when editing and before uploading. Still don't think it is a big deal, but ok, the noise is there, will not appeal.

But the other 2 imagens has way less noise! 9699013 and 9699008 didn't needed to be rejected

All look similar to me, but if you're certain about it, not sure why you're asking here.

[llpilch]

Maybe not 'very' noisy, but it is noticeable (and the images were seen by two senior screeners) so you are unlikely to have the rejections overturned.

Thanks Dana! Ok, I agree that the image 9699004 has a strange noise in the sky, I could have paid more attention when editing and before uploading. Still don't think it is a big deal, but ok, the noise is there, will not appeal.

But the other 2 imagens has way less noise! 9699013 and 9699008 didn't needed to be rejected

[dlowwa]

Hello!

Please, take a look on these 3 rejections:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9699013

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9699008

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9699004

In one of them, the screener sent a comment: "very noisy sky"

I can't agree with this... "VERY noisy"? The images just have the normal amount of noise expected for a digital image! I do not agree it is enough to reject the photo, it is very weak.

Should I appeal?

Maybe not 'very' noisy, but it is noticeable (and the images were seen by two senior screeners) so you are unlikely to have the rejections overturned.

[llpilch]

Hello!

Please, take a look on these 3 rejections:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9699013

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9699008

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9699004

In one of them, the screener sent a comment: "very noisy sky"

I can't agree with this... "VERY noisy"? The images just have the normal amount of noise expected for a digital image! I do not agree it is enough to reject the photo, it is very weak.

Should I appeal?

[dlowwa]

Hello!

I would like to know if the the attached photo of PS-BED will be considered similar to this one already accepted: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10356908

Yes, similar.

Also, will the PR-PTG photo be rejected by backlit?

Not sure if technically backlit, but there will likely be issues with exposure/contrast.