Majky737 - Editing Advice

[dlowwa]

Hello,

I want to ask if attached photo is acceptable in terms of attached obstructing tug vehicle or not (and will be rejected for obstruction)

Tug ok; stairs blocking the tug not ok.

[Majky737]

Hello,

I want to ask if attached photo is acceptable in terms of attached obstructing tug vehicle or not (and will be rejected for obstruction)

Thank you
M.

[dlowwa]

Hello,

I worked again on photo rejected here for being dark and noise:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10047845

Are these still issues on new edit?

Thank you for your time.

Noise and exposure would no longer be issues for me, but unfortunately there are some issues with softness/blur (tail) and horizon that were missed.

[Majky737]

Hello,

I worked again on photo rejected here for being dark and noise:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=10047845

Are these still issues on new edit?

Thank you for your time.

[dlowwa]

Hello JP crew,

Is the attached photo acceptable in terms of backlit? Part of the tail is on shadow, so I am not fully sure. Thank you for answer

A bit dark, but not quite backlit.

[Majky737]

Hello JP crew,

Is the attached photo acceptable in terms of backlit? Part of the tail is on shadow, so I am not fully sure. Thank you for answer

Marian

[dlowwa]

Hello JP team,

I want to ask, if the cone under left prop is considered as obstruction and can result as rejection. I used more angles, but the cone was still obstructing the plane so I choosed photo where I think it was not so painful. Photo is not processed yet, please ignore contrast issues and dust spots.

Would probably depend on rarity of image. If we are likely to receive another, better (unobstructed) image in the future, then yes it would be an issue.

[Majky737]

Hello JP team,

I want to ask, if the cone under left prop is considered as obstruction and can result as rejection. I used more angles, but the cone was still obstructing the plane so I choosed photo where I think it was not so painful. Photo is not processed yet, please ignore contrast issues and dust spots.

Thank you for your answer.

[dlowwa]

Hi,

today I have received this reject:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9336608

as horizont looks fine to me, I want to ask what to take as reference in this case? Does it need CW rotation?

Thank you
M.

I see nothing wrong with the horizon. Image has been added.

[Majky737]

Hi,

today I have received this reject:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9336608

as horizont looks fine to me, I want to ask what to take as reference in this case? Does it need CW rotation?

Thank you
M.

[dlowwa]

Hello,

I have received this reject:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9288201

As horizont looks fine to me, I need a little advice, if picture needs CW or CCW rotation. I took radar tower in background for reference as vertical.

Thank you
Marian

Needs a little CCW rotation.

[Majky737]

Hello,

I have received this reject:

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9288201

As horizont looks fine to me, I need a little advice, if picture needs CW or CCW rotation. I took radar tower in background for reference as vertical.

Thank you
Marian

[PabloGlez]

Hello,

are these two photos acceptable due higher grass, or will be rejected for obstruction?

Thank you.
Marian

It is minimal and looks that it was impossible to avoid, in that case it wouldn´t be rejected fot obstrction.

Regards!

[Majky737]

Hello,

are these two photos acceptable due higher grass, or will be rejected for obstruction?

Thank you.
Marian

[dlowwa]

Hello,

I have already accepted photo of OK-VAN back from 2018 (first attachment). Now I took another photo (attachement 2) - are these two similar? I have checked guidelines

Yes, on photos is same side of aircraft, but I can't decide if angle is similar or not.

Three years between the two images? Possibly similar, but it will the screener's discretion.