Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MarkLawrence - Editing Advice

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

  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Thanks Dana - that was the first in the sequence due to clouds - I did manage to get one at the end of the sequence where it's not obstructed and have edited that one.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8423794

    This was rejected for obstruction , but as it is the tug pushing the aircraft back, does it not possible count as being part of the composition?
    This one's a bit subjective, but the instances where we allow the tug to block the gear is when it's unavoidable. Looks like in this case a few seconds earlier you would have been able to get a shot without it blocking.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8423794

    This was rejected for obstruction , but as it is the tug pushing the aircraft back, does it not possible count as being part of the composition?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    Would this be classed as backlit because the sun is right overhead? And other problems screeners might detect too?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	BlueAngels-04.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	661.3 KB
ID:	1089314
    Being backlit is enough that you don't really need to worry about the other issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Would this be classed as backlit because the sun is right overhead? And other problems screeners might detect too?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	BlueAngels-04.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	661.3 KB
ID:	1089314

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Surprisingly, I have just submitted an appeal for it!!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    Interestingly enough Dana, I submitted again with the Small Prop - it got rejected this time for noise/grain - AND - incorrect categories - soooooooo - if I do manage to edit a frame without the noise - I still doesn't know which one will be correct!!!!
    Well... there is some noise visible, but obviously would have been acceptable for me, especially as a new reg. Category rejection was a mistake, so if you were to appeal, I know I would accept it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Interestingly enough Dana, I submitted again with the Small Prop - it got rejected this time for noise/grain - AND - incorrect categories - soooooooo - if I do manage to edit a frame without the noise - I still doesn't know which one will be correct!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    My mistake - I thought it only applied to single engine too - not twins.
    That's how it is/was at anet

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    My mistake - I thought it only applied to single engine too - not twins....when the airline is added I will resubmit.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    Okay - thanks Dana - I guess I will submit a request for a new airline as it does not show up in the list at the moment. Any idea on the category thing?
    10 seats or fewer in the cabin? If so, then yes Small Prop.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Okay - thanks Dana - I guess I will submit a request for a new airline as it does not show up in the list at the moment. Any idea on the category thing?

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkLawrence View Post
    Could a screener please help me with this? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8001705

    The owner is a private LLC - I selected Other | Private - and - it was rejected for bad info:airline - is this wrong?

    Also, I don't think I selected small prop, and I'm not sure if this is classed as a small prop? I've never selected small prop for a KingAir? - but - maybe I did and that is what was wrong.
    Owner listed as Zulu Air by FAA, and doesn't appear to be a private operator:

    https://www.flyzuluair.com/

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Could a screener please help me with this? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8001705

    The owner is a private LLC - I selected Other | Private - and - it was rejected for bad info:airline - is this wrong?

    Also, I don't think I selected small prop, and I'm not sure if this is classed as a small prop? I've never selected small prop for a KingAir? - but - maybe I did and that is what was wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkLawrence
    replied
    Thanks Dana

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X