Tweet
Originally posted by AJ
-
I have leveled it on that. Okay i made a mistake, Genre. Its a civilian owned aircraft wearing no markings. What should it be? -
Ollie,
Most Warbirds are civilian owned but they are still a "warbird" (i.e. designed for military purposes).Comment
-
But does that mean the 'Millitary' option should be ticked? I didnt think it would as all the other Warbird photos i have uploaded have not had it ticked. This is where being able to see categorys would be so usefull again.Originally posted by cjaComment
-
Ollie, as far as I understand it the military tag applies if the aircraft is currently owned/operated by a military force and is in military markings.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
That is my understanding to, so im unsure what is ment by genre.Originally posted by brianw999Comment
-
Does that AC have any marking at all ? If not, upload as civilian and leave a note to the screener.Comment
-
No, it is just painted green with a name under the side of the cockpit.Originally posted by Omar Alex SaffeComment
-
Ollie,
It looks like you have raised a good point here. There is nothing that I can see, either on the upoad page or in the detailed guidelines that would appear to cover this point.
My own assumption would be that "military" means an aircraft designed for, or adopted for use by a military organisation. Therefore an aircarft designed for military use but operated by a non military organisation still counts as a military aircraft.
Sounds like I coud be wrong though so perhaps a screener could clarify this point???Last edited by cja; 2007-11-11, 17:09.Comment
-
...but there are an awful lot of pictures in the database of aircraft originally designed and intended for military use that are not owned by the military and have not been uploaded as military. Every old warbird ( Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang etc. ) is listed as civilian or privately owned with a "Warbird" tag. I have successfully uploaded ex WW2 fighters and bombers and have never tagged them as militaryTherefore an aircraft designed for military use but operated by a non military organisation still counts as a military aircraft.
The aircraft Ollie is referring to is privately owned by a civilian individual and currently being rebuilt by a private company, i.e. The Fighter Collection at Duxford. The aircraft does not have a civilian registration and is being rebuilt using parts from two or more aircraft.
In these circumstances I would say...upload as civilian, warbird and leave a note to the screeners as to why this has been done.
In brief....
If its a currently serving military aircraft being operated by a recognised air arm then upload as military.
If its an ex military aircraft owned by a private individual, even if its in military markings, then upload as civilian.
......but most importantly. leave a note to the screeners to explain why something has been done.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Okay with thatOriginally posted by brianw999
YES !!Originally posted by brianw999
Go with the reg. If it's flying under a civil Reg upload as civilian. But if the AC is owned by a museum but isn't in flying condition, upload as military with the air Force it has the colours of...
Best regards
AlexComment
-
Ollie put the 'airline' as 'Australia - Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)', therefore the genre should be military.
If he had put 'Private' it should have been civilian.Comment
-
Hey Guys, is this photo really Soft?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1663811
The thing is that if I appply more sharp, it would look overersharpend.
EDIT: And with this pic:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1664872
Can I appeal?Because I don't have the registration of the A/C!
Comment
-
Horizon - and some other stuff
Ok, it seems to me that 'Horizon Unlevel' is killing me and slightly out of control? I always use a grid and if I can't find a true horizon then I use vertical which for the most part is more accurate. Here's and example:
N934FR
The 'Horizon' is not unlevel. The line where the tarmack ends and the buildings/background start is level. All the vertical lines are vertical. Now, yes, the runway lines look like they run uphill and a horizontal line of a building in the background does too- but that's just the way it is.
As far as the rejection for 'Dark/Underexposed' - that confuses me too. Too dark for what? I think it looks fine. And the 'Similar Upload'? What this - Another view of N934FR?
Well, I'm not really asking for help with this photo 'cause I won't appeal - I do that very rarely even if I disagree. I'll just try to fix what the screener has said and resubmit at a later date. I'm just trying to understand if anybody else has any thoughts about my misunderstandings - thanks.
Take care,
BradComment
-
Originally posted by zaguate1Hey Guys, is this photo really Soft?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1663811
The thing is that if I appply more sharp, it would look overersharpend.
EDIT: And with this pic:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1664872
Can I appeal?Because I don't have the registration of the A/C!
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1663811 does not look that soft but there is some CA in evidence.
Second shot is rejected because you put UNKNOWN in the reg field. This should be left blank.
JidComment
Comment