Rafael Freitas - Editing advice

[rafaelfreitas]

Tks, Dlowwa!

I take and ask for an evaluation of the following photos:








thank you!

[dlowwa]

Tks, Dlowwa!

I take and ask for an evaluation of the following photos:

1. soft, borderline contrast
2. horizon (CCW)
3. dirty, overprocessed, compression
4-5. borderline contrast

[rafaelfreitas]

Helo! I kindly ask for your opinion regarding these photos:






Could the following two be framed as artistic photos?




TKS

[dlowwa]

Helo! I kindly ask for your opinion regarding these photos:

1. soft, borderline color
2-3. borderline soft/contrast

Could the following two be framed as artistic photos?

Not really artistic, just regular silhouette shots. Both a bit dark/harsh contrast, and first oversharpened.

[rafaelfreitas]

Hi friends, how are you?
I had this photo rejected, it focused on the vertical stabilizer of the A350, in a 3x2 ratio, so as not to cut the part of the wing and the elevator that are in the context of the photo. The rejection was for "Part of aircraft cut off":

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9056880

See, I had this photo accepted a few years ago following the same path, focusing on the stabilizer, but without cutting the elevator: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8441936

Well, I would like to understand the objective criteria for this type of photo and where I went wrong in the clipping. Should I have shown the rest of the warping more, even if it impairs the 3x2 cut, considering another proportion?

[dlowwa]

Hi friends, how are you?
I had this photo rejected, it focused on the vertical stabilizer of the A350, in a 3x2 ratio, so as not to cut the part of the wing and the elevator that are in the context of the photo. The rejection was for "Part of aircraft cut off":

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9056880

See, I had this photo accepted a few years ago following the same path, focusing on the stabilizer, but without cutting the elevator: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8441936

Well, I would like to understand the objective criteria for this type of photo and where I went wrong in the clipping. Should I have shown the rest of the warping more, even if it impairs the 3x2 cut, considering another proportion?

This is subjective, but my personal preference is for the crop on the accepted image. Much less dead space/clutter in the frame, and no awkward crop of the wing + fuselage. Just nice composition overall.

[rafaelfreitas]

This is subjective, but my personal preference is for the crop on the accepted image. Much less dead space/clutter in the frame, and no awkward crop of the wing + fuselage. Just nice composition overall.

Understood Dana, thanks for the explanation. In the case of the rejected image, I believe that the angle does not allow an adequate cropping.

[rafaelfreitas]

Helo! I kindly ask for your opinion regarding these photos:

Was it bad motive?


Disregarding any defects, I have doubts about the location. Could it be the name of the airport itself or the "name of the city - other location" or even "country - in flight"?



Finally, correcting any defects, both are considered nocturnal, would it be the case that they are similar even in different light conditions?


tks!

[dlowwa]

Helo! I kindly ask for your opinion regarding these photos:

Was it bad motive?

Would be for me.

Disregarding any defects, I have doubts about the location. Could it be the name of the airport itself or the "name of the city - other location" or even "country - in flight"?

Country - In flight.

Finally, correcting any defects, both are considered nocturnal, would it be the case that they are similar even in different light conditions?

Depends how much time between the images. If they were taken a few years apart, then we might be more lenient for similar. If taken only days, or the same day, then yes similar.

[rafaelfreitas]

Hi friends, how are you?

Yesterday I had this photo rejected by "bad info: aircraft, location": https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9064896. I imagined it was an error, I appealed and the appeal was refused, the screener said that there really was a bug regarding bad info, but that the photo was also dark, justifying the rejection. So far, ok.

But today I had this photo rejected for the same reason "bad info: aircraft, location", but the data is correct: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9066020. Before appealing, I ask you if this was a bug again and why this is happening. I wonder if there are any more problems in the photo that have not been mentioned in the reasons for the rejection.

Grateful for the attention

Rafael Freitas

[dlowwa]

Hi friends, how are you?

Yesterday I had this photo rejected by "bad info: aircraft, location": https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9064896. I imagined it was an error, I appealed and the appeal was refused, the screener said that there really was a bug regarding bad info, but that the photo was also dark, justifying the rejection. So far, ok.

But today I had this photo rejected for the same reason "bad info: aircraft, location", but the data is correct: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9066020. Before appealing, I ask you if this was a bug again and why this is happening. I wonder if there are any more problems in the photo that have not been mentioned in the reasons for the rejection.

Grateful for the attention

Rafael Freitas

Contrast is a bit harsh, but would be ok for me. However, info also appears to be wrong on the rejected image.

[rafaelfreitas]

Helo! I kindly ask for your opinion regarding these photos:





tks

[dlowwa]

Helo! I kindly ask for your opinion regarding these photos:





tks

1. cropping/ratio, soft, noisy
2-3. borderline contrast/exposure

[rafaelfreitas]

Helo! Dana, on this photo, was rejected because of the cut. I took care to take into account only the aircraft's cigar, since the vertical stabilizer would not be able to remain whole due to the leveling of the photo. Claiming this in the appeal is there any chance or should I forget?





I take this opportunity and ask you if these photos can be considered similar or is it preferable to exchange the second for one that shows the left side of the plane completely?




tks!

[dlowwa]

Helo! Dana, on this photo, was rejected because of the cut. I took care to take into account only the aircraft's cigar, since the vertical stabilizer would not be able to remain whole due to the leveling of the photo. Claiming this in the appeal is there any chance or should I forget?

Crop on the right side is awkward. I'd try to include the whole stabilizer if possible.

I take this opportunity and ask you if these photos can be considered similar or is it preferable to exchange the second for one that shows the left side of the plane completely?

Same day? Yes similar. If separated by months/years, then probably ok, not similar.