NEW Editing advice thread

[ErezS]

Dear Friends,
I would be happy to receive recommendations to fix this photo.
Thanks in advance,
Erez.

[dlowwa]

Dear Friends,
I would be happy to receive recommendations to fix this photo.
Thanks in advance,
Erez.

The light looks pretty poor, so not sure if you can fix it with another edit. You could try to reduce the harsh the shadows (lowering the contrast) and brightening it a bit, but again, due to the overall poor quality of the light, I can't promise it's possible to edit it to standards that would make it acceptable for here.

[ErezS]

The light looks pretty poor, so not sure if you can fix it with another edit. You could try to reduce the harsh the shadows (lowering the contrast) and brightening it a bit, but again, due to the overall poor quality of the light, I can't promise it's possible to edit it to standards that would make it acceptable for here.

Thank you Dana for the reply.
I'll try. Is it better now ? Is there any chance?

[seahawk]

No, this is even worse, but for different reasons as now it is too bright. But there is only so much you can do to save a photo taken on a foggy day.

[Edwin]

Re-use of reg for new airframe

Reading section 2.5 update of the Upload Guidelines I was given the impression that the first image of "re-use of a registration for a new airframe" is considered Hot.

Update 5th June 2016.
Hot photos for which the 48 hour rule does not apply.
In order to improve the cooperation with FlightRadar24 and have the most up to date image available for the FlightRadar24 site the following will be accepted as hot for the first image accepted only.
4. Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe

I uploaded two images as hot as they both fall within the above conditions. Both were rejected for invalid hot

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5847416

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5847426

Screener very kindly left a comment saying "will be considered Hot when receives new reg.", which seems contradicting to the UG.

Any help will be appreciated.

Cheers,
Edwin.

[LX-A343]

Reading section 2.5 update of the Upload Guidelines I was given the impression that the first image of "re-use of a registration for a new airframe" is considered Hot.

Update 5th June 2016.
Hot photos for which the 48 hour rule does not apply.
In order to improve the cooperation with FlightRadar24 and have the most up to date image available for the FlightRadar24 site the following will be accepted as hot for the first image accepted only.
4. Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe

I uploaded two images as hot as they both fall within the above conditions. Both were rejected for invalid hot

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5847416

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5847426

Screener very kindly left a comment saying "will be considered Hot when receives new reg.", which seems contradicting to the UG.

Any help will be appreciated.

Cheers,
Edwin.

Have you read the screener's remark? Both photos are still showing the test-rego.

[Edwin]

Have you read the screener's remark? Both photos are still showing the test-rego.

Yes, thank you I have read the screener's remark. My question was the remark contradicts with the upload guidelines update of 5th June 2016, which states:

4. Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe.



The two photos were both re-use of registrations for new airframes.

[LX-A343]

Yes, thank you I have read the screener's remark. My question was the remark contradicts with the upload guidelines update of 5th June 2016, which states:

4. Photo of an airliner with a registration not in the database or re-use of a registration for a new airframe.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7502[/ATTACH]

The two photos were both re-use of registrations for new airframes.

That is meant for "regular" regos, for obvious reasons not test regos.

[Edwin]

That is meant for "regular" regos, for obvious reasons not test regos.

Thanks for the reply. Would appreciate if you could please help me understand what are the obvious reasons?

The stated objective of June 2016's update was "to improve cooperation with FR24 and have the most up to date image available ...". I believe it is safe to assume the lion's share of registration re-use on new airframes is on test registrations. I honestly fail to understand why the update was written the way it is when it does not apply 99% (?) of the time.

Cheers,
Edwin.

[MAG]

Hi! I need help. During one spotting day I took a number of photos like these:


I'm asking only about light condition I'm not asking for full screening process. Could you say these photos are acceptable or will be rejected as backlit photos. It is not backlit photos because the sun was behind me. But the major part of the aircraft is a bottom side and it is in shadow.
Thanks in advance.

[dlowwa]

Thanks for the reply. Would appreciate if you could please help me understand what are the obvious reasons?

The stated objective of June 2016's update was "to improve cooperation with FR24 and have the most up to date image available ...". I believe it is safe to assume the lion's share of registration re-use on new airframes is on test registrations. I honestly fail to understand why the update was written the way it is when it does not apply 99% (?) of the time.

Cheers,
Edwin.

The update should probably be re-worded, as I agree it can be read incorrectly as you did. We should add something like 'excluding test regs.' to make it abundantly clear. The rule was meant to apply when a registration is re-used on a new frame, i.e. previously belonging to a C172, but now on a 737.

[dlowwa]

Hi! I need help. During one spotting day I took a number of photos like these:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]7503[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]7504[/ATTACH]
I'm asking only about light condition I'm not asking for full screening process. Could you say these photos are acceptable or will be rejected as backlit photos. It is not backlit photos because the sun was behind me. But the major part of the aircraft is a bottom side and it is in shadow.
Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately neither of those attachments seem to be visible.

[MAG]

Unfortunately neither of those attachments seem to be visible.

I hope this time they remain visible

[brianw999]

Both are backlit I'm afraid.

[MAG]

Thanks Brian (((