Advice/Confirmation requested by jakerepp

[jakerepp]

Bit of a halo around the tail, otherwise ok for me.

Thanks.

Sorry to bug you again, but just got a Bad Info rejection on this one and the screener noted that it's an SR20 TRAC.

I searched high and low before uploading and after but could find no evidence that that is correct. FR24, FlightAware, FAA.gov, Planefinder.net, and radarbox.com all say it's just an SR20. There's no info on this aircraft on Airfleets.net either. I also inspected the fuselage pretty closely to find any markings indicating a model but I found none.

I don't know what data source was used to find that info. Not saying it's wrong, I just can't find proof of it.

Here's the rejection link.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10804139

[jakerepp]

Thanks.

Sorry to bug you again, but just got a Bad Info rejection on this one and the screener noted that it's an SR20 TRAC.

I searched high and low before uploading and after but could find no evidence that that is correct. FR24, FlightAware, FAA.gov, Planefinder.net, and radarbox.com all say it's just an SR20. There's no info on this aircraft on Airfleets.net either. I also inspected the fuselage pretty closely to find any markings indicating a model but I found none.

I don't know what data source was used to find that info. Not saying it's wrong, I just can't find proof of it.

Here's the rejection link.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10804139

Bumping this back up and adding another couple photos for screening. Both were fairly heavy crops and I can never tell if the quality is still there.

[dlowwa]

Bumping this back up and adding another couple photos for screening. Both were fairly heavy crops and I can never tell if the quality is still there.

1. dirty, borderline soft
2. ok for me

You would do better to ask the editors about aircraft types since they will have the final decision on such topics.

[jakerepp]

1. dirty, borderline soft
2. ok for me

You would do better to ask the editors about aircraft types since they will have the final decision on such topics.

Where would I reach out to the editors? Is that just in the aircraft types sub forum?

[dlowwa]

Where would I reach out to the editors? Is that just in the aircraft types sub forum?

Yes, that is correct.

[jakerepp]

Yes, that is correct.

Thanks. Erwin responded to my request and said 'he would add it to the DB', which I'm assuming meant he would accept the photo, but hasn't happened yet. He didn't really explain what he meant by that or why he would add it, so I'm still unsure if I should appeal or not.

Anyways, I just got this rejection for heat distortion and I just do not see any. Can you tell me what I'm missing?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10780014

[dlowwa]

Thanks. Erwin responded to my request and said 'he would add it to the DB', which I'm assuming meant he would accept the photo, but hasn't happened yet. He didn't really explain what he meant by that or why he would add it, so I'm still unsure if I should appeal or not.

Anyways, I just got this rejection for heat distortion and I just do not see any. Can you tell me what I'm missing?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10780014

It's fine. I added that one.

[jakerepp]

It's fine. I added that one.

Thanks!

[jakerepp]

Another rejection I'm unsure about, for bad post processing. I don't see any halos, though I could just be missing them, and I didn't do much more than a little contrast and increasing the exposure a bit. Screener didn't leave notes.

What am I missing?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10828074

[dlowwa]

Another rejection I'm unsure about, for bad post processing. I don't see any halos, though I could just be missing them, and I didn't do much more than a little contrast and increasing the exposure a bit. Screener didn't leave notes.

What am I missing?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10828074

Above the buildings/roofs; relatively minor, but it is noticeable even unequalized.

[jakerepp]

Above the buildings/roofs; relatively minor, but it is noticeable even unequalized.

Okay, I guess I see that. Just surprised since I did very little to it. Thanks Dana.

[jakerepp]

I know Dana is out for a bit, but does anyone else want to give their opinion on these 2 VisionJets? Hard to tell if they are too backlit with V tails .

[MarkLawrence]

Personally, I would say yes backlit on #1, but not on #2.

[jakerepp]

Personally, I would say yes backlit on #1, but not on #2.

Yeah that's probably a good assumption. Thanks Mark!

[Alex - Spot-This !]

I know Dana is out for a bit, but does anyone else want to give their opinion on these 2 VisionJets? Hard to tell if they are too backlit with V tails .

they are both acceptable for me