llpilch - prescreening request

[dlowwa]

Hi, I need a little help, please.

One of the following rejections were appealed a few days ago, but I don't remember which one, and I didn't receive any response e-mail until now. I want to appeal the other without appealing the same, I'm loosing the 14 days limit.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11560037

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11560040

Do the crew have any way to check which one is already appealed, please?

I don't agree that a small obstruction like this on less than half wheel is an issue that must be rejected, it is pretty common this kind of small obstructions from the ground itself, from grass or other types of vegetation, not a problem...

N922AN was appealed. Screener comments: "half of the wheel is already obstructed. Having shot there myself it's a hard spot but not impossible."

Other image is similar/the same. If you decide to appeal it, that's your choice, but then I will no longer be offering advice.

[llpilch]

N922AN was appealed. Screener comments: "half of the wheel is already obstructed. Having shot there myself it's a hard spot but not impossible."

Other image is similar/the same. If you decide to appeal it, that's your choice, but then I will no longer be offering advice.

Thank you!

I understand, you probably think it will be stupidity to appeal, and I'm really thinking I'm firing a shot on my own foot saying this as some accepted photos will be deleted now, but I already have accepted photos in similar conditions, more than 10, not only from this place, but from other airport too, for those pictures it was not a problem, but now I have 4 rejected photos with the same reason.

If the first or second photo were rejected, I would stop uploading, save my slots, save my acceptance ratio and save the screeners time, but as the photos were being accepted, I think it was ok to keep uploading, why 4 rejections now?

Being 100% honest: I really don't think this obstruction of less than half wheel is ugly on the picture, if more than half is missing it looks pretty weird, like the plane is levitating, and I always thougt that it's pretty nice you accept pictures like this, since sometimes great spotting points have small obstructions like this that we can't avoid, it pretty comprehensive from the site.

[llpilch]

Hi, is this framing acceptable? I like the composition with the background

I plan to upload as a helicopter picture, not airport

[dlowwa]

Hi, is this framing acceptable? I like the composition with the background

I plan to upload as a helicopter picture, not airport

You could try, but it will be at the screener's discretion.

[llpilch]

Hi! Please, was this apeeal already screened and rejected again?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11666880

[dlowwa]

Hi! Please, was this apeeal already screened and rejected again?
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11666880

Yes.

[llpilch]

I little help here please:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11670133

The plane's painting is faded, that is clearly visible comparing the new red on the engine with the red over the cockpit windows. The same for the tail, the blue is pretty washy, even though it looks low on contrast, the shadows under the wing and on landing gears are fine, tires are black. Other photos of the same aircraft shows how "tired" its painting is https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9911768

Also here:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11670139

Even the engines very close to the tarmac are fine, I see heat distortion only on the background

[dlowwa]

I little help here please:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11670133

The plane's painting is faded, that is clearly visible comparing the new red on the engine with the red over the cockpit windows. The same for the tail, the blue is pretty washy, even though it looks low on contrast, the shadows under the wing and on landing gears are fine, tires are black. Other photos of the same aircraft shows how "tired" its painting is https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9911768

Also here:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11670139

Even the engines very close to the tarmac are fine, I see heat distortion only on the background

1. contrast is washed out, not the paint. do you think we've never seen an aircraft with faded paint before? I see hundreds of images a day, thousands a month..please a little credit.
2. gear is partially blocked and whole bottom of aircraft is heat hazed. heat haze on background is irrelevant.

[llpilch]

1. contrast is washed out, not the paint. do you think we've never seen an aircraft with faded paint before? I see hundreds of images a day, thousands a month..please a little credit.
2. gear is partially blocked and whole bottom of aircraft is heat hazed. heat haze on background is irrelevant.

Hi!

I'm sure you did, but it happened to me before: A Gol Boeing 737 was rejected, I think it was by overexposed. In the appeal I said the paiting was faded and showed another photo, the appeal was accepted. I was just explaining why I think the rejection was a mistake. Looking this photo, the tail indeed looks low on contrast.

[llpilch]

Please, want to hear some thoughts on these rejections:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12116627

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12116624

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12116616

All rejected by overexposed, but I honestly do believe they are ok.

1. On the Southwest the only visible thing that MAYBE indicate an overexposed situation is the registration, but it is painted clear silver on the white! On more recent photos it was even painted lower in the fuselage, probably to be better seen (and still is very faint in lots of this plane's pictures);
2. These 3 images have tiny details like the contour of the doors, antennas, numbers, flags, star alliance logo, all in the most exposed area and still looking good, except for the top forward door where there is a reflection of the sun light;
3. The runway is made of concrete, it is almost white which naturally gives a clearer look to the photo.

From the upload guidelines:
"As with underexposed photos, if unsure, check the histogram. It will show you, if a photo is overexposed or not."
The histogram of this photos shows they are not, no peak to the right, actually there is a small gap.

And these 2:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12116634

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12102297

In the American, not only it's tail is lit and with no shadow over the fuselage, as the hangar in the background, parallel to the runway, is also lit with some shadows on it, showing the sun light is hitting that surface. The same for the tower's pillar more to the right with a shadow from the upper structure.
The Jetblue was subject to the same light condition on the same runway, it's tail is also lit.

I agree the light wasn't PERFECT, but it was favorable from the spot I took the photos, and the images looks fine.

[dlowwa]

Please, want to hear some thoughts on these rejections:

Poor contrast on all of those, but the only one I really see as being close to overexposed is the last one.