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

[AJ]

Hi Sriram, unfortunately they would both be rejected as Over-processed.

Also your shots have a light border around them, perhaps applied in PS?

[MarkLawrence]

I'm curious about this one - http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3484612. The heat haze I can understand now - and I'm looking for another in the series that isn't heat hazed, but , bad info: airline? It is showing the runway and the new enlarged high speed exits - and bad motive - again - I'm trying to show the new improvements to the runway and exits? Can someone please enlighten me?

[LX-A343]

Mark, you know this is a new high speed exit. But for the regular viewer, 1/4 of the photo simply shows a roof and a light post and then a random part of the ramp, covered in heat haze. Sorry, but it does not work.

[sriramhariiyer]

Help with reject

Hi JP Screeners,

I had a reject today on the shot: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3489555

I am not clear what means by "Bad Motive" here. I wanted to portray the F/A's seat in the row 27 of 737-900ERs, one of this type.

Please let me know how best I can make this shot get into JP.

Cheers,
Sriram Hariharan

[ALPHA320]

Hi,
after a "long time" again a question regarding the following shot:

I wonder why it was rejected for "bad quality", it would have been accepted a few weeks ago but I forgot to check the "Small Prop" category. Here is the first reject: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3478662

Now a few weeks later I got exactly the same shot with no changes rejected for "bad quality":

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3493218

I find that a little disappointing, as I do also not agree because (at least for me) there is no way to do it different. Every shot I take out of my cockpit will look the same, either you have a overexposed outer view or a dark panel. I also have shots similar to that in the db already, so as I said I wonder a bit.

So maybe an appeal?

Thanks in advance!


Kind Regards,
Patrick

[Brenden S]

Patrick, it is also noisy, and lots of grain along with the glare from the outside. Definitely one for the personal album. I will also raise this in the screeners forum as well.

[ALPHA320]

Hi Brenden,

it's ok. I just thought because as I said it might have passed the first time. But we are all humans, so we all make errors.

Thank you anyway!


Kind Regards,
Patrick

[Taliesin]

Hello, I just had this rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3494960

The "Dark/Underexposed" I think is debatable, I think brightening creates a lot of unnecessary glare on the upper side of the fuselage, but the screener definitely has a point. But "Part of Aircraft cut off"?
It shows the forward part of the Airbus A380 including the revised list of customers, freshly painted on. I think this cut works very well and if anyone disagrees, can I have advice on how else to crop? Should I cut the list in half?

I uploaded a new version to Flickr, a bit brighter this time. Would this work?

[DRS-Spotter]

Hello,

even if some of the screeners who screened the pic think it's too much that I'm aksing her why this picture was rejected for Info/Category I do it to get a decent answer.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3496376

I appealed aksing for more info why it was rejected and got (not the first time) this answer

"Your appeal for photo id 3496376 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> "

A/C type is correct as well as airline

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7152399

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7143127

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7116392

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7116347

I had some issues lately when I wanted to change the Airline of one of the above linked pictures from JAL to Untitled which took me 2 Corrections. Don't know if I uploaded it as JAL or if it was changed during screening or later by user/editor. In the end it was changed to Untitled for not having any titles.

Also asked if it should've been uploaded as Overview which I doubt b/c these one are OK.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6612836

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6431376

Thank you for your input.

georg

[ErwinS]

Hello,

even if some of the screeners who screened the pic think it's too much that I'm aksing her why this picture was rejected for Info/Category I do it to get a decent answer.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3496376

I appealed aksing for more info why it was rejected and got (not the first time) this answer

"Your appeal for photo id 3496376 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> "

A/C type is correct as well as airline

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7152399

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7143127

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7116392

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7116347

I had some issues lately when I wanted to change the Airline of one of the above linked pictures from JAL to Untitled which took me 2 Corrections. Don't know if I uploaded it as JAL or if it was changed during screening or later by user/editor. In the end it was changed to Untitled for not having any titles.

Also asked if it should've been uploaded as Overview which I doubt b/c these one are OK.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6612836

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6431376

Thank you for your input.

georg

Georg since is more a ramp overview with stored A300's I suggest to upload it as such. And then with the airport overview cat selected.


Rgds,

[Taliesin]

Almost 36 hours and no reply?

Did I say something wrong? Like I said, if my photo is deemed underexposed that is one reason to reject it and one reason is enough, I'd just like some input on how to do the cut. I think the cut works the way I did it.

[RingwaySam]

Almost 36 hours and no reply?

Did I say something wrong? Like I said, if my photo is deemed underexposed that is one reason to reject it and one reason is enough, I'd just like some input on how to do the cut. I think the cut works the way I did it.

Just my opinion but the photo doesn't really work for me. If you leave the nosewheel in then you're most likely going to have clutter (if that's even an option, I don't know what the original is like), if you crop it out then you'll get cut off.

Sam

[DRS-Spotter]

@ErwinS and Brian Whitelegg (who wrote an E-Mail)

Thank you for your input, I re-upload it as a Ramp Shot

georg

[Taliesin]

Just my opinion but the photo doesn't really work for me. If you leave the nosewheel in then you're most likely going to have clutter (if that's even an option, I don't know what the original is like), if you crop it out then you'll get cut off.

Sam

The nosewheel being cropped out is what caused the cut-off rejection? I didnt even think of that.
Well, that settles that. Thanks for the input

[N365PA]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3497462

It was rejected for categories wrong or missing. I do apologize I'm 3000mi from home on my iPad so i can't do much to the photo at the moment, I'm just curious as to what I missed?

Another thing, i had many photos rejected for leveling. Im shooting at anchorage (home) and the runway has a noticeable drop. The buildings and light poles in the background of my shots are what I use to judge level. I'll post a few but again I'm on my iPad so my eye with this on my lap isn't exactly what it could be on my desktop at home. Appreciate any help!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3497454

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3497447

Clint