KampfHase - Rejection/Screening advice

[KampfHase]

That is so very faint, but okay. You decide

[KampfHase]

Can you please accept these two rejects. Both have been rejected for wrong airline private, both are owned by fake letterbox airlines. I recently tried to add such airlines and got angry replies not to do this.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10394143

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10394173

Additionaly, these two have also been rejected for wrong aircraft type, while both are 100% correct.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392077

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10391865

As we can only appeal once every 24 hours, please do it this way. Thank you very much.

[dlowwa]

Can you please accept these two rejects. Both have been rejected for wrong airline private, both are owned by fake letterbox airlines. I recently tried to add such airlines and got angry replies not to do this.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10394143

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10394173

Additionaly, these two have also been rejected for wrong aircraft type, while both are 100% correct.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10392077

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10391865

As we can only appeal once every 24 hours, please do it this way. Thank you very much.

This is the digital photo processing forum. Perhaps you should post the data/info forum where the editors would be better able to answer your questions.

[KampfHase]

Would this picture be considered cut-off? Unfortunately some aircraft used the rear part of the runway which is partly cut off.

[dlowwa]

Would this picture be considered cut-off? Unfortunately some aircraft used the rear part of the runway which is partly cut off.

Cut off, no. Obstructed, yes.

[KampfHase]

Can please someone judge this picture if it is correctly centered. It's a difficult angle. If you only look at the fuselage separately it looks too low, but regarding the dead space it has more on the bottom so it should be lower.

I have some of the same angle taken at MDW so I want to be sure I crop them correctly.

[dlowwa]

Can please someone judge this picture if it is correctly centered. It's a difficult angle. If you only look at the fuselage separately it looks too low, but regarding the dead space it has more on the bottom so it should be lower.

I have some of the same angle taken at MDW so I want to be sure I crop them correctly.

Too low in the frame.

[KampfHase]

Too low in the frame.

So not the whole aircraft counts, only the fuselage?

[dlowwa]

So not the whole aircraft counts, only the fuselage?

Usually, yes.

[KampfHase]

Would this picture be acceptable with the extended background to show more of the nice mountains? Or is it "subject to far"?

[neto.911]

Would this picture be acceptable with the extended background to show more of the nice mountains? Or is it "subject to far"?

for sure needs a tighter crop to be acceptable.

[TRTPUwU]

Would this picture be acceptable with the extended background to show more of the nice mountains? Or is it "subject to far"?

It needs a tighter crop to the right, you can leave the chopper a bit low/centered to show the mountains though

[dlowwa]

Would this picture be acceptable with the extended background to show more of the nice mountains? Or is it "subject to far"?

Would be a centering rejection.

[KampfHase]

Please tell me which registration I need to use for this aircraft.

https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=24632

It is freshly painted in the livery of "67-21434" in which it operated from 1967 to 1994. Its latest civil reg is "N4070Q" which it used from 1994 to 2018. Either reg is new for the database.

[KampfHase]

Can please someone answer me. 67-21434 or N4070Q for the Cessna linked above?