jhud922 - editing advice

[dlowwa]

Eh dont worry about it. I guess people auto-grab any new regs or something.

New registrations are automatically flagged by the system as hot and go immediately to screening, if that's what you mean. Nobody 'grabs' anything.

[jhud922]

New registrations are automatically flagged by the system as hot and go immediately to screening, if that's what you mean. Nobody 'grabs' anything.

Ah ok, well that makes more sense then. Can't use the screening tools for new registrations really, got it.

Could I have a screener provide the detail behind these rejections? I am still not getting emails from JP for some reason so I can't see the comments etc.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10646636 - specifically this one has "bad info", I had to manually fill in the details so obviously I did something wrong

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10613737 - this one has wrong category, could I get that detail please? I let it auto select so thats kind of odd.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10611059 - i got a bad framing for this one. I appealed, but I think it was denied, again I can't really tell. How could the framing be improved? It looks pretty spot on to me even with the centering tool.

Thanks

[thebigdog360]

Ah ok, well that makes more sense then. Can't use the screening tools for new registrations really, got it.

When I want to use the tools to check a photo of a new reg, I always just choose a random registration that is already in the database to upload with. You are deleting within hours if not minutes anyways, and with the length of the queue there is no chance of a screener viewing it.

[MarkLawrence]

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10611059 - i got a bad framing for this one. I appealed, but I think it was denied, again I can't really tell. How could the framing be improved? It looks pretty spot on to me even with the centering tool.

Thanks

I'm not a screener, but measuring the two distances I've highlighted shows the aircraft a bit too low in the frame - hence the framing.

[jhud922]

When I want to use the tools to check a photo of a new reg, I always just choose a random registration that is already in the database to upload with. You are deleting within hours if not minutes anyways, and with the length of the queue there is no chance of a screener viewing it.

yeah thats a good idea

[dlowwa]

Could I have a screener provide the detail behind these rejections? I am still not getting emails from JP for some reason so I can't see the comments etc.

1. no CN was entered
2. Night Shot. Categories are not auto-selected.
3. image already appealed. no comment.

Please do not post requests for advice for images that have already been appealed.

[jhud922]

1. no CN was entered
2. Night Shot. Categories are not auto-selected.
3. image already appealed. no comment.

Please do not post requests for advice for images that have already been appealed.

Can you at least help me with the email issue so I can see the rejection comments? Why they aren't visible on the site itself...

Am I going to have a problem with the wheels here?

[dlowwa]

Can you at least help me with the email issue so I can see the rejection comments? Why they aren't visible on the site itself...

If you ask before appealing, certainly.

Am I going to have a problem with the wheels here?

No, but the contrast, softness, etc., yes.

[jhud922]

I have this rejection for "heat distortion". https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10669220

Is it worth an appeal? I don't see any noticeable heat haze on the aircraft, so I'm not exactly sure where that is being called out. I could also re-submit at a smaller size that might mitigate it. Just wanted to get a 2nd opinion before I appeal. Thanks.

[MarkLawrence]

Not a screener, but I see pitting in the top of the fuselage - just been caught out with the same thing that I missed too.

[jhud922]

Not a screener, but I see pitting in the top of the fuselage - just been caught out with the same thing that I missed too.

Thats probably fair Mark. So shrink it and try again?

[dlowwa]

I have this rejection for "heat distortion". https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10669220

Is it worth an appeal? I don't see any noticeable heat haze on the aircraft, so I'm not exactly sure where that is being called out. I could also re-submit at a smaller size that might mitigate it. Just wanted to get a 2nd opinion before I appeal. Thanks.

Not worth an appeal. Quite noticeable on the stipe(s) and bottom of the fuselage.

[jhud922]

Not sure about this type of crop, I can try to make it tighter but will look awkward without the tug. Is this acceptable or no?

[jhud922]

Also got this rejection for Bad Info (while I was just trying to see how it looked after uploading, but that's on me). As I can't see the rejection emails, could a screener tell me what info was incorrect?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10759214

[dlowwa]

Also got this rejection for Bad Info (while I was just trying to see how it looked after uploading, but that's on me). As I can't see the rejection emails, could a screener tell me what info was incorrect?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10759214

Location.