llpilch - prescreening request

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

Hello!

I would ask some help with this two rejections, please:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10253620

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10266224

What am I missing? (beyond the bizzjet category )

The 737 is totally fine for me, in the parts with more contrast there is including a white border, like under the entire fuselage, landing gears, horizontal stabilizer... The only problem with this photo is the conversion to .webp, done by the site, wich I have no control. It affected the title "Gol", the tail painting and the winglet, but looking the colors/lines that were not affected by the .webp conversion, where is soft?

The Legacy, as the 737, looks pretty good. The blue line on the fuselage length is a bit jagged specially on the nose, the cockpit windows, the small registration on the tail, the wings, specially the one that is lower in the frame, everything looks ok on the entire frame.

Both photos has the same appearence in sharpening that a lot of photos that I'm getting accepted, including from the same day, with the same equipment and edited togheter. Also both photos comply with the site standards, it's easy to find here photos wich are equal or even more soft than mine, and please, don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that those photos are bad and if they were accepted, my photos should too. I'm just saying that there is a standard here.

Sharpening vary from monitor to monitor and is a bit subjective, we can't be so rigid with it, there is some margin, a bit more soft is ok, as a bit more oversharpen, I do believe these 2 photos are totally inside this margin.

[dlowwa]

Hello!

I would ask some help with this two rejections, please:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10253620

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10266224

What am I missing? (beyond the bizzjet category )

The 737 is totally fine for me, in the parts with more contrast there is including a white border, like under the entire fuselage, landing gears, horizontal stabilizer... The only problem with this photo is the conversion to .webp, done by the site, wich I have no control. It affected the title "Gol", the tail painting and the winglet, but looking the colors/lines that were not affected by the .webp conversion, where is soft?

The Legacy, as the 737, looks pretty good. The blue line on the fuselage length is a bit jagged specially on the nose, the cockpit windows, the small registration on the tail, the wings, specially the one that is lower in the frame, everything looks ok on the entire frame.

Both photos has the same appearence in sharpening that a lot of photos that I'm getting accepted, including from the same day, with the same equipment and edited togheter. Also both photos comply with the site standards, it's easy to find here photos wich are equal or even more soft than mine, and please, don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that those photos are bad and if they were accepted, my photos should too. I'm just saying that there is a standard here.

Sharpening vary from monitor to monitor and is a bit subjective, we can't be so rigid with it, there is some margin, a bit more soft is ok, as a bit more oversharpen, I do believe these 2 photos are totally inside this margin.

We generally don't comment on rejections that have already been appealed.

[llpilch]

We generally don't comment on rejections that have already been appealed.

The 737 was not...

[llpilch]

Hi, please some help here:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392896

I can't see any sign of over processing or bad post processing, no halo at all, no noise reduction, looks normal.

About the horizon: there is no good reference, the horizon itself is not visble due to rugged terrain, but the photo looks ok. There's only a tower hard to be seen above the tail, and a pole under the tail, wich looks vertical. By the way, not reliable references since it is too much to the left of the frame, taken with a wide lens. More to the center there is some equipment with vertical lines which looks ok also. The plane doesn't seem to be "climbing or descending a hill"