Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre Screening Advice - Robbie Mathieson

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

  • 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:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Would have been a rejection for me as well if I had screened it. If it weren't blocking the main gear, probably would have been ok. 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.
    Thanks Dana, would this photo be more appropriate? Obviously rezised etc before uploading
    Click image for larger version

Name:	2feb19 51.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	1.68 MB
ID:	1034320

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi all, can I have a second opinion on https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7219506 please. Regarding obstructing objects/clutter, the upload guidelines state that both . In my opinion, considering the two sections of the upload guidelines that I've quoted, this photo should've been accepted. Many Thanks, Robbie
    Would have been a rejection for me as well if I had screened it. If it weren't blocking the main gear, probably would have been ok. 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:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi all, can I have a second opinion on https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7219506 please. Regarding obstructing objects/clutter, the upload guidelines state that both
    Exceptions may be made if the equipment forms part of the motive of the shot
    if the angle of the shot means only a small part of the aircraft is obstructed
    . In my opinion, considering the two sections of the upload guidelines that I've quoted, this photo should've been accepted. Many Thanks, Robbie

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Thanks Dana, please accept my apologies as I must've totally missed reading about when the rule changed from the previous wording. Perhaps it may be an idea in the future to email all uploaders explining changes, as I daresay I'm probably not the only one who hasn't realised when changes to the upload guidelines have been made,
    No need to apologize. The updated guidelines were published in the forum when we made the changes two years ago. You can read them here:

    https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...ES-New-version

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    While some same side take off/landing images might both be acceptable as they are technically different sequences, they would need to be quite different. Yours are very similar, so yes, the rejection was correct. If you want to be certain that 'similar' won't apply, the rule of one image per side in the air and one per side on the ground is generally useful. There may be exceptions, but as I stated, the images would need to be quite different.
    Thanks Dana, please accept my apologies as I must've totally missed reading about when the rule changed from the previous wording. Perhaps it may be an idea in the future to email all uploaders explining changes, as I daresay I'm probably not the only one who hasn't realised when changes to the upload guidelines have been made,

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi guys, can I get a second opinion on this one please. I already have a photo of this aircraft in the database from this day, however the accepted photo is a take-off shot compared to this rejected landing shot. The upload guidelines state Now I could be reading the guidelines wrong, but I interpret that as meaning that 2x Take off shots would be rejected as similar, not 1 take off and 1 landing. Can you please confirm what the rule is. Many Thanks, Robbie

    Rejected photo (landing) - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7205789
    Accepted photo (take-off) - https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9175846
    While some same side take off/landing images might both be acceptable as they are technically different sequences, they would need to be quite different. Yours are very similar, so yes, the rejection was correct. If you want to be certain that 'similar' won't apply, the rule of one image per side in the air and one per side on the ground is generally useful. There may be exceptions, but as I stated, the images would need to be quite different.

    Leave a comment:


  • 777MAN
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi guys, can I get a second opinion on this one please. I already have a photo of this aircraft in the database from this day, however the accepted photo is a take-off shot compared to this rejected landing shot. The upload guidelines state Now I could be reading the guidelines wrong, but I interpret that as meaning that 2x Take off shots would be rejected as similar, not 1 take off and 1 landing. Can you please confirm what the rule is. Many Thanks, Robbie

    Rejected photo (landing) - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7205789
    Accepted photo (take-off) - https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9175846
    Hi Robbie,
    Correct rejection. You are misreading the guideline. Pick your best shot within the given same day/sequence.
    Regards T
    Last edited by 777MAN; 2019-04-05, 10:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • VH-ROB
    replied
    Hi guys, can I get a second opinion on this one please. I already have a photo of this aircraft in the database from this day, however the accepted photo is a take-off shot compared to this rejected landing shot. The upload guidelines state
    2.6 Similar - "a photo taken from the same sequence the same day e. landing, taxiing, ramp parking or take off"
    Now I could be reading the guidelines wrong, but I interpret that as meaning that 2x Take off shots would be rejected as similar, not 1 take off and 1 landing. Can you please confirm what the rule is. Many Thanks, Robbie

    Rejected photo (landing) - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7205789
    Accepted photo (take-off) - https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9175846

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by VH-ROB View Post
    Hi All, a few questions in regards to https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7161632.

    It's just been rejected for manipulation, and the rejection email states that the bottom shows signs of cloning. I'm assuming that the screener means the part on the left hand side? This is actually part of the airport perimeter fence, and obviously, if I was to clone it out, it would then be rejected fro manipulation. What would you suggest that I do in this instance? Would the photo be best left for my personal collection?

    Many Thanks, Robbie
    Something has already been removed (or added) to the frame. There are very obvious repeating patterns in the grass directly below the nose indicative of cloning/manipulation. Perhaps you removed the fence in this version but didn’t mean to submit it. In any case, as the rejection email stated, this is not allowed and will result in further action if repeated in the future, so please take care with such editing in the future.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X