quick reject help from screeners

[kcmh]

Well I guess I'm being censored ( ) here so I'll guess I'll stop bringing up a problem with the database so here goes. A regular question

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=388861
and
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=390109

You guessed it, same photo two different rejection notices.


I do not see anything "blurry" about the photo, besides the engine exhaust, which means the engines are working and thats always a good thing. I understand why the 1st one was booted. But why was the "blurry" issue not brought up the on the 1st reject

[Crazy764]

If you look at the rego on the tail, you'll see the photo is not very sharp.

I think it's quite soft, as well, the cropping should be tighter.

JMO...

[AJ]

Good morning, we are still human you know. The bad info rejection is valid as you know, however not all would agree with the blurry call.

Facts are it's a borderline shot that could have gone either way. The fact that you had so many high standard uploads would also lead to a photo like this one looking below your average.

I hope this assists your understanding. BTW the second shot could also have recieved 'bad info', the full type is Cessna 560 Citation V.

Cheers.

[jid]

Its an easy mistake to make N37QS as you put does not equal N373QS.
That error just draws the eye to the reg which really does look soft, almost blurry. There could of been lots of reasons for just that section of the picture appearing softer than the rest. I have found that dust on the lense can cause this effect. To fix it just select the soft area and only sharpen the selected area. Hope this helps .. Jid

[egll]

The second upload got a second screening but both screeners concurred and felt it was blurry and I have to say I agree, although maybe 'soft' would have been my decision.

I would not have noticed the 'Citation' thing as I admit I know very little about light aircraft/Bizjets.



Matt