Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I'm confused about some rejections

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm confused about some rejections

    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
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1082726_1690134440.jpg
Views:	1090
Size:	1.06 MB
ID:	1167428

    Upload ID: 11185635
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1174063_1690134314.jpg
Views:	696
Size:	1.13 MB
ID:	1167429

    Upload ID: 11185630
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1041280_1690134122.jpg
Views:	697
Size:	1.04 MB
ID:	1167430

    Upload ID: 11185627
    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1282570_1690134085.jpg
Views:	693
Size:	1.19 MB
ID:	1167431

  • #2
    #3 does look slighly overexposed to be.
    I'm not who you think I am.

    Or perhaps.

    Comment


    • #3
      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) Click image for larger version

Name:	1041280_1690134122.jpg
Views:	500
Size:	1.47 MB
ID:	1167440

      Comment


      • #4
        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?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Maxi-Air View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

            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

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

              Click image for larger version  Name:	1564828_1705601354.jpg Views:	0 Size:	1.42 MB ID:	1179250


              __________________


              JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

              Click image for larger version  Name:	1735515_1705605553.jpg Views:	0 Size:	1.57 MB ID:	1179251



              ______________



              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.

              JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

              Click image for larger version  Name:	1652947_1705601712.jpg Views:	0 Size:	1.52 MB ID:	1179252

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Maxi-Air View Post
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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:

                  As there seem to be some unwritten rules that are missed by newer users, here are a few suggestions for when you would like editing advice/prescreening from the crew: If asking for prescreening/editing advice, please title your thread "(username) - prescreening request / editing advice" Prescreening is offered

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

                    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).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Maxi-Air View Post

                      (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)
                      Everything that say is in my opinion, a screener might dissagree
                      If you are dissapointed of yourself, look at me and feel better.
                      ——————————————————————————

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Maxi-Air View Post

                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hey there, lets try this again, despite this being completely unrelated to post screening advice, and therefore to the thread title, I was told to attach this question in this thread, after being scolded for opening a new topic.
                          Anyway, I saw that the airport overview for El Calafate is 15 years old and the airport looks vastly different nowadays, but as I didn't take a dedicated airport overview shot when I was there in December, I cropped these two out of wingviews I took. Would one of those be sufficient in terms of quality and if yes, which one would be preferred?
                          Thanks for your advice.​

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5039CAXXges_1600.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	821.0 KB
ID:	1191119Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5065CAXXges_1600.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	818.2 KB
ID:	1191120

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Maxi-Air View Post
                            Hey there, lets try this again, despite this being completely unrelated to post screening advice, and therefore to the thread title, I was told to attach this question in this thread, after being scolded for opening a new topic.
                            Anyway, I saw that the airport overview for El Calafate is 15 years old and the airport looks vastly different nowadays, but as I didn't take a dedicated airport overview shot when I was there in December, I cropped these two out of wingviews I took. Would one of those be sufficient in terms of quality and if yes, which one would be preferred?
                            Thanks for your advice.​
                            Soft, dark.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X