Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prescreening Request

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

  • klax_spotting
    replied
    sweet thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    Hello

    I tried fixing VX and AS and was wondering if they were any better. Also I added some new photos I'd like prescreened please.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]24504[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24505[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24506[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24507[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24508[/ATTACH]
    Last one is suffering from softness and vignetting, but quality looks acceptable on the rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • klax_spotting
    replied
    Hello

    I tried fixing VX and AS and was wondering if they were any better. Also I added some new photos I'd like prescreened please.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3341.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	616.1 KB
ID:	1035167Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3048-3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	454.0 KB
ID:	1035168Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3286-3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	484.0 KB
ID:	1035169Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2903.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	397.8 KB
ID:	1035170Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3140-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	379.9 KB
ID:	1035171

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    Could I get the following photos prescreened please?

    Thanks
    Luca Flores
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]24441[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24442[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24443[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24444[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24445[/ATTACH]
    1. soft
    2-3 borderline contrast
    4. soft, too far
    5. horizon

    Leave a comment:


  • klax_spotting
    replied
    Could I get the following photos prescreened please?

    Thanks
    Luca Flores
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2896.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	328.2 KB
ID:	1035109Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3048.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	444.3 KB
ID:	1035110Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3286.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	468.4 KB
ID:	1035111Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3324-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	237.3 KB
ID:	1035112Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3386.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	440.8 KB
ID:	1035113

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    I tried to correct the Hong Kong and Jetblue. Are they acceptable? Also, I put in a new photo I'd like prescreened please.

    Thanks
    Luca Flores

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]24407[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24408[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24409[/ATTACH]
    1. compression/noise, borderline contrast
    2. ok
    3. horizon, borderline soft (nose)

    Leave a comment:


  • klax_spotting
    replied
    I tried to correct the Hong Kong and Jetblue. Are they acceptable? Also, I put in a new photo I'd like prescreened please.

    Thanks
    Luca Flores

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1171.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	331.9 KB
ID:	1035079Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3059-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	451.0 KB
ID:	1035080Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8111-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	493.6 KB
ID:	1035081

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    Hello

    Could someone be kind enough to prescreen the following?

    Thank you
    Luca Flores

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]24350[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24351[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24352[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24353[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24354[/ATTACH]
    1: borderline contrast/backlit
    2: Looks to me like slightly leaning to the right
    3: OK
    4: slightly leaning to the right
    5: OK

    Leave a comment:


  • klax_spotting
    replied
    Hello

    Could someone be kind enough to prescreen the following?

    Thank you
    Luca Flores

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1169.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	197.0 KB
ID:	1035035Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8111.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	344.7 KB
ID:	1035036Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1240.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	424.7 KB
ID:	1035037Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3059.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	452.9 KB
ID:	1035038Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1099.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	327.2 KB
ID:	1035039

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    Hello

    Could I get these photos prescreened please?

    Thanks
    Luca Flores

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]24159[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24160[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24161[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24162[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24163[/ATTACH]
    1. blurry, contrast
    2. contrast, borderline soft
    3. borderline dark
    4. ok
    5. borderline dark/contrast

    Leave a comment:


  • klax_spotting
    replied
    Hello

    Could I get these photos prescreened please?

    Thanks
    Luca Flores

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2916-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	334.0 KB
ID:	1034876Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2719.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	376.9 KB
ID:	1034877Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2418.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	593.4 KB
ID:	1034878Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2687.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	376.2 KB
ID:	1034879Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1333.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	444.3 KB
ID:	1034880

    Leave a comment:


  • klax_spotting
    replied
    [QUOTE=dlowwa;683329]You already appealed this, and were rejected again (you put it in the queue more than 48 hours after the first image was accepted). You can't appeal a second time, so what exactly are you asking?


    The second one was a different edit. I wasn't sure the first appeal went through because I didn't get an email for a long while so I tried to fix the JPG compression. We can't see what time a photo was uploaded so it's impossible to tell when the 48 hours are up.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    Hello

    I just got this photo rejected for invalid hot, even though I put it in the queue 2 days after the first photo was uploaded(48 hour rule) and it was in screening for about 2 hours and got rejected for invalid hot even though it was hot when I put it in the queue. Worth an appeal?
    You already appealed this, and were rejected again (you put it in the queue more than 48 hours after the first image was accepted). You can't appeal a second time, so what exactly are you asking?

    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    Also, this image was rejected for dark/underexposed but I see none of that personally and the histogram is well in the middle. Appeal?
    Yes it is dark (see histogram), and also borderline soft. Not worth an appeal.

    Leave a comment:


  • klax_spotting
    replied
    Hello

    I just got this photo rejected for invalid hot, even though I put it in the queue 2 days after the first photo was uploaded(48 hour rule) and it was in screening for about 2 hours and got rejected for invalid hot even though it was hot when I put it in the queue. Worth an appeal?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7271274

    Also, this image was rejected for dark/underexposed but I see none of that personally and the histogram is well in the middle. Appeal?

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7249368

    Thanks a lot
    Luca Flores

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by klax_spotting View Post
    Hello

    Are these photos worth an appeal? I was told all 3 would be acceptable in this thread.

    Thanks
    Luca Flores

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7233309

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7233198

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7233197
    Dust spots, missed categories, and images that were mentioned as borderline I can't help you with. The AC that was rejected for dark, while it obviously would have been ok for me, I can see why someone might have looked at the histogram and decided it was too dark, so that's your decision if you want to appeal.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X