Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you!

[LX-A343]

PM sent.

[TopGun37]

Hello all !

I would like some opinion about this rejection, especially on the similar shot reason for this one : http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3257587

I already have a picture of this aircraft at this airport taken in september which is here http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...6933791&nseq=1

BUT the first picture was taken

- at dusk
- at landing
- with clouds in the sky
- 4 months ago

The new picture that was rejected is

- take-off
- gear up
- blue skies
- afternoon light.

I would like a second opinion on what justifies the similar shot, and also on the softness ?

Thanks a lot in advance !

Regards,

Guillaume

[LX-A343]

Light is very similar on both, the clouds are not taken into consideration. Angle and composition are very similar as well. Different date is not taken into consideration, otherwise we would be flooded with the same photo taken every single day. remains as only difference the gear up, but in the second photo, the gear doors are still open. All in all, the photos are too similar.

[TopGun37]

Light is very similar on both, the clouds are not taken into consideration.

Well, one is yellow light, one is afternoon light not even bringing in the yellowish dusk light, so I don't see how they can be put as the sames.

Angle and composition are very similar as well.

Well, angle is not really similar, since on the take-off picture you can see the belly of the aircraft and the fuselage title is partially covered, and vice versa on the landing shot. + I don't see how I could change the composition otherwise it would have been rejected as bad framing.

But anyway ... it will go elsewhere

[Joop]

Hello,

can anyone tell me what category is wrong or missing:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3264077

I'm pretty sure I checked the boxes for 'military' and 'wingview'.

Thanks in advance for your feedback,
Joop

[LX-A343]

"Wing view" was not selected.

[MoBL]

French AF Regs on Fouga Magister are 3 digit numbers usually written under the tail or on nose. None of them here so no reg needed. You can still put the code in the remark if you want.
And also leave a remark to screener about the non existant reg.

Regards
Alex

There were two Magisters with this code. The first was serial 99 but that has gone to the US. And the second is 125 wich was last noted preserved. So my bet is that she is 125 (also c/n: 125)

Rgds,

Thank you for information! I have already sent new reg and c/n (both 125) via correction form.

Greetings and happy New Year!
Kornel

[DC10&MD11]

Hi All,

I had this shot http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3263874 rejected for not being centred.

I looked at it carefully again and mathematically and logically it looked pretty much there or there about. So I decided to appeal. My appeal also got turned down saying there is too much dead space at the bottom.

As I see it, there are equal amounts at the top and bottom like millions of other pictures in the database. Even I have had far worse photos accepted. What this picture has done to be treated so disdainfully ?

[PMN]

I looked at it carefully again and mathematically and logically it looked pretty much there or there about.

Hi Aziz,

Just as a quick first point, there's absolutely no way in the world of photography to compose an image mathematically. I kind of understand where you're coming from, but such an approach doesn't take into account the 'balance' of a photo. Remember we're talking composition here; exposure can be technically and unequivocally measured, composition can't be.

The problem here is that while the fuselage may sit dead centre in the frame, the Dash 8 has a big old ass that's sitting way up in the top of the frame. You need to take into account the entire aircraft (including tail and landing gear) when cropping rather than just the fuselage. In your appeal you say you centred according to the window line, which again doesn't take into account other parts of the aircraft that are so important to composition. As I think I've mentioned before there's no absolute method of centering aircraft because they all sit slightly differently in the frame, so sometimes you have to just go with whatever 'feels' right rather than try take a measured approach.

[ALPHA320]

Hi,

just would like which categories I forgot in the following two to get them right in the next upload:

1. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3266012

2. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3266055

And one question to the following:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3266034

The shot was taken in strong snowfall (not the best condition I know ), but is the little grain on the fuselage really so disturbing? How can I remove it?

Many thanks and a happy new year to all!


Greets,
Patrick

[LX-A343]

1: Special Scheme
2: Don't know, but it needs Airport Overview
3: The snow is only visible as noise on the fuselage, otherwise it doesn't add anything at all. I would drop the photo in your case.

[ALPHA320]

1: Special Scheme
2: Don't know, but it needs Airport Overview
3: The snow is only visible as noise on the fuselage, otherwise it doesn't add anything at all. I would drop the photo in your case.

Thank you Gerardo, it's clear of course. Man the Swiss Avro is so common meanwhile I didn't think of a special scheme at all .

[DC10&MD11]

Hi Aziz,

Just as a quick first point, there's absolutely no way in the world of photography to compose an image mathematically. I kind of understand where you're coming from, but such an approach doesn't take into account the 'balance' of a photo. Remember we're talking composition here; exposure can be technically and unequivocally measured, composition can't be.

The problem here is that while the fuselage may sit dead centre in the frame, the Dash 8 has a big old ass that's sitting way up in the top of the frame. You need to take into account the entire aircraft (including tail and landing gear) when cropping rather than just the fuselage. In your appeal you say you centred according to the window line, which again doesn't take into account other parts of the aircraft that are so important to composition. As I think I've mentioned before there's no absolute method of centering aircraft because they all sit slightly differently in the frame, so sometimes you have to just go with whatever 'feels' right rather than try take a measured approach.

Hi Paul - I am glad you got the jist of what I meant by mathematically. You are absolutely right that shouldn't be the only approach. I usually do my "mathematical" bit first then use the logical bit to see if it looks ok and if not then adjust accordingly.

I usually see the faults on my rejected photos (shame I don't see them before getting poked in the eye ) and also agree vast, vast majority of the appeal rejections. However I am baffled with this one.

Taking your point about the big arse of the Dash 8 - so how do you suggest I correct the framing? Moving the plane up or down the frame?

[PMN]

Taking your point about the big arse of the Dash 8 - so how do you suggest I correct the framing? Moving the plane up or down the frame?

Well the problem is the tail. While the fuselage is central the tail is sticking waaaay up in the top of the frame making the whole aircraft feel too high so it needs to be lower, as suggested by the screener who dealt with your appeal.

[DC10&MD11]

Well the problem is the tail. While the fuselage is central the tail is sticking waaaay up in the top of the frame making the whole aircraft feel too high so it needs to be lower, as suggested by the screener who dealt with your appeal.

Hi Paul - thanks for the clarification. I will bear that in mind for future. As with many of my other rejected images I will not go back and correct this particular one. Not only because we agree to disagree but I have too many other fishes to fry (so to speak......).

Happy New Year to you all and may it be a great one for all