Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre Screen Please

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

  • #16
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6669.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	505.2 KB
ID:	1042438 Wasn’t too sure about the exposure on this one cause the plane has a darker paint and the clouds were very bright so just wanted an opinion from someone else on if this would be acceptable or not

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Shannibal32 View Post
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]28237[/ATTACH] Wasn’t too sure about the exposure on this one cause the plane has a darker paint and the clouds were very bright so just wanted an opinion from someone else on if this would be acceptable or not
      Yes, very borderline for overexposed/contrast. Also a bit soft. I'd bring the exposure down a bit at least, but not sure how the contrast would end up looking.

      Comment


      • #18
        https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7571055 Hi all, I recently had this photo rejected for JPG Compression artefacts and was wondering how to get rid of if there is a way because I' pretty sue this only happened because most of the photo is black but if there is a way that would be great.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Shannibal32 View Post
          https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7571055 Hi all, I recently had this photo rejected for JPG Compression artefacts and was wondering how to get rid of if there is a way because I' pretty sue this only happened because most of the photo is black but if there is a way that would be great.
          I'll assume you're already saving at maximum quality for the jpeg, so the only other thing I can suggest is doing all intermediary work as a .tif and only converting to .jpeg as the final step before uploading. This sometimes alleviates the banding you can see in the sky due to the jpeg compression you would get if you converted to jpeg first before doing any editing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_7501-4.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	423.6 KB
ID:	1042976 I uploaded this photo but then using the Check Dust tool, I noticed the left side is much darker than the rest of the photo, this is the first time ive noticed this and was wondering how to get rid of it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Shannibal32 View Post
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]28888[/ATTACH] I uploaded this photo but then using the Check Dust tool, I noticed the left side is much darker than the rest of the photo, this is the first time ive noticed this and was wondering how to get rid of it.
              Saul, that is called vignetting. You can remove it by Lens Correction function in your PS. Or you can minimize it while shooting by using a smaller aperture.

              Comment


              • #22
                https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7623369 Hi all, I just had this photo rejected for wrong registration because I put N1079B but since there is a similar aircraft type with the reg N10798 in the database with the same Serial number, it was rejected. But I have a photo before the one I uploaded that shows it is in fact N1079B and on FAA registry, it shows that N1079B is a Mooney M20K, the aircraft shown here, but N10798 (the reg the screener put) is now a seaplane. which is definitely not what is shown in the picture, and also the red things behind the propeller may say N201DF, but that is not there registration on the side of the plane. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_8893.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	2.01 MB
ID:	1043154
                Not trying to be mean or anything just a little salty that the aircraft got rejected because it did have the correct regisration

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Shannibal32 View Post
                  https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7623369 Hi all, I just had this photo rejected for wrong registration because I put N1079B but since there is a similar aircraft type with the reg N10798 in the database with the same Serial number, it was rejected. But I have a photo before the one I uploaded that shows it is in fact N1079B and on FAA registry, it shows that N1079B is a Mooney M20K, the aircraft shown here, but N10798 (the reg the screener put) is now a seaplane. which is definitely not what is shown in the picture, and also the red things behind the propeller may say N201DF, but that is not there registration on the side of the plane. [ATTACH=CONFIG]29092[/ATTACH]
                  Not trying to be mean or anything just a little salty that the aircraft got rejected because it did have the correct regisration
                  Seems to have been an error on our part since the airframe is already in the DB, but with bad info. I've accepted your image, but in the future better to come here ask ask for advice before appealing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7684271 I had this rejected for invalid hot because you can't see the changes but at the top of the tail it shows where the aircraft is based out of and on the other photos in the database it shows the Arizona flag meaning it's from Arizona but it got changed to MKE so it now says Wisconsin and you can read that at the top of the tail where it says Wisconsin on the photo but the sceeners still said no changes visible.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Shannibal32 View Post
                      https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7684271 I had this rejected for invalid hot because you can't see the changes but at the top of the tail it shows where the aircraft is based out of and on the other photos in the database it shows the Arizona flag meaning it's from Arizona but it got changed to MKE so it now says Wisconsin and you can read that at the top of the tail where it says Wisconsin on the photo but the sceeners still said no changes visible.
                      Changes should be easily noticeable for images to qualify as hot. I can see the tail flash is different, but you really need to zoom in to do so, so I agree that this shouldn't have been accepted as hot. If you have a different angle that better shows the differences, maybe try that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X