Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help on rejected photo - minhtrankhiem

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

  • Help on rejected photo - minhtrankhiem

    Hello,

    I recently got a rejected photo for 'Digital manipulation'. Here is the link into the rejected photo: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7043764

    I believe this is a false rejection and I would like to provide the raw image for clarification as requested by screeners that rejected my appeal request.
    Here is the link to the original file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Fx...ew?usp=sharing

    I hope the raw file could help to clear everything up.

    Thanks a lot

    Best regards,

    Minh

  • #2
    How do you explain the position of the front wheel ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by zomeu View Post
      How do you explain the position of the front wheel ?
      nothing wrong with the position of the front wheel

      Comment


      • #4
        Something was removed in the corner... digital manipulation...

        https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9187774

        Comment


        • #5
          If the rejection is about the nose gear being slanted, thats the way it is. I have no idea why Airbus does that, cause it looks broken when an A320 or similar does it.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	8cd56e44ef3a6b49dd59e34212a77f51.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	124.4 KB
ID:	1032303

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by zomeu View Post
            Something was removed in the corner... digital manipulation...

            https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9187774
            I actually beg to differ. If I look at the runway marks in his photo, I see that he is standing further to the left of where the photo you linked was taken, so he should have been able to clear the power lines.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by zomeu View Post
              Something was removed in the corner... digital manipulation...

              https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9187774
              The photo was taken from the left, a bit higher than the position of the picture mentioned above to avoid the electricity pole. The link below contains a bunch of images taken before my rejected photo. You can see the electricity line is fading out of the frame as the aircraft approaches the runway.

              Originally posted by zomeu View Post
              How do you explain the position of the front wheel ?
              You can also see how the nose wheels turned from those images as well.

              https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TU...fKIFdnc_pbhLhl
              Last edited by minhtrankhiem; 2019-01-11, 18:14. Reason: Quote added

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi,
                We also had a doubt, that's why we asked you to send the original raw file by email

                Regards
                Alex

                Comment


                • #9
                  At the base of the JP there is a picture almost the same, taken at the same time and same place.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by minhtrankhiem View Post
                    Hello,

                    I recently got a rejected photo for 'Digital manipulation'. Here is the link into the rejected photo: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7043764

                    I believe this is a false rejection and I would like to provide the raw image for clarification as requested by screeners that rejected my appeal request.
                    Here is the link to the original file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Fx...ew?usp=sharing

                    I hope the raw file could help to clear everything up.

                    Thanks a lot

                    Best regards,

                    Minh
                    As you are aware, an earlier version of this image was also rejected for manipulation, after you obviously filled in part of the frame to remove a border. This was kept in mind when you tried for the third time with the image above, and it was noticed that the sky in the upper left (where a border would have appeared after rotating it CCW like you did) did not match the earlier versions. Given your previous history of using manipulation (including the instance in Feb. 2016 with B-16411), we decided not to no longer give you the benefit of the doubt in such cases.

                    Please understand that given your history, any future cases where your images are found to be altered in such a manner will result in a reduction of upload slots and/or temporary upload ban.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                      As you are aware, an earlier version of this image was also rejected for manipulation, after you obviously filled in part of the frame to remove a border. This was kept in mind when you tried for the third time with the image above, and it was noticed that the sky in the upper left (where a border would have appeared after rotating it CCW like you did) did not match the earlier versions. Given your previous history of using manipulation (including the instance in Feb. 2016 with B-16411), we decided not to no longer give you the benefit of the doubt in such cases.

                      Please understand that given your history, any future cases where your images are found to be altered in such a manner will result in a reduction of upload slots and/or temporary upload ban.
                      I admit that I used processing tools to fill in the blank pixels in the second attempt in order to fix the cropping rejection on the first attempt. But to the third attempt I did the whole editing all over again. And I did nothing else to manipulate anything.
                      You can verify this by downloading my raw file onto your computer. Rotate 0.4 CCW. And crop tight onto the aircraft with the ratio of 3:2 as I did on my photo. If you crop a bit wider, no border would appear on the upper left but the bottom right. I did nothing to the sky as well in the second rejection.
                      This is a cropping review showing that the sky is perfectly fine but not the grass on the bottom right when I choose to crop wider (please refer to the buildings in the background).
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	2019-01-12 (3).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	20.8 KB
ID:	1032313

                      Thank you!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by minhtrankhiem View Post
                        I admit that I used processing tools to fill in the blank pixels in the second attempt in order to fix the cropping rejection on the first attempt. But to the third attempt I did the whole editing all over again. And I did nothing else to manipulate anything.
                        You can verify this by downloading my raw file onto your computer. Rotate 0.4 CCW. And crop tight onto the aircraft with the ratio of 3:2 as I did on my photo. If you crop a bit wider, no border would appear on the upper left but the bottom right. I did nothing to the sky as well in the second rejection.
                        This is a cropping review showing that the sky is perfectly fine but not the grass on the bottom right when I choose to crop wider (please refer to the buildings in the background).
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]21052[/ATTACH]

                        Thank you!
                        Again, if you examine the two images you submitted the pixel pattern is different in the aforementioned area. Whether this was intentional or not, you lost the benefit of the doubt because or your previous infractions. Looking at the original raw file is irrelevant in this case, since we are discussing the images you submitted. There is no need to try and make your case any further, as no other actions will be taken as long as you don't repeat this kind of editing/manipulation in the future.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                          Again, if you examine the two images you submitted the pixel pattern is different in the aforementioned area. Whether this was intentional or not, you lost the benefit of the doubt because or your previous infractions. Looking at the original raw file is irrelevant in this case, since we are discussing the images you submitted. There is no need to try and make your case any further, as no other actions will be taken as long as you don't repeat this kind of editing/manipulation in the future.
                          I don’t understand what you are implying about the sky is different in the two pictures. I cropped it differently so it should be different too.
                          Screeners you guys told me to send you a raw picture so that you can say that it is ‘irrelevant’ doing so???

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by minhtrankhiem View Post
                            I don’t understand what you are implying about the sky is different in the two pictures. I cropped it differently so it should be different too.
                            Screeners you guys told me to send you a raw picture so that you can say that it is ‘irrelevant’ doing so???
                            This is a blown-up view of the top left corner of the second version you submitted:

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	TKM1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	566.1 KB
ID:	1032314

                            This is a blown-up view of the same corner on the third version (same as top of this thread):

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	TKM2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	474.6 KB
ID:	1032315

                            If all you did was rotate and crop as you said, there should be no variation in the pixel pattern between the two. However, you can clearly see the second has repeated blocky patterns along the top edge, where there are none in the other image. While we can't say this is definitely caused by intentional manipulation on your part, due to your past history, you did not get the benefit of the doubt. If you had no history of manipulating images, this would not have been checked more carefully, and the image would most likely have been accepted.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
                              This is a blown-up view of the top left corner of the second version you submitted:

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21053[/ATTACH]

                              This is a blown-up view of the same corner on the third version (same as top of this thread):

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21054[/ATTACH]

                              If all you did was rotate and crop as you said, there should be no variation in the pixel pattern between the two. However, you can clearly see the second has repeated blocky patterns along the top edge, where there are none in the other image. While we can't say this is definitely caused by intentional manipulation on your part, due to your past history, you did not get the benefit of the doubt. If you had no history of manipulating images, this would not have been checked more carefully, and the image would most likely have been accepted.
                              Those blocks usually appears after I do the noise reduction and resizing.
                              Moreover, are there anyway to clear my name up or I just keep getting rejection like this in the future?
                              Thanks!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X