KampfHase - Rejection/Screening advice

[dlowwa]

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

This is the editing forum, not data/info. Editors have final say for such decisions, but usually original reg. if known is preferred.

[KampfHase]

Hi guys,

can please a screener explain the decision making of these rejects to me.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12035098 / https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=12035098
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12035085 / https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=12035085
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=12035083 / https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=12035083

I am not able to see any jpg artefacts here. One of these has a faint amount of noise in the dark areas, but thats what makes a picture natural. You'll always have noise in any picture unless you edit it the maximum which is not very natural. All pictures are always saved in best quality mode and have more than 1 MB.

All have a very clear blue evening sky with no clouds at all which exaggerates your "check for dust" tool even more giving the impression of artefacts in the sky. But honestly, I have seen much worse pictures where this reject would fit. Yes of course the sky is not a plain blue unrealistic surface.

I somehow cannot understand how such reasons overweight all other aspect of photography when making a decision whether you want a picture in the database or say its too bad. Resolution, sharpness, wonderful evening lighting. Seems all to be ignored.

If please some screener can take a second look at my pictures. Thank you!

[bstolle]

I've got two identical rejections a month ago and I'm 100% sure that it was related to an upload /connection quality problem. dlowwa also mentioned, when I posted the problem, that he had never seen jpg artifacts on my photos before.
I've re-uploaded the identical photos a few hours later again and this time they were accepted. (Both were hot, new reg, photos)

[dlowwa]

Hi guys,

can please a screener explain the decision making of these rejects to me.

I am not able to see any jpg artefacts here. One of these has a faint amount of noise in the dark areas, but thats what makes a picture natural. You'll always have noise in any picture unless you edit it the maximum which is not very natural. All pictures are always saved in best quality mode and have more than 1 MB.

All have a very clear blue evening sky with no clouds at all which exaggerates your "check for dust" tool even more giving the impression of artefacts in the sky. But honestly, I have seen much worse pictures where this reject would fit. Yes of course the sky is not a plain blue unrealistic surface.

I somehow cannot understand how such reasons overweight all other aspect of photography when making a decision whether you want a picture in the database or say its too bad. Resolution, sharpness, wonderful evening lighting. Seems all to be ignored.

If please some screener can take a second look at my pictures. Thank you!

Not really a compression issue imho, just noise. Noisy/blotchy skies (as you have here) can sometimes be interpreted as compression, but I think you're safe to ignore the strictest definition of compression as being the issue here.