Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reuben Morison - Prescreening/editing advice

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

  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	HOT.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	646.3 KB
ID:	1095580This aircraft, VH-REH was rejected for aircraft, with the screeners saying it should be WSK-Mielec SB Lim-2 and is already in the database as such. There are no photos of this reg or serial in the JP database. The Polish Air Force who this was imported from operated the Lim-2 built by both PZL and WSK. The other one in Bathurst was a WSK one, while this one was a PZL one. The appeal was rejected with the screener saying it was already in database as WSK, when it is not.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8331491

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post

    Technically yes, but it will be at the screener's discretion whether the change is visible enough.



    Borderline for contrast. Crop/centering also a bit awkward.
    I got lucky, Te Rangi Nui had also added the ZK- to the painted registration

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Would the Te Rangi Nui ltd titles on the tail classify this one as hot? Was previously private
    Technically yes, but it will be at the screener's discretion whether the change is visible enough.

    Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Would this be acceptable or a contrast rejection?
    Borderline for contrast. Crop/centering also a bit awkward.

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Would the Te Rangi Nui ltd titles on the tail classify this one as hot? Was previously privateClick image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8131.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	1.76 MB
ID:	1095285Would this be acceptable or a contrast rejection?Click image for larger version

Name:	Good enough?.jpg
Views:	27
Size:	1.36 MB
ID:	1095284

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Mostly concerned about contrast on these ones, and the left wing obstruction in the Sakota
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8347.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	1.32 MB
ID:	1095148Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8356.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	641.0 KB
ID:	1095149Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8379.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	681.7 KB
ID:	1095150
    Doesn't look like there is much that could have done to improve these, so would be ok for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Mostly concerned about contrast on these ones, and the left wing obstruction in the Sakota
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8347.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	1.32 MB
ID:	1095148Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8356.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	641.0 KB
ID:	1095149Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8379.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	681.7 KB
ID:	1095150
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Would this be rejected for obstructed?
    No.

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Would this be rejected for obstructed?Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1059.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	717.2 KB
ID:	1075779

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Originally posted by pdeboer View Post
    first has a contrast problem, a/c is not well lit, second is borderline for contrast also some parts look a tad soft,third looks acceptable
    First two have been accepted, I put them in the queue today and accepted, I thought the third was borderline soft.

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Originally posted by pdeboer View Post
    for me that would be a cut off rejection
    Yeah, thought so. It would be obstructed if I cropped it wider.

    Leave a comment:


  • pdeboer
    replied
    Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    And this one too [ATTACH=CONFIG]29578[/ATTACH]
    for me that would be a cut off rejection

    Leave a comment:


  • pdeboer
    replied
    Originally posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]29575[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]29576[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]29577[/ATTACH]
    Feedback on these 3 please
    first has a contrast problem, a/c is not well lit, second is borderline for contrast also some parts look a tad soft,third looks acceptable

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    And this one too Click image for larger version

Name:	HB-JMC.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	311.5 KB
ID:	1043552

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3889.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	635.5 KB
ID:	1043549Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3910.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	758.4 KB
ID:	1043550Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_4017.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	651.0 KB
ID:	1043551
    Feedback on these 3 please

    Leave a comment:


  • NZDN_spotting
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Sharpness borderline (but passable for me); crop's a bit awkward on the second.
    I've got a few in the queue (sharp) with a similar crop, would it be worth me taking them out? My lens isn't wide enough to get the shot I want with the full aircraft, so this is the best I can get.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7653990
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7653994
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7655308
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7655309
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7655317
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7669795
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7669796

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X