Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

StefBrat - Editing and Screening advice

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
    I have these two below rejected because of JPEG compression. But others from the same series or from the same editing process are not having that problem in the queue. I nearly always proceed my photos with the same and of course highest quality.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7249852

    This last time got rejected for being dark, I only added more brightness and thats all...why it's not "compressed"
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7249849
    Compression is not an issue with either of these images. They have both been accepted now.

    Comment


    • #77
      @dlowwa
      thanks for dealing with that. Thanks even it's a late reply

      For the photo below there is only maybe 1/8 of one wheel cut off and according to the rules that can be okay. Also this is the first photo if that aircraft and I can not move the aircraft or jump over the fence

      https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7308194
      View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
        @dlowwa
        thanks for dealing with that. Thanks even it's a late reply

        For the photo below there is only maybe 1/8 of one wheel cut off and according to the rules that can be okay. Also this is the first photo if that aircraft and I can not move the aircraft or jump over the fence

        https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7308194
        The APU is blocking the main gear. This seems like it would have been easy to resolve by finding a slightly different angle.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
          The APU is blocking the main gear. This seems like it would have been easy to resolve by finding a slightly different angle.
          No it wasn't but then no photo of that plane. To be honest I don't understand the problem when there is maybe a few centimeters blocking the main wheel only because of grass...I had rejections of good photos only because the grass near the runway was not mowed and a small part of the gear was a bit blocked.
          Also in Alaska where I got the comment "you can avoid the high gras". Yes for sure I can avoid that, I will ask the airport operator or the pilot if he will mow the grass and give me access to the ramp somewhere in the middle of nowhere
          View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

          Comment


          • #80
            Whats about these pic? Gear is also covered but not avoidable and in my eyes not a problem.

            Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1588.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	1.06 MB
ID:	1035538
            View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
              Whats about these pic? Gear is also covered but not avoidable and in my eyes not a problem.

              [ATTACH=CONFIG]24962[/ATTACH]
              Yes, this would be an obstruction rejection.

              Comment


              • #82
                Your opinion on this? I not sure due the fact it's taken at wide angel and also brightness seems a bit to bright on the aircraft

                Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1689.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	409.4 KB
ID:	1041529
                View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
                  Your opinion on this? I not sure due the fact it's taken at wide angel and also brightness seems a bit to bright on the aircraft

                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]27145[/ATTACH]
                  Would be rejected for motive and compression.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I do not understand the problem with "obstructing objects" and can not really agree:

                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7534325

                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7533460

                    There are other pictures recently added having the same issue but they got accepted (only last day)
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/
                    Last edited by dlowwa; 2019-09-05, 00:04. Reason: Removed links to other photographers.
                    View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I've removed the links to the other photographers, as it is generally frowned upon to bring others' photos into question.

                      It basically comes down to how avoidable such obstructions are. If they are avoidable, then likely such an obstruction rejection will result. If not, the possibly not. In your two images the second one will almost always be an obstruction rejection, since those stairs will not always be there. It's unfortunately just your poor timing. The second is more subjective, but since you caught the aircraft in flight, if you had faced a different angle you could have caught it higher, and thus with less (or no) obstruction. When it comes to grass on the wheels, again, it usually comes down to 1) how avoidable, and 2) how much is covered. For 1), (again, subjective), if it seems a better angle or timing would have solved the issue, then a rejection is justified. For 2), generally half or less of the gear covered should be ok. Your image subjectively fails both of those points, so was rejected (not by me in this case, but I do agree with the rejection). For preserved/non flying aircraft, these two points usually don't apply.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I shot this today parked at the apron sadly not the best perspective. But I'm also not sure if these kind of planes are able to be uploaded. I did not find a category for it.

                        So asking:
                        - will it have a change because of perspective used
                        - legal to upload as its no plane in use
                        - as what to upload if a chance for acceptance? (former it was I-ACLH)

                        For the airfield, is the composition good and would it go as overview (you can see runway, tower, apron and hangars and planes)?

                        Thanks
                        Attached Files
                        View my Spottingpictures on Jetphotos.net here

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by StefBrat View Post
                          I shot this today parked at the apron sadly not the best perspective. But I'm also not sure if these kind of planes are able to be uploaded. I did not find a category for it.

                          So asking:
                          - will it have a change because of perspective used
                          - legal to upload as its no plane in use
                          - as what to upload if a chance for acceptance? (former it was I-ACLH)

                          For the airfield, is the composition good and would it go as overview (you can see runway, tower, apron and hangars and planes)?

                          Thanks
                          1. previous reg. can be used. Image is a bit soft.
                          2. not the best angle. terminal/ramp only take up mayb 15% of the frame, the rest is sky and grass, so borderline chances I think.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X