Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre Screening Advice - Robbie Mathieson

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

  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Would be rejected for dark/blurry/noisy.
    Thought as much, thanks Dana

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi guys, can I get some feedback regarding this one please, I feel it may be rejected for quality but want a second opinion before I put it in the queue. Thanks, Robbie
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]25542[/ATTACH]
    Would be rejected for dark/blurry/noisy.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi guys, can I get some feedback regarding this one please, I feel it may be rejected for quality but want a second opinion before I put it in the queue. Thanks, Robbie
    Click image for larger version

Name:	13 - A7-ALQ.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	352.4 KB
ID:	1040135

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    I'd have considered your friend's image to be borderline to start with, and his is a much better edit, so there you go. Yours is also soft, besides the contrast issue, just to be aware.
    Okay, no worries. Thanks Dana

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Can I get some advice please on https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7353380. To me, the contrast looks fine, and looks very similar to photo id 9341828, which was taken by a friend who was only around 5 metres away from me. Thanks, Robbie
    I'd have considered your friend's image to be borderline to start with, and his is a much better edit, so there you go. Yours is also soft, besides the contrast issue, just to be aware.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Can I get some advice please on https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7353380. To me, the contrast looks fine, and looks very similar to photo id 9341828, which was taken by a friend who was only around 5 metres away from me. Thanks, Robbie

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    I would appeal it, explaining the difference in livery between the images.
    Appealed. And accepted. Thanks for your help Dana.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Thanks Dana, that's actually quite a good idea, I'll bear that in mind for future uploads. Regarding the one that was rejected, should I appeal it, or upload it into the queue again? Many Thanks, Robbie
    I would appeal it, explaining the difference in livery between the images.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    If there is a (permanent) difference in livery, then it shouldn't be considered similar. Might be a good idea to include a note to the screeners next time when uploading such images (ones that appear similar at first glance), clarifying how the livery has been updated.
    Thanks Dana, that's actually quite a good idea, I'll bear that in mind for future uploads. Regarding the one that was rejected, should I appeal it, or upload it into the queue again? Many Thanks, Robbie

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi guys, the following just got rejected for similar - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7330316. Having looked at my other photos of this rego in the database, the only photo that I feel would be similar is photo id 8794973, however if I remember correctly, the upload guidelines used to state that it was not considered similar if the airframe was wearing an updated livery, as is the case in this photo, however that part is no longer mentioned in the upload guidelines. Can you please confirm whether or not that is still the case or have the guidelines changed and I've not realised? Many Thanks, Robbie
    If there is a (permanent) difference in livery, then it shouldn't be considered similar. Might be a good idea to include a note to the screeners next time when uploading such images (ones that appear similar at first glance), clarifying how the livery has been updated.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi guys, the following just got rejected for similar - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7330316. Having looked at my other photos of this rego in the database, the only photo that I feel would be similar is photo id 8794973, however if I remember correctly, the upload guidelines used to state that it was not considered similar if the airframe was wearing an updated livery, as is the case in this photo, however that part is no longer mentioned in the upload guidelines. Can you please confirm whether or not that is still the case or have the guidelines changed and I've not realised? Many Thanks, Robbie

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi all, yesterday I had a whole batch rejected, mainly for Contrast & Colour. Can you please advise what the issue is, as to the naked eye they look okay to me. Have linked one of the photos below. Thanks, Robbie
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7292392
    Oversaturated and very harsh contrast. Definitely deserving of a rejection. If that looks ok to you, you might want to check your monitor settings.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi all, yesterday I had a whole batch rejected, mainly for Contrast & Colour. Can you please advise what the issue is, as to the naked eye they look okay to me. Have linked one of the photos below. Thanks, Robbie
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7292392

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by pdeboer View Post
    Now it is blocking an engine, please refer to what Dana wrote :
    Okay, looks like it's one for the personal collection, thanks Pamela

    Leave a comment:


  • pdeboer
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Thanks Dana, would this photo be more appropriate? Obviously rezised etc before uploading
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]23517[/ATTACH]
    Now it is blocking an engine, please refer to what Dana wrote :
    Generally tugs only get away with blocking the nose gear (if they're actually in the process of towing). Anything more than that, and an obstruction rejection is likely, as was the case here.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X