llpilch - prescreening request

[dlowwa]

This plane is at a junkyard at my city, it's registration is PT-DEM, can the first photo (the green one) be accepted? Just upload the location as "Brazil - other location - name of the place"?

What about the second photo (yellow)? It was taken in 2012 and I don't remeber why I took the photo on the wrong side, so it's backlit. But there isn't any photo of this plane here, and today it is green, maybe this backlit photo of the plane being used as ad sign have a historical value, what do you think?

1. contrast quite harsh
2. backlit means unlikely to be accepted

[llpilch]

This plane is at a junkyard at my city, it's registration is PT-DEM, can the first photo (the green one) be accepted? Just upload the location as "Brazil - other location - name of the place"?

What about the second photo (yellow)? It was taken in 2012 and I don't remeber why I took the photo on the wrong side, so it's backlit. But there isn't any photo of this plane here, and today it is green, maybe this backlit photo of the plane being used as ad sign have a historical value, what do you think?

[dlowwa]

hey!

Wanted another opinion on this one

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10085068

The histogram is cool, the contrast between the plane and the background are also fine, the entire aircraft is perfectly distinguishable from the background, nice colors, nice contrast visually. The weather was not that bad, is was pretty clear in fact, is visible how there is plenty of light on the fuselage and a weak shadow on the ground.

This one is not related to the histogram, but to the overcast conditions. I don't think there is much more you can do here.

[llpilch]

hey!

Wanted another opinion on this one

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10085068

The histogram is cool, the contrast between the plane and the background are also fine, the entire aircraft is perfectly distinguishable from the background, nice colors, nice contrast visually. The weather was not that bad, is was pretty clear in fact, is visible how there is plenty of light on the fuselage and a weak shadow on the ground.

[llpilch]

Someone thought there was manipulation in the foreground. If this was not the case, and you are able to provide me the original raw file, I can fix this mistake for you.

I'll send you the RAW file. Thank you for your attention

[dlowwa]

That being quoted, it's obvious to say that digital manipulation of an image is something serious here.

By the other hand, it is not cool either to reject someone's photo by manipulation if it's not the case.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10012888

Please, can someone tell me where there is any sign of manipulation in this image? Where there is any sign of something removed or what was added to this image? Based in what am I being accused of digital manipulation?

Someone thought there was manipulation in the foreground. If this was not the case, and you are able to provide me the original raw file, I can fix this mistake for you.

[llpilch]

1 General Upload guideline


Please keep in mind that rarity of a photo will be taken into account by our screening team.


1.1 General Advice on uploads


1.1.1 Upload only unaltered images


Cloning anything in or out of a photo will mean that the photo will be rejected and you are running the risk of your upload privileges being withdrawn or limited for some time. Manipulating a photo is something we will never tolerate. We reserve ourselves the right to remove manipulated photos from the database. All that we allow to be cloned out are artefacts in the picture that look like sensor dust spots.


Any manipulation of a photo will not be tolerated and might result in a ban if repeated.

That being quoted, it's obvious to say that digital manipulation of an image is something serious here.

By the other hand, it is not cool either to reject someone's photo by manipulation if it's not the case.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10012888

Please, can someone tell me where there is any sign of manipulation in this image? Where there is any sign of something removed or what was added to this image? Based in what am I being accused of digital manipulation?

[dlowwa]

I understand.
Maybe the "i'm afraid" lets a door open for the subjectivity of the other screeners who might evaluate this if I upload?

Sorry for insist, it's not my intention to disregard your opinion, it's just like I've said, it's a nice place for the final rest of a retired plane, has its value. MAYBE in the future will be possible a picture from the other side with less obstruction, but until now it's not the case.

It seems like you were asking for someone to confirm your hope and would have uploaded it regardless, so please do whatever you wish.

[llpilch]

Too much obstruction, I'm afraid.

I understand.
Maybe the "i'm afraid" lets a door open for the subjectivity of the other screeners who might evaluate this if I upload?

Sorry for insist, it's not my intention to disregard your opinion, it's just like I've said, it's a nice place for the final rest of a retired plane, has its value. MAYBE in the future will be possible a picture from the other side with less obstruction, but until now it's not the case.

[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.