Originally posted by dlowwa
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pre Screening Advice - Robbie Mathieson
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by VH-ROB View PostThanks 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:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View PostIf 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:
-
Originally posted by VH-ROB View PostHi 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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by VH-ROB View PostHi 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:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by VH-ROB View PostThanks Dana, would this photo be more appropriate? Obviously rezised etc before uploading
[ATTACH=CONFIG]23517[/ATTACH]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:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View PostWould 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:
-
Originally posted by VH-ROB View PostHi 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
Leave a comment:
-
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 bothExceptions may be made if the equipment forms part of the motive of the shotif the angle of the shot means only a small part of the aircraft is obstructed
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by VH-ROB View PostThanks 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:
-
Originally posted by dlowwa View PostWhile 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:
-
Originally posted by VH-ROB View PostHi 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
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: