Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pre-screening Help

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

  • bgkicks49
    replied
    With this photo, there was a tall fence surrounding the aircraft at close proximity, making a side profile photo almost impossible. With this angle and the obstruction of the flag pole, would this be suitable in regards to crop/ratio as well as exposure and contrast? Also, would the obstruction be considered a reject or would it be designated as unavoidable?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC09017 53-5990 072020.jpg
Views:	184
Size:	1.35 MB
ID:	1095133

    Thank you

    Leave a comment:


  • meneses24
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Good morning, I have some possible hot photos (first registrations and new aircraft type) that I would liked to run by you for pre-screening:

    1) Haze, contrast, exposure, horizon? Does the nose end cause an issues since it is not lit like the back half? Soft and nose dark

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08907 86-24528 071520.jpg
Views:	189
Size:	673.9 KB
ID:	1094863

    2) Haze, Horizon, Exposure?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC09005 N7919G 071720.jpg
Views:	157
Size:	696.6 KB
ID:	1094864

    3) Inside hanger - does it suffer from these issues: Exposure, horizon, contrast, Back-lit, acceptable crop?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08968 N3963T 071720.jpg
Views:	150
Size:	733.4 KB
ID:	1094865

    4) Inside hanger as well: Horizon, Contrast, Exposure?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08939 N9082D 071720.jpg
Views:	148
Size:	786.7 KB
ID:	1094866

    5) JPEG Compression, Acceptable Crop/Aspect Ratio, Contrast?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08995 N802MA 071720.jpg
Views:	143
Size:	408.1 KB
ID:	1094867

    Thank you for your assistance in advance.

    1-Soft and nose dark

    2-Bit soft

    3-Hightlights a bit blown away towards nose

    4-Good

    5-Backlit and dark

    The common issue in all is a bit of softness overall

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Good morning, I have some possible hot photos (first registrations and new aircraft type) that I would liked to run by you for pre-screening:

    1) Haze, contrast, exposure, horizon? Does the nose end cause an issues since it is not lit like the back half?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08907 86-24528 071520.jpg
Views:	189
Size:	673.9 KB
ID:	1094863

    2) Haze, Horizon, Exposure?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC09005 N7919G 071720.jpg
Views:	157
Size:	696.6 KB
ID:	1094864

    3) Inside hanger - does it suffer from these issues: Exposure, horizon, contrast, Back-lit, acceptable crop?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08968 N3963T 071720.jpg
Views:	150
Size:	733.4 KB
ID:	1094865

    4) Inside hanger as well: Horizon, Contrast, Exposure?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08939 N9082D 071720.jpg
Views:	148
Size:	786.7 KB
ID:	1094866

    5) JPEG Compression, Acceptable Crop/Aspect Ratio, Contrast?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08995 N802MA 071720.jpg
Views:	143
Size:	408.1 KB
ID:	1094867

    Thank you for your assistance in advance.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    One inconsistency that has directly affected me would be these two photos.

    Exhibit A: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9574341 This photo was submitted before I caught on about if the operator is visible, then I more than likely should submit it with the operator. I submitted this as Private and was ultimately accepted, as you can see from the link above.

    An aircraft from the same fleet 'Exhibit B: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9581880' was subsequently rejected upon initial upload on Jan 14, 2020 and screener rejected for 'bad info - airline' and left a comment that the operator was visible and therefore should have been submitted with the upload.

    I understand now that it depends on the operator in order to determine if the airline/operator should be included. One inconsistency just means that screeners are human, just like me, but it would be nice to see in upload guidelines that this issue be addressed a little more black/white as this seems to be a slightly gray area in terms of making sure each upload has as much information as possible.
    Yup, things like that get missed all the time. Not much we can do about that other than try our best.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    One inconsistency that has directly affected me would be these two photos.

    Exhibit A: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9574341 This photo was submitted before I caught on about if the operator is visible, then I more than likely should submit it with the operator. I submitted this as Private and was ultimately accepted, as you can see from the link above.

    An aircraft from the same fleet 'Exhibit B: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9581880' was subsequently rejected upon initial upload on Jan 14, 2020 and screener rejected for 'bad info - airline' and left a comment that the operator was visible and therefore should have been submitted with the upload.

    I understand now that it depends on the operator in order to determine if the airline/operator should be included. One inconsistency just means that screeners are human, just like me, but it would be nice to see in upload guidelines that this issue be addressed a little more black/white as this seems to be a slightly gray area in terms of making sure each upload has as much information as possible.

    Thank you for your timely responses and your cooperation. In the meantime, I would appreciate if the photo without the operator could be changed to match link #2 as operator General Aviation/Encore Flight.

    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    I was always under the assumption that if the operator is VISIBLE, then it should be added.
    Your assumption was incorrect.

    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!


    Where is the operator visible?

    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Seems to be some inconsistencies when it comes to this
    Not really. Do you have an example of such inconsistency?

    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    it is clearly not addressed in the upload guidelines. Some clarification would be great in regards to this matter as this is not a very black/white situation
    True, but not very complicated. Private owner - use Private. Owned/operated by company/corporation - use that as the airline.

