Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Editing Help

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
    I just had this photo rejected today.
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7288314
    I remember selecting night shot for sure and I believe I selected airport overview but I'm not entirely sure. If there are other categories that should be selected I would love to know which ones. With the cropping rejection, dimensions are 1280x1024. I remember photos I've previously uploaded similar to that ratio being fine as far as that rejection. If the size ratio needs to be changed would it be fine if it was off center to get the tower fully in the frame depending on the crop?
    This is not an Airport Overview. Your image is 1280x1024. At 1280pix wide, the maximum allowed height is 960 (a 4:3 ratio, which your image is well outside of).

    Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
    Now for question #2
    The attached photo has one thing I'm really worried about. If you look at the right winglet it looks blurred in a bit of an odd way (I call it ghosting) when the rest of the aircraft is sharp. Would this cause a rejection or would it be alright for Jetphotos?[ATTACH=CONFIG]24521[/ATTACH]
    Winglet should not be an issue. Image is soft and a bit dark overall, however.

    Comment


    • #47
      Thankyou very much for the help. I'll try and fix these photos.

      Comment


      • #48
        About the Crop

        Hello,
        I need some help judging which crop is better.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_6582.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.48 MB
ID:	1040411 Click image for larger version

Name:	Different-Crop.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.46 MB
ID:	1040412

        The first photo is centered vertically with a lot of dead space, especially at the bottom. The second photo was cropped closer to the rule of thirds and looks better in my opinion. My problem is that I'm not sure if cropping it closer to the rule of thirds for this angle would cause a rejection.

        Thanks for the help,
        Michael

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
          Hello,
          I need some help judging which crop is better.

          [ATTACH=CONFIG]25869[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]25870[/ATTACH]

          The first photo is centered vertically with a lot of dead space, especially at the bottom. The second photo was cropped closer to the rule of thirds and looks better in my opinion. My problem is that I'm not sure if cropping it closer to the rule of thirds for this angle would cause a rejection.

          Thanks for the help,
          Michael
          First one.

          Comment


          • #50
            Thank you.

            Comment


            • #51
              Silhouette Prescreening

              I've got this photo that I just edited. I'm worried mainly about the contrast. The histogram clings to the left and right edges. I don't see any way to get around this with a silhouette. Is there anything wrong lighting wise? I'm also curious. Because I don't see a registration on this plane, should this be uploaded with the ICAO code of the airport in the registration box?
              Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_4259.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	458.5 KB
ID:	1040849 Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot-(141).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	178.0 KB
ID:	1040850

              Thanks for the help,
              Michael

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
                I've got this photo that I just edited. I'm worried mainly about the contrast. The histogram clings to the left and right edges. I don't see any way to get around this with a silhouette. Is there anything wrong lighting wise? I'm also curious. Because I don't see a registration on this plane, should this be uploaded with the ICAO code of the airport in the registration box?
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]26354[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]26355[/ATTACH]

                Thanks for the help,
                Michael
                A bit too much of the frame is dark for me, but that's just my view. Registration of the aircraft should be used, since it takes up more than half of the frame.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Ok. There are only two numbers on the airplane though: TR 653, and 16653. When I google those numbers I get options for addresses and Scoot flights. That's why I'm thinking airport ICAO code instead of registration. It's on a stand if that info helps any.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
                    Ok. There are only two numbers on the airplane though: TR 653, and 16653. When I google those numbers I get options for addresses and Scoot flights. That's why I'm thinking airport ICAO code instead of registration. It's on a stand if that info helps any.
                    Unfortunately the onus is on you to have the correct info. I have no idea where the image was taken, nor do I really feel inclined to spend a whole lot of time digging around for it, when you were the one standing next to it. As I said, this does not qualify as an airport overview, so you can stop suggesting the ICAO code.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Gotcha. I'll do some more digging and see if I can find it. I do have pictures of all the writing on the airplane so hopefully that will help me. Thanks for all the help.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I just had the following photo rejected for invalid hot.
                        https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8002287
                        Screener comment was "change to small to qualify for hot."
                        Change of ownership from subsidiary to subsidiary isn't very noticeable, but it is a very, very big change. This should qualify for hot, shouldn't it? I may just be getting my websites mixed up, and I'm very sorry if I am, but if this doesn't already qualify as hot, I really do think it should.
                        Many thanks for the help,
                        Michael

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
                          I just had the following photo rejected for invalid hot.
                          https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8002287
                          Screener comment was "change to small to qualify for hot."
                          Change of ownership from subsidiary to subsidiary isn't very noticeable, but it is a very, very big change. This should qualify for hot, shouldn't it? I may just be getting my websites mixed up, and I'm very sorry if I am, but if this doesn't already qualify as hot, I really do think it should.
                          Many thanks for the help,
                          Michael
                          FR24's hot guidelines are based on wanting up to date images for the app if there are any changes to the appearance of the aircraft. The Compass sticker on the nose has been replaced by a Skywest one, but this is far too small to be easily noticeable, and thus does not qualify for hot.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X