Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

paulk - editing advice

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

  • paulk - editing advice

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	620.1 KB
ID:	1045274Hi, could someone give me a feedback on this picture? Thanks in advance.

  • #2
    Originally posted by paulk View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]13683[/ATTACH]Hi, could someone give me a feedback on this picture? Thanks in advance.
    A bit soft and low contrast, but otherwise no major issues.

    Comment


    • #3
      Paul Kalbitz editing advice

      Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3554.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	468.4 KB
ID:	1027853Dear JP Screeners,
      does a photo with a person whose face has been blurred have a chance to be accepted? And is it allowd to digitally remove clearly visible persons from a picture? (if they're not obstructing the view of plane)
      Thanks

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by paulk View Post
        [ATTACH=CONFIG]15585[/ATTACH]Dear JP Screeners,
        does a photo with a person whose face has been blurred have a chance to be accepted? And is it allowd to digitally remove clearly visible persons from a picture? (if they're not obstructing the view of plane)
        Thanks
        No, it is not allowed. This would be rejected for manipulation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by paulk View Post
          [ATTACH=CONFIG]15585[/ATTACH]Dear JP Screeners,
          does a photo with a person whose face has been blurred have a chance to be accepted? And is it allowd to digitally remove clearly visible persons from a picture? (if they're not obstructing the view of plane)
          Thanks
          Hi.

          Both actions would be rejected as it is digital manipulation what we do not accept. Maybe you can crop closer to the tail to make it acceptable.

          Hope this helps. Have a nice evening and start in to the new week!
          Best Regards from Germany,
          Julian S.​

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks. Have a nice evening too. Just one follow-up question? Could it be acceptable with the person not blurred out?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by paulk View Post
              Thanks. Have a nice evening too. Just one follow-up question? Could it be acceptable with the person not blurred out?
              Unfortunately identifiable faces are not allowed, unless it is obvious consent has been given (i.e. pilots in the cockpit, etc..)

              Comment


              • #8
                But for example the person similiar to e.g. the guy with the white shirt and the hat would already count as unidentifiable?
                https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8942544

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by paulk View Post
                  But for example the person similiar to e.g. the guy with the white shirt and the hat would already count as unidentifiable?
                  https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8942544
                  Borderline in this case, as you could argue that the face(s) are not quite identifiable. Moving forward (i.e. with new privacy laws, especially in Europe where JP/FR24 are based), we will likely be more strict in such cases.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yep, especially in Germany private photographers have no legal certainty when GDPR comes into force. I guess I'll just keep such pictures for myself.
                    Thanks again for answering all my questions!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_9184.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	348.3 KB
ID:	1027990
                      Hi, I've got another question.
                      Is a photo with an angle of view and aspect ratio (9:16) like in the attached image a possible JP candidate?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by paulk View Post
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]15786[/ATTACH]
                        Hi, I've got another question.
                        Is a photo with an angle of view and aspect ratio (9:16) like in the attached image a possible JP candidate?
                        You could certainly try. It might not please everyone, but I don't see anything that would immediately preclude it from being accepted.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thanks, I'll give it a try

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Do the Flightradar hot photo rules also apply to physical changes in an aircrafts look (e.g. missing engines or disassembled parts of the aircraft during maintenance)?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by paulk View Post
                              Do the Flightradar hot photo rules also apply to physical changes in an aircrafts look (e.g. missing engines or disassembled parts of the aircraft during maintenance)?
                              no

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X