    The only exception applies to those that are owned by banks/holding companies but used for individual transportation (i.e. not being operated as a public business) are also listed as Private. Those that are operated as a public business (fractional share, etc.) like NetJets should use the operating company's name.

    Your helicopter is both owned by a company, and seems to be operated as a public business - thus, it should use that company's name.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    I was always under the assumption that if the operator is VISIBLE, then it should be added. Clearly there is no operator visible so therefore I did not add it as the operator. Seems to be some inconsistencies when it comes to this and it is clearly not addressed in the upload guidelines. Some clarification would be great in regards to this matter as this is not a very black/white situation

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    So I am confused as to why this photo was rejected just a little bit ago. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8302274

    This aircraft is a 1984 Bell 206B JetRanger II with serial # 3800 and the picture was taken outside of Ventura Iowa. The registration on the side reads N652BB per this reference photo (which doesnt meet the requirements for upload, but showing the side profile). As you can tell from where the rotar spins, you can see JetRanger II.

    Screener did not leave a comment, so I am at a loss as to why this was rejected for bad info. I wanted to reach out on here before I submitted an official appeal. Thank you.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08936 n652bb 071720.jpg
Views:	164
Size:	313.8 KB
ID:	1094772
    Screener did in fact leave a message. Helicopter is registered to and operated by Agricultural Air Services.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    So I am confused as to why this photo was rejected just a little bit ago. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8302274

    This aircraft is a 1984 Bell 206B JetRanger II with serial # 3800 and the picture was taken outside of Ventura Iowa. The registration on the side reads N652BB per this reference photo (which doesnt meet the requirements for upload, but showing the side profile). As you can tell from where the rotar spins, you can see JetRanger II.

    Screener did not leave a comment, so I am at a loss as to why this was rejected for bad info. I wanted to reach out on here before I submitted an official appeal. Thank you.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08936 n652bb 071720.jpg
Views:	164
Size:	313.8 KB
ID:	1094772

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Looking for feedback on these photos that I think are questionable/borderline. If you find any issues with each photos requests for advice, please let me know. Thank you.

    1) Contrast, Exposure, Overprocessed?
    Yes, contrast.

    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    2) Heat Haze, Contrast, Overprocessed, Exposure?
    Yes, heat haze.

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Looking for feedback on these photos that I think are questionable/borderline. If you find any issues with each photos requests for advice, please let me know. Thank you.

    1) Contrast, Exposure, Overprocessed?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01116 N727SW 043020.jpg
Views:	139
Size:	443.2 KB
ID:	1094663

    2) Heat Haze, Contrast, Overprocessed, Exposure?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01136-2 N273RH 043020.jpg
Views:	114
Size:	347.3 KB
ID:	1094664

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    So recently had a rejection for vignette and I had submitted the photo for pre-screening a July 6th and you stated that "Borderline for vignetting/contrast, though acceptable for me." I understand that that each screener is different, but I wanted to submit the rejection for reference: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8272727 and submit a new edit for the photo to see if it was more acceptable than the last one. Some small tweaks as well to help increase the contrast, but hoping it was overprocessed and if the vignette no longer borderline. Thank you.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06305-2 N758SS 021020.jpg
Views:	166
Size:	398.0 KB
ID:	1094575
    Still visible, though not quite as much as before. So.. even more acceptable for me

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    So recently had a rejection for vignette and I had submitted the photo for pre-screening a July 6th and you stated that "Borderline for vignetting/contrast, though acceptable for me." I understand that that each screener is different, but I wanted to submit the rejection for reference: https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8272727 and submit a new edit for the photo to see if it was more acceptable than the last one. Some small tweaks as well to help increase the contrast, but hoping it was overprocessed and if the vignette no longer borderline. Thank you.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC06305-2 N758SS 021020.jpg
Views:	166
Size:	398.0 KB
ID:	1094575

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by bgkicks49 View Post
    Looking for feedback on these photos.

    1) I want to make sure it isn't over-edited/overprocessed, lighting and contrast are sufficient and that the horizon is level. I also want to make sure the crop is acceptable

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08199 N918FX 071020.jpg
Views:	131
Size:	647.2 KB
ID:	1094488

    2) I want to make sure lighting and contrast work for you, I see that the sunlight is on the majority of the tail, but want to make sure that it is not backlit

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08048 N624NK 071020.jpg
Views:	159
Size:	401.5 KB
ID:	1094487

    Thank you for your assistance.
    1. borderline crop on left and oversaturated, but would be ok for me
    2. borderline dark, and very faint editing halos visible

    Leave a comment:


  • bgkicks49
    replied
    Looking for feedback on these photos.

    1) I want to make sure it isn't over-edited/overprocessed, lighting and contrast are sufficient and that the horizon is level. I also want to make sure the crop is acceptable

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08199 N918FX 071020.jpg
Views:	131
Size:	647.2 KB
ID:	1094488

    2) I want to make sure lighting and contrast work for you, I see that the sunlight is on the majority of the tail, but want to make sure that it is not backlit

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC08048 N624NK 071020.jpg
Views:	159
Size:	401.5 KB
ID:	1094487

    Thank you for your assistance.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X