But seriously...

[Rash]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=316980

For the initial rejection message I got:
Screener Comments: Are you sure this is your photo - looks very much like a reproduction to us

Very flattering. I appealed and received:

We do not allow photo frames around our photos. Thanks

I double checked the listed criteria for framing and don't see anything about framing.

What gives? Seriously.

[Simpleboy]

To me, the frame is very distracting

Is it necessary?
What is its purpose?
Ask yourself those questions, unless you haev damn good answers to them, there is no need for it.


I didnt see the thumbnail, but when viewing it at 15%, the "Robert C Taylor" written in it is still visable. That is a rejection.

[Rash]

I've posted it in different forums both with and without the frame. I like the frame.

The name thing, I've seen multiple pictures on this forum with names embedded and didn't notice anything about it in the upload guidelines. Do you mean the signature must be smaller? I don't beleive I'd post this particular photo without it.

Thanks for your comments.

Rob

[LX-A343]

As a rule of thumb: if the signature is visible in the thumnail, we reject it.

As for the framing: I understand your view, that the framing makes this picture more artistic. But that's not the goal of this site. Where do we draw the line, if we allow one pic to be manipulated in that way? What's next? We have to be strict on that and the decision is clear, even if not expressly noted in the upload page:

"5. Model photos, digitally enhanced photos etc. will be rejected. "

In my opnion, this framing falls under the category "digitally enhanced"

As for the 1st rejection reason ("Are you sure this is your photo - looks very much like a reproduction to us"). Please understand, that we had our fair share of copyrighted pics submitted here already. We don't have any prove, that these are your pics or not. It's not an easy decision. We would love to see those pics here. We are discussing this in the Crew forum and I'm sure, you will get a response.

Regards
Gerardo

[Simpleboy]

Name thing you can and cant get away with, depends on what mood the screener is in, what the shot is like, and in Clovis' case, how much alcohol he has had while screening.

I still think the frame is distracting. If you like it like that by all means have it like that but on here its not exactly what they are after.

[Rash]

I can completely understand the copyrighted thing. I provided several forums where it was posted (with and without frame ) to help out with that question. Hopefully there is no doubt I took this photo.

I'd make a suggestion that's obvious: flesh out the guidelines so newcomers don't have to guess so much. It'd probably save you folks a lot of eyestrain also.

[LX-A343]

If we flesh out the guidelines, chances are high, that it gets too big and at the end, nobody reads it. It's the same with manuals: "if anything goes wrong, read the manual"

Cheers
Gerardo

[CheckSix]

Cut the frame and make the signature slightly smaller.

Are you by chance the airman who has that PBase gallery with shots from Afghanistan?

[Leftseat86]

Cut the frame and make the signature slightly smaller.

Are you by chance the airman who has that PBase gallery with shots from Afghanistan?

Yeah he is.

-Clovis

[Rash]

How true, but if you go by Naval Aviation philosophy and briefly describe what you can't and shouldn't do, everything else is possible. Contrast with USAF thinking where they try to describe what is permissible. Two different views that produce vastly different results, but at least describe something. To me, guideline 5 doesn't say "no frames", it says don't go Picasso.

I'd still suggest an additional page showing some examples of what to do to get the photos rejected. Feel free to use some of mine, I'm quite used to being the bad example

Rob

[Rash]

Cut the frame and make the signature slightly smaller.

Are you by chance the airman who has that PBase gallery with shots from Afghanistan?

Yup. Someone from JP.net suggested I post here also. I thought it was a good idea.

[Chris Starnes]

I think if you remove the frame and decrease the size of the text on the image, these will stand a very good chance of being accepted if re-uploaded.

Thanks for working with us on this issue. As Gerardo mentioned, we have to walk a fine line between what is "real" and what isn't when it comes to copyrighted material such as this.

Chris

[kcmh]

That was me that suggest that you post here, but I guess some people (screeners) just don't like the work that have worked so hard to get.

Ref the "real" issue, since most of us are stuck on the ground I don't think that we need to say everytime we see an air to air from anyone other than Sam Chui (no offense Sam) you need to say oh well its fake.

[fallingeese]

kcmh....we screeners have to air on the side of caution with such photos. It is far to frequently that we see stolen work, and to us, sometimes we are obvious of who the REAL photographer is.