Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

llpilch - prescreening request

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

  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    I little help here please:
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


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


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    I little help here please:
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


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


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

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hi! Please, was this apeeal already screened and rejected again?
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11666880
    Yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hi! Please, was this apeeal already screened and rejected again?
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    I plan to upload as a helicopter picture, not airport
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    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.
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

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


    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

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


    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    Hi! About this rejection:

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


    Yes, it is not the perfect sunny shot, but there is nothing here even close to what you consider a contrast motive to rejection on the upload guidelines. That grayish haze in the air is not here, no gaps and no peaks on the edges of the histogram either. The sky is clear but the contrast between the plane and the sky is not an issue at all, the plane is perfectly distinguishible.
    This clear sky is due to the time of the day with sun too low but I checked "night shot", it is expected for this condition.

    Sorry for discharge here, I love to send photos to JP, but it is so frustrating to get this rejections by contrast that simply don't fit in any of the reasons explainted on the guidelines . I asked for permission to enter the hangar, got late to work, only to keep the database up to date with this new reg (it's first flight) and to get a rejection very hard to agree with.
    It doesn't look fair.

    There are many topics here on the forum of people complaining about the "too much or too little contrast" rejection, I believe it's not only me getting problem with it. Seems like it's being rejected for nothing since the photo is fine without the issues of the guidelines. There is no reason to reject, but it is rejected.
    Background (sky) is brighter than the foreground (aircraft). Not much you can do to fix this.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Hi! About this rejection:

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


    Yes, it is not the perfect sunny shot, but there is nothing here even close to what you consider a contrast motive to rejection on the upload guidelines. That grayish haze in the air is not here, no gaps and no peaks on the edges of the histogram either. The sky is clear but the contrast between the plane and the sky is not an issue at all, the plane is perfectly distinguishible.
    This clear sky is due to the time of the day with sun too low but I checked "night shot", it is expected for this condition.

    Sorry for discharge here, I love to send photos to JP, but it is so frustrating to get this rejections by contrast that simply don't fit in any of the reasons explainted on the guidelines . I asked for permission to enter the hangar, got late to work, only to keep the database up to date with this new reg (it's first flight) and to get a rejection very hard to agree with.
    It doesn't look fair.

    There are many topics here on the forum of people complaining about the "too much or too little contrast" rejection, I believe it's not only me getting problem with it. Seems like it's being rejected for nothing since the photo is fine without the issues of the guidelines. There is no reason to reject, but it is rejected.

    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post

    Sure, added to the high crop which make the small defects more evident.

    Is it worth appealing or the quality is indeed too low?
    I would reject the appeal if it came to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • llpilch
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Looks more like noise than compression, but also could be the after-effects of attempts at noise reduction.
    Sure, added to the high crop which make the small defects more evident.

    Is it worth appealing or the quality is indeed too low?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by llpilch View Post
    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.
    Looks more like noise than compression, but also could be the after-effects of attempts at noise reduction.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X