KampfHase - Rejection/Screening advice

[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.

[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)

[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!

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[KampfHase]

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

[dlowwa]

So not the whole aircraft counts, only the fuselage?

Usually, yes.

[KampfHase]

Too low in the frame.

So not the whole aircraft counts, only the fuselage?

[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]

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]

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.