Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Very sad with this rejection

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Very sad with this rejection

    I always agree with the rejections of my photos, but this one made me really sad.. I can't accept this.
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2508130
    Where are the "soft appearence" here? All lines are jagged, I was expeting a "oversharpen" rejection, NEVER soft!

    But this photo that was uploaded later than mine photo and REALLY have a soft appearence (and dark too), was accepted
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6575355

    And what say about the bad information Serial number/CN? I put 335 because this REALLY are the construction number of this aircraft, I found this information at the Brazilian Aeronautical Register (in portuguese, Registro AeronŠutico Brasileiro - RAB http://www.anac.gov.br/aeronaves/cons_rab.asp), and the photo above that was accepted even with soft and dark appearence have the same CN of mine photo, 335, I think that exists only one PT-LUZ here in Brazil and in the whole world, if the accepted photo is the PT-LUZ 335, my photo is the PT-LUZ 335 too.

    Ok, I forgot to put "Business jet" in categories, but it can be changed after the upload, just correct the info, is very frustrating wait six days for the screening process and the photo be rejected for a reason like this, specially because when I uploaded this photo and even at the moment that it was rejected, there was no one photo of this aircraft on database.. the same for the CN, I can change it correcting info if you want that the CN be 25D-335...

    well, I really think that this rejection was not just..

    Regards,
    Leandro

  • #2
    CN: we, as other databases as well, use the format 25-xxx for a learjet 25 for example.
    soft: borderline, some would accept it, some would reject it, because some parts look a bit soft.
    A missing category is a rejection reason. If it would only be that, we sometimes correct the category, but usually not, because it's up to the photographer.
    My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

    Comment


    • #3
      ok, so why the other photo was accepted with the CN "335"? (NOW is 25-335, but i saw, it was "335" only)

      if 335 is a wrong info, all the photos with this wrong info must be rejected, not only mine photo..

      and sorry, but I can't see any part soft in my photo, it's more sharpenned than the other PT-LUZ photo

      Comment


      • #4
        That was a mistake on our side and therefore corrected in the db. We can't all of us know everything about aviation. I'm far of beeing a database expert, but I do know, that we use this mentioned format for learjets.

        And BTW: stop bringing other photogs pictures into the forum. It's considered as rude.
        My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

        Comment


        • #5
          Let's put the c/n and category issues to one side for a moment and look at the sharpness issue.

          In your shot the registration, cowling detail, windows, cockpit edges and the nose, especially the rivets are soft compared to the other example. True, this could be considered marginal but given that there were other issues that needed attention, especially the category then I would suggest that the softness issue was included as you had other errors to correct. Without the other errors the shot may well have crept in on the ethos of "seek to accept, not to reject".
          We will sometimes add a c/n and/or category for you but only if there are no other issues and it must be stressed that it is not our job to do this, it is down to the photographer to check all detail. Remember that the autofill does not always select the appropriate genre and/or category. You're not the only one to fall foul of this, it's happened to me as well and I should know better ( and even screeners get rejections for it!).
          As far as the c/n is concerned this site is probably the best for correct bizjet data http://www.laasdata.com/corpjet/corpjet-search.php
          Search there and you will find the c/n listed as 25-335 which it REALLY is.

          As Gerardo says, don't use another individual picture as an example, it is considered rude to do so. By all means though state that there other pictures in the database, without being specific, with similar incorrect info. The admins will then take the appropriate action to tidy up the database.
          Last edited by brianw999; 2009-06-01, 07:33.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #6
            Got it accepted elsewhere I see...

            http://www.airliners.net/photo/Gates...9e92aca66bf32e

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Andrew McLaughlin View Post

              That is was, that it was....oh and the point?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
                That is was, that it was....oh and the point?
                Me thinks the point is that A.net is getting desperate...'scuse me VERY desperate

                Comment


                • #9
                  And most interestingly the cn is correct for the a.net-version.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    As I always say: different sites, different tastes.
                    My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Andrew McLaughlin View Post
                      It's a pretty good photo, so I don't think A.net is getting desperate. I would say that the photo that you tried posting here and on A.net is marginal, if the categories would have been correct and the plane had been a tad sharper it easily would have been accepted.

                      Rohan

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
                        That is was, that it was....oh and the point?
                        No point, just an observation. If I'd had a point, I would have made it...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          But, as I already said. At A.net the cn is correct and the categories seem to be correct as well.

                          That takes away 2 100% rejection reasons. I doubt we would have rejected it for soft alone. But if he has to put it in the queue again anyway, it makes a lot of sense to add soft to the rejection list, so he can add one pass of USM before up-loading again.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It did however have the correct C/N over there.

                            Its easy guys - just upload with correct details and either sharpen/soften the areas that have been advised, and presto! Within a week, all is forgotten....

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X