Flying.Fonz - Editing advice

[Flying.Fonz]

Thanks as it is very useful since I didn't realise we could upload protrait photos. It would also help explain why a separate image was rejected when I tried to do as you suggest, but in landscape, removing most of the sun. I'm assuming the portrait suggestion is the one you attached.

Thanks again.

[dlowwa]

About a year ago I uploaded a similar one and it was rejected with the comment that "we don't accept artistic images such as this one as it is not what JP is about". I've avoided uploading any like this but I have recently seen a few being accepted, despite the large areas of dead space around the aircraft. So I wanted to check if things were different now and if so, whether it met the criteria or not.

Thanks

There has been no change in regards to accepting (or not) 'artistic' images in the past year (or past few years, really); each such image will be judged on a case-by-case basis. If there is a reason to justify large empty spaces or irregular centering, then the image may be accepted.

I can't speak go the 'few accepted' you refer to (message me privately if you'd like my opinion on a specific image from a third-party), but for your image above the centering is more than acceptable for me as it is obviously done to include the sun. On the other hand, the wide crop doesn't really for me as all there is is some clutter (actually kind of distracting from the nice sky) in the foreground that serves no purpose.

If it were me, I'd actually have gone with a portrait orientation rather than landscape to cut out the junk in the foreground:

[Flying.Fonz]

About a year ago I uploaded a similar one and it was rejected with the comment that "we don't accept artistic images such as this one as it is not what JP is about". I've avoided uploading any like this but I have recently seen a few being accepted, despite the large areas of dead space around the aircraft. So I wanted to check if things were different now and if so, whether it met the criteria or not.

Thanks

[dlowwa]

Hi,

Are photos like this one now being accepted?



Thanks

Umm...what do you mean by 'now'?

[Flying.Fonz]

Hi,

Are photos like this one now being accepted?



Thanks

[Flying.Fonz]

Ok. Thanks.

[dlowwa]

Hi,

I'm trying to upload this photo using the aircraft's registration G-BGHU. There are a few photos of it in the database but when completing the upload form, the reg is not recognised. Any suggestions on how to work around this?



Cheers

Enter the data manually.

[Flying.Fonz]

Hi,

I'm trying to upload this photo using the aircraft's registration G-BGHU. There are a few photos of it in the database but when completing the upload form, the reg is not recognised. Any suggestions on how to work around this?



Cheers

[Flying.Fonz]

Hi,

I wanted to say thanks to the screener who made a useful comment on one of my recently accepted photos

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9872521. I couldn't find a way to do it directly to her/him so doing it here.

Much appreciated.

[Flying.Fonz]

That’s understood. However, if there was an issue it ought to have been raised initially so it could be corrected. Otherwise the assumption is that it is ok in all other aspects.

As always, thanks for your thoughts.

[dlowwa]

Hi,

This is the rejection in question. It is a subsequent rejection to the one you kindly offered your thoughts on how to correct. The original rejection did not state centreing as an issue.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8430123

The original rejection we discussed above was down to over exposure and horizon not level. Both easily corrected, with one being subjective and the other only slightly out. Neither of these corrections can alter the centreing of the image and no additional editing was carried out. Hence the query regarding how can a new rejection reason appear when it wasn't there the first time round.

With reference to the 'bad info' rejection, that's just finger trouble from my part and frustrating since I checked data entry a number of times prior to it being screened.

The reason my original message was generic is because I've heard numerous other users mention the same thing and having experienced it, it didn't make any sense to me and it could easily happen a number of times with the same photo without the user changing anything.

I would classify this one as difference of opinion. Aircraft is slightly high in the frame, but (obviously) would have been ok for me. The screener who rejected it for centering is a newer one (in training), so had you uploaded it with the correct info and centering was the only rejection reason, I'm pretty confident your appeal would have been successful, or the image wouldn't have even been rejected in the first place.

[Flying.Fonz]

Hi,

This is the rejection in question. It is a subsequent rejection to the one you kindly offered your thoughts on how to correct. The original rejection did not state centreing as an issue.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8430123

The original rejection we discussed above was down to over exposure and horizon not level. Both easily corrected, with one being subjective and the other only slightly out. Neither of these corrections can alter the centreing of the image and no additional editing was carried out. Hence the query regarding how can a new rejection reason appear when it wasn't there the first time round.

With reference to the 'bad info' rejection, that's just finger trouble from my part and frustrating since I checked data entry a number of times prior to it being screened.

The reason my original message was generic is because I've heard numerous other users mention the same thing and having experienced it, it didn't make any sense to me and it could easily happen a number of times with the same photo without the user changing anything.

[dlowwa]

Hi,

I'm trying to understand how a photo that was previously rejected for a specific reason and no other, is subsequently corrected without changing anything else and is then rejected for something that wasn't there originally. If it was there originally why not include it as one of the rejection reasons because the assumption is that correcting the rejection issues leads to an acceptance so long as you haven't created other problems (assuming you have corrected the original issues appropriately). The question being why was it missed the first time if that is something that forms part of the check anyway, although it is recognised and understood that screeners are only human so errors do happen.

You'll need to be a little less vague than that. Can't offer an opinion unless you can be more specific about the rejection(s). Could be a mistake, a difference in opinion, or something you missed when making your changes. Can only speculate..

[Flying.Fonz]

Hi,

I'm trying to understand how a photo that was previously rejected for a specific reason and no other, is subsequently corrected without changing anything else and is then rejected for something that wasn't there originally. If it was there originally why not include it as one of the rejection reasons because the assumption is that correcting the rejection issues leads to an acceptance so long as you haven't created other problems (assuming you have corrected the original issues appropriately). The question being why was it missed the first time if that is something that forms part of the check anyway, although it is recognised and understood that screeners are only human so errors do happen.

The concern is two fold. First, we do this because it's fun and take pride in working towards high quality work while hopefully making life easier for screeners. Having the goal posts changed on a resubmission with the photo being treated as a new one which has not benefited from the feedback that would guarantee it's acceptance, doesn't make sense. It's already been assessed as being ok in all other aspects. That resubmitted photo can be rejected again for a 'new' reason that was not picked up the first couple of times and the cycle continues.

Secondly, with the current sub 20,000 photos queued and the rejection rate of circa 50% could lead to a huge number of resubmitted photos. Ideally, the resubmitted photos resolve the original issues and do not create new ones, but a rejection for a 'new' reason could result in a large number of resubmitted photos. This adds to the queue and the screeners' workload.

The upload guidance doesn't state that a resubmitted photo can have errors that were missed originally so be aware it can be rejected for new reasons.

This is genuinely about trying to help improve the system and understand how this can be resolved. Continuous resubmission can't be an effective way to make things better.

[dlowwa]

Is this an acceptable amount of aircraft cut?



Thanks

Crop is too awkward for me, though others may disagree.