I'm confused about some rejections

[Maxi-Air]

Hey there,
usually rejection reasons are straight forward, like soft, unleveled or similar, but I recently got 4 pictures rejected for Over Processed / Bad postprocessing after almost all of my recent uploads were accepted. Not that this isn't a valid reason for the two example pictures given in the upload guidelines, but I fail to see how this applies to the 4 following pictures. Especially as 4 other pictures from the same batch/timeframe were accepted. I hope you can provide some more insight.
thanks and kind regards,

Upload ID 11185640

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11185640

Upload ID: 11185635

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11185635

Upload ID: 11185630

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11185630

Upload ID: 11185627

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11185627

[HKG_spotter]

#3 does look slighly overexposed to be.

[MarkLawrence]

I'm not sure about the others, but on this one, I see some compression in the sky - that is a bad post processing rejection is all I can see. (this is an equalized version)

[Maxi-Air]

Thanks HKG_spotter and Mark,
I guess to some extend this might be an explanation, but both only referring to one of the four. Maybe a screener can shed some more light on those rejections?

[dlowwa]

Hey there,
usually rejection reasons are straight forward, like soft, unleveled or similar, but I recently got 4 pictures rejected for Over Processed / Bad postprocessing after almost all of my recent uploads were accepted. Not that this isn't a valid reason for the two example pictures given in the upload guidelines, but I fail to see how this applies to the 4 following pictures. Especially as 4 other pictures from the same batch/timeframe were accepted. I hope you can provide some more insight.
thanks and kind regards,

Editing halos visible on all images.

[Maxi-Air]

Editing halos visible on all images.

Thanks for your answer, although I might see those in equalize mode around the white areas of the Condor 332 tail and a tiny bit at the 339 tail, they are barely visible without.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to check

[Maxi-Air]

Wanna re-use this thread for some rejections I got today, maybe a screener can shed some light

for the first two Screener comment read "Airbus Industrie" with bad info, but why would that be categorized as Airbus Industrie, if its not an airbus testframe, but rather one for an airline in its pre delivery testing? The second also has horizon unlevel but with the net clearly showing the cranes are vertical and so is the middle building.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11544190

https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/1564828_1705601354.jpg

__________________

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11544300

https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/1735515_1705605553.jpg

______________



the last one was rejected for
Bad Composition (bad framing / aircraft not centered), I assume high in frame, but given how main gear to lower frame border and upper fuselage to upper frame border are identical, I don't see this either.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11544195

https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/1652947_1705601712.jpg

[dlowwa]

Wanna re-use this thread for some rejections I got today, maybe a screener can shed some light

1. not painted in airline livery = Airbus
2. same as above; horizon actually ok for me, but I can see how screener probably thought a little CW was needed
3. yes too high

[dlowwa]

I see you've either appealed before asking for help, or in spite of the advice that was given. Either way, please read here carefully before asking for advice in the future and follow the requests, or don't expect any further advice from crew:

https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/aviation-photography-videography-forums/digital-photo-processing-forum/63048-suggestions-when-asking-for-editing-advice-prescreening-from-crew

[Maxi-Air]

I see you've either appealed before asking for help, or in spite of the advice that was given. Either way, please read here carefully before asking for advice in the future and follow the requests, or don't expect any further advice from crew:

https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/a...ning-from-crew

Thanks for the advice. I had appealed one of the pictures before posting here, because a more seasoned uploader/friend told me that it must be a mistake that the airline was "wrong" and he was similarly confused, as I was. Another friend, with also far more uploads than I, voiced the exact same frustration over the JP practice and did upload it again under "Airbus" as airline. Other databases handle partially painted aircraft differently (and these clearly aren't completely unpainted and therefore easily identifiable).

[TRTPUwU]

(and these clearly aren't completely unpainted and therefore easily identifiable).

For someone without aviation knowledge it will be hard to recognize the 1st and 3rd images, not everyone recognizes eurowings and ITA so easily (not everyone knows that eurowings and ITA exist, some still believe that Alitalia exist)

[dlowwa]

Thanks for the advice. I had appealed one of the pictures before posting here, because a more seasoned uploader/friend told me that it must be a mistake that the airline was "wrong" and he was similarly confused, as I was. Another friend, with also far more uploads than I, voiced the exact same frustration over the JP practice and did upload it again under "Airbus" as airline. Other databases handle partially painted aircraft differently (and these clearly aren't completely unpainted and therefore easily identifiable).

Lesson learned: ask for help here before you assume you are right or a mistake was made in screening.