Pre-screening Help

[bgkicks49]

Would this be in the same boat as the rejection we talked about with the glare on the rear panel by the wing?

[dlowwa]

Would this be in the same boat as the rejection we talked about with the glare on the rear panel by the wing?

I don't find this one nearly as distracting, so I would be surprised if it caused a rejection.

[bgkicks49]

Would there be any issues with exposure and contrast with these two photos? If there are any other issues that you may see, please let me know. Thank you

[dlowwa]

Would there be any issues with exposure and contrast with these two photos? If there are any other issues that you may see, please let me know. Thank you

Contrast maybe on the second. Color for both. Borderline oversharpened/compression on both as well.

[bgkicks49]

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



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



Thank you for your assistance.

[dlowwa]

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



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



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

[bgkicks49]

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.

[dlowwa]

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.

Still visible, though not quite as much as before. So.. even more acceptable for me

[bgkicks49]

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?



2) Heat Haze, Contrast, Overprocessed, Exposure?

[dlowwa]

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.

2) Heat Haze, Contrast, Overprocessed, Exposure?

Yes, heat haze.

[bgkicks49]

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.

[dlowwa]

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.

Screener did in fact leave a message. Helicopter is registered to and operated by Agricultural Air Services.

[bgkicks49]

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

[dlowwa]

I was always under the assumption that if the operator is VISIBLE, then it should be added.

Your assumption was incorrect.

https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/VP-CME

Where is the operator visible?

Seems to be some inconsistencies when it comes to this

Not really. Do you have an example of such inconsistency?

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.

[bgkicks49]

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.