Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dohwan Kim - editing advice

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

  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    I explained that to the screeners in the original upload attempt and in the appeal as well. I even provided a link to the FAA lookup page with the relevant details but both the original upload and the appeal were rejected, regardless of the info I provided. I was able to upload the second attempt by marking it as a Gulfstream airframe but it just doesn't sit right with me that the info in that post isn't up to date.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Dohwan Kim View Post
    I have a question about a recent info rejection. I originally uploaded this photo, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9977912 (my second upload attempt), with the airline marked as the "US Air Force" and the genre as "military" since the aircraft has been owned by the USAF since 2019 to be modified as a C-37B. Additionally, I looked up the registration on the FAA registration lookup page and the owner came up as "Government: US Air Force," which further confirmed its ownership status. However, the rejection reason for the first upload attempt said "- Bad Info: Airline,Genre." I appealed but that too was rejected with the following reason: "still in the colors of the manufacturer, no titles or markings of the Air Force." Based on that logic, some photos of USAF special operations aircraft should be rejected as well. I don't know why it specifically has to have markings to be counted as an Air Force jet. If all the reputable sources list the owner as the USAF, I feel like that should be enough of a reason to accept the photo, especially since Gulfstream no longer owns the airframe. Also, Gulfstream has a few official liveries: since this jet is unpainted (only wearing primer), it is not in any specific manufacturer's colors.
    Maybe it was unclear that this airframe had already been transferred to the Air Force. N-regs. typically mean this has not happened yet (see all the KC-46s operated by Boeing), but there are some exceptions and it seems you have found one. In such a case it would be a good idea to include an explanation with the upload (or appeal) detailing the situation and providing a link to the relevant info.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    I have a question about a recent info rejection. I originally uploaded this photo, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9977912 (my second upload attempt), with the airline marked as the "US Air Force" and the genre as "military" since the aircraft has been owned by the USAF since 2019 to be modified as a C-37B. Additionally, I looked up the registration on the FAA registration lookup page and the owner came up as "Government: US Air Force," which further confirmed its ownership status. However, the rejection reason for the first upload attempt said "- Bad Info: Airline,Genre." I appealed but that too was rejected with the following reason: "still in the colors of the manufacturer, no titles or markings of the Air Force." Based on that logic, some photos of USAF special operations aircraft should be rejected as well. I don't know why it specifically has to have markings to be counted as an Air Force jet. If all the reputable sources list the owner as the USAF, I feel like that should be enough of a reason to accept the photo, especially since Gulfstream no longer owns the airframe. Also, Gulfstream has a few official liveries: since this jet is unpainted (only wearing primer), it is not in any specific manufacturer's colors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    Understood

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Dohwan Kim View Post
    Yesterday, I was able to go airside at BQK. I took this photo while being driven through a hangar and as such, it's the only non-blurry shot I got of this jet. Would the equipment and and people be grounds for rejection, seeing as it's actively being worked on and since nobody is clearly identifiable?
    Would be rejected for horizon and cut off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    Yesterday, I was able to go airside at BQK. I took this photo while being driven through a hangar and as such, it's the only non-blurry shot I got of this jet. Would the equipment and and people be grounds for rejection, seeing as it's actively being worked on and since nobody is clearly identifiable?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    Oh. I can try to fix that. Thank you for clarifying the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by Dohwan Kim View Post
    For this rejection, it simply states "over processed/bad post processing." I'm not exactly sure what was over processed.
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8511911
    The blotchy sky and the plastic like appearance looks as if you used too much noise reducing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    For this rejection, it simply states "over processed/bad post processing." I'm not exactly sure what was over processed.
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewreject_b.php?id=8511911

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    Noted. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Dohwan Kim View Post
    I'm trying to upload a shot of a Swedish Air Force G-IV (102004) and noticed that autofill automatically corrects the type to "G-V, Tp102D" when it should be "G-IV, Tp102C." When I manually put in G-IV as the type, I can't find Tp102C as a valid variant. What should I do?
    You can submit a request to the editors to add the type if you believe it is the correct one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    I'm trying to upload a shot of a Swedish Air Force G-IV (102004) and noticed that autofill automatically corrects the type to "G-V, Tp102D" when it should be "G-IV, Tp102C." When I manually put in G-IV as the type, I can't find Tp102C as a valid variant. What should I do?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    Noted. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Dohwan Kim View Post
    Good evening. I would like to know if this is too much or too little contrast: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8387505. Also, regarding bad info, I failed to double check the date on the previous upload attempt.
    Poor contrast due to overcast conditions. Not fixable. Please be more careful with the dates you use.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dohwan Kim
    replied
    Good evening. I would like to know if this is too much or too little contrast: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8387505. Also, regarding bad info, I failed to double check the date on the previous upload attempt.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X