Pablo Gonzalez - Prescreening

[dlowwa]

Hello crew!

Today I had this photo rejected (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10369242), should I appeal? The obstuction is minimal.

Thanks in advance!

Seems like it would have been easy to avoid by waiting a few seconds, so appeal may or may not be successful.

[PabloGlez]

Hello crew!

Recently this Vueling broke the front landing gear (visible inclination on the photo) and had the runway closed because of that, does it qualify as accident category and hot? Or none of this?

https://www.atlanticohoy.com/sociedad/vueling-gran-canaria-bilbao-retraso-avion-pista_1510747_102.html

Thanks in advance!!

[dlowwa]

Hello crew!

Recently this Vueling broke the front landing gear (visible inclination on the photo) and had the runway closed because of that, does it qualify as accident category and hot? Or none of this?

https://www.atlanticohoy.com/sociedad/vueling-gran-canaria-bilbao-retraso-avion-pista_1510747_102.html

Neither hot nor accident.

[dlowwa]

Hello Crew!

I would like to have a prescreening on this one, I have doubts about obstruction with the light trail in the front and the stair in the landing gear.

Would probably be an issue, but couldn't say all would agree.

[PabloGlez]

Hello crew! I had this photo rejected, https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10664547 and I wanted to know which is the exact problem to fix it, or maybe if it has chances to be accepted when appealed. It's regular photo with normal edition process, looks like a fake gradient in the sky but is the original gradient.. I can attach the original one if needed. Thanks in advance!

[MarkLawrence]

I am not a screener, but I see a couple of things I have outlined - the first is something at the top of the image that is very very defined - maybe a dust spot, maybe a fiber - and then the second issue looking like banding in the sky above the aircraft . Just my opinion.

[dlowwa]

Hello crew! I had this photo rejected, https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10664547 and I wanted to know which is the exact problem to fix it, or maybe if it has chances to be accepted when appealed. It's regular photo with normal edition process, looks like a fake gradient in the sky but is the original gradient.. I can attach the original one if needed. Thanks in advance!

Banding in the sky maybe, otherwise looks reasonable to me.

I am not a screener, but I see a couple of things I have outlined - the first is something at the top of the image that is very very defined - maybe a dust spot, maybe a fiber

Moon

[PabloGlez]

Hello crew!
I would like to have pre-screening on these two photos.
My main concern is the sky, because the light on these stands hit so hard and the reflection on the fuselage cause a kind of halo.


Thanks in advance! Pablo.

[dlowwa]

Hello crew!
I would like to have pre-screening on these two photos.
My main concern is the sky, because the light on these stands hit so hard and the reflection on the fuselage cause a kind of halo.
Thanks in advance! Pablo.

Pretty sure that's an editing halo rather than "light on these stands hit so hard" halo since it follows the shape of the fuselage.

If you want to send/post the raw file, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

[PabloGlez]

Pretty sure that's an editing halo rather than "light on these stands hit so hard" halo since it follows the shape of the fuselage.

If you want to send/post the raw file, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Sure, here you have both files attached. I have to compress them to the maximum allowed in the forum. No edited, just in JPG and resized. I tried first checking the check for dust with no edition and got the same halo result..

What I meant about "light on these stands hit so hard" is because, I had to overexpose the photo because if I follow only the exposure of the fuselage all the black tones of the background are so hard in the histogram. If you check it, you´ll see even overexposing the photo at firsts, blacks are so strong. And my theory about the halo is because the light hits hard the fuselage and produced it.
At eyesight isnt even visible.

[dlowwa]

Sure, here you have both files attached. I have to compress them to the maximum allowed in the forum. No edited, just in JPG and resized. I tried first checking the check for dust with no edition and got the same halo result..

What I meant about "light on these stands hit so hard" is because, I had to overexpose the photo because if I follow only the exposure of the fuselage all the black tones of the background are so hard in the histogram. If you check it, you´ll see even overexposing the photo at firsts, blacks are so strong. And my theory about the halo is because the light hits hard the fuselage and produced it.
At eyesight isnt even visible.

The halo looks different in the unedited version, it's more of an oval around the whole aircraft, which is what I would expect if it were just glare. In the earlier image the halo follows the contours of the aircraft more, so it looks like it's the glare halo being reinforced/shaped by some other editing you're doing.