MarkosVicioso - PreScreening Request/Advice

[dlowwa]

Thank you, would you please pre-screen this one?

Quite soft, slightly dark.

[MarkosVicioso]

Quite soft, slightly dark.

Thanks, would you please give it one more look?
Tried to amend it

[dlowwa]

Thanks, would you please give it one more look?
Tried to amend it

This would be ok for me.

[MarkosVicioso]

Good day sr, Thank you for last feedback.

I have i little curiosity about this rejection ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11311014 )
This one was pre-screened with only horizon feedback ( Was # 2 )

1. soft, motive
2. horizon
3. too far

but it got rejected by overproccesed and categories wrong and missing.

I'm 99% sure i placed the right genre which is military, but into the Categories (aircraft specific) there is no categorie that should apply to this one particulary.

Only wondering if you could check if i really missed to mark any slot in the Categories which im almost sure i didn't cause i uploaded 2 more similar pictures in the same moment and they were accepted. and also if you could have a quick look again at the image and see if it is over-proccessed which im 99,9% sure it's not cause there are not visible halos which is the most usual over-processing trigger.

I could still be wrong, So just wanted to double check with your help before make an appeal to avoid wasting the screener's time.

Thanks for the help.

[dlowwa]

Good day sr, Thank you for last feedback.

I have i little curiosity about this rejection ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11311014 )
This one was pre-screened with only horizon feedback ( Was # 2 )

but it got rejected by overproccesed and categories wrong and missing.

I'm 99% sure i placed the right genre which is military, but into the Categories (aircraft specific) there is no categorie that should apply to this one particulary.

Only wondering if you could check if i really missed to mark any slot in the Categories which im almost sure i didn't cause i uploaded 2 more similar pictures in the same moment and they were accepted. and also if you could have a quick look again at the image and see if it is over-proccessed which im 99,9% sure it's not cause there are not visible halos which is the most usual over-processing trigger.

Light editing halos are visible on the treeline.

This is a Small Prop. Category was fixed for the others since they were otherwise ok.

[MarkosVicioso]

Light editing halos are visible on the treeline.

This is a Small Prop. Category was fixed for the others since they were otherwise ok.

Thank you, i knew i could still be wrong.

Would you please pre-screen this ones?

1


2


3

[dlowwa]

Thank you, i knew i could still be wrong.

Would you please pre-screen this ones?

1. motive/obstruction
2. soft, overprocessed
3. centering/motive

[MarkosVicioso]

1. motive/obstruction
2. soft, overprocessed
3. centering/motive

#1 is of a spotting location, does the aircraft needs to be non obstructed in this kind of pictures?

[dlowwa]

#1 is of a spotting location, does the aircraft needs to be non obstructed in this kind of pictures?

Would improve the chances significantly.

[MarkosVicioso]

Hello sr, Thank you for all the help.
This time i'll be bothering you again with one little thing

There's a picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11316696 ) which was rejected due horizon but i think a mistake was made due the framing complicity...

Some pictures have a complex horizon sources due their vanishing point so it's easy to have wrong ideas of horizon legitimacy at first sight cause horizontal lines will mostly be not straight as the horizon grid tool, so horizon real source becomes verticals from the center of the image. ( on green circles: liable vertical references, on red: non-liable horizontal reference )
1

2
3

( I know you dont need to see this explanation cause i've seen you understand what im talking about since pictures that have buildings in vanishing point effect affecting horizontal references that seem ok for me, have also been checked by you with no horizon feedback to amend, like this one for example. But they have been rejected anyway by that reason. So im leaving this here in case you can pass the message to the screeners which are ignoring this vanishing point issue happening on buildings which are seen in a diagonal perspective, because at least that has already happened to me in the past but with an accepted appeal = jetphotos.com/photo/11017955 )

This time i'm 100% sure horizon is correct and also you checked it too before and horizon was ok for you, so i appealed to it and surprisingly it was rejected because "Needed counter cw rotation" so i think an error is still occurring.

I know you can't delete the rejected slot after a rejected appeal but i think regardless to that this photo should be accepted, as have also happened to me in the past with rejected horizon appeals by mistake like this picture: jetphotos.com/photo/11024136.

I also know that no matter how sure you are you can always be wrong, so i would really appreciate your opinion and help with this particular horizon common issue.

Thank you for your time.

[dlowwa]

Hello sr, Thank you for all the help.
This time i'll be bothering you again with one little thing

There's a picture ( https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11316696 ) which was rejected due horizon but i think a mistake was made due the framing complicity...

( I know you dont need to see this explanation cause i've seen you understand what im talking about since pictures that have buildings in vanishing point effect affecting horizontal references that seem ok for me, have also been checked by you with no horizon feedback to amend, like this one for example. But they have been rejected anyway by that reason. So im leaving this here in case you can pass the message to the screeners which are ignoring this vanishing point issue happening on buildings with diagonal perspective, which at least has already happened to me in the past but with an accepted appeal = jetphotos.com/photo/11017955 )

This time i'm 100% sure horizon is correct and also you checked it too before and horizon was ok for you, so i appealed to it and surprisingly it was rejected because "Needed counter cw rotation" so i think an error is still occurring.

I know you can't delete the rejected slot after a rejected appeal but i think regardless to that this photo should be accepted, as have also happened to me in the past with rejected horizon appeals by mistake like this picture: jetphotos.com/photo/11024136.

I also know that no matter how sure you are you can always be wrong, so i would really appreciate your help with this particular horizon common issue.

Unfortunately it has already been appealed, so there will no longer be comments from crew.

[MarkosVicioso]

Unfortunately it has already been appealed, so there will no longer be comments from crew.

Nothing else to say about all i wrote besides of the picture itself?

[MarkosVicioso]

I'll take the silence as a dissapointing no, thanks anyway, guess there's nothing left but upload it again, if it gets rejected again i'll come here first...

Would you please help me with this one?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11352792

Not sure which rotation it needs and the email with the results and info about the rejection haven't arrived yet...

[dlowwa]

I'll take the silence as a dissapointing no, thanks anyway, guess there's nothing left but upload it again, if it gets rejected again i'll come here first...

Would you please help me with this one?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11352792

Not sure which rotation it needs and the email with the results and info about the rejection haven't arrived yet...

Needs CW rotation.

[MarkosVicioso]

Needs CW rotation.

Thanks, something else...

How does resubmit works? i've tried to resubmit a picture but there's no sign of done or anything when you click resubmit