zephyrmk4 - editing/screening advice

[dlowwa]

I've been experimenting with night shots recently and was wondering if I could get some feedback on some photos.

Basically, would these be accepted?

I'm aware they are both noisy however I struggle to keep the noise to a minimum and was expecting this with night photography. Is there lenience when it comes to noise and night photos?

Regardless of noise, the aircraft are much too dark, especially in the second and would thus not be acceptable.

[zephyrmk4]

I've been experimenting with night shots recently and was wondering if I could get some feedback on some photos.



Basically, would these be accepted?

I'm aware they are both noisy however I struggle to keep the noise to a minimum and was expecting this with night photography. Is there lenience when it comes to noise and night photos?

[Alex - Spot-This !]

The appeal was rejected on May 2nd with the message "correct rejection"

Regards

PS : The overexposure is very clear and confirmed by the histogram. Please help the crew save some time by not appealing such correct rejection. Thank you

[zephyrmk4]

I appealed this photo not long after it was rejected, was wondering on an update for the appeal?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9082422

Cheers

[zephyrmk4]

Thanks,

sorry I forgot to mention that I had clearly mentioned that it had been removed from the port side and linked a photo from the same day (https://flic.kr/p/2kUWhRX).

[dlowwa]

In that case, it didn't appear when I searched, I'm aware there is a latency from when the photo is accepted to them appearing in the search.

I have another query.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9102754 This photo was rejected. I incorrectly wrote the hot reason however the rejection was for 'invalid hot' I then appealed listing a valid reason for it to be hot.

I noted that the 'R44 Raven II' had changed colour from orange to white, also the 'Danger' in front of the tail rotor has been removed.

This was the reply:

'Your appeal for photo id 9102754 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> Nothing changed'

It was probably mis-read as the whole R44 Raven II changing from orange to white, not just the type name on the fuselage. There's no photo of it displaying the 'danger' sticker on the right side, so that would not qualify it for hot. To be honest, while technically the orange to white is a change of livery, if you have to search that hard to find a justification to qualify for hot screening, you're really exploiting that loophole for personal benefit. FR24 gets no real benefit for updating the image for such a small change - the last image was from eight years ago, waiting another eight days will make no difference. But, the guideline is there, so feel free to try again.

[zephyrmk4]

In that case, it didn't appear when I searched, I'm aware there is a latency from when the photo is accepted to them appearing in the search.

I have another query.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9102754 This photo was rejected. I incorrectly wrote the hot reason however the rejection was for 'invalid hot' I then appealed listing a valid reason for it to be hot.

I noted that the 'R44 Raven II' had changed colour from orange to white, also the 'Danger' in front of the tail rotor has been removed.

This was the reply:

'Your appeal for photo id 9102754 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> Nothing changed'

[dlowwa]

I uploaded the photo to the queue as hot before the current accepted photo was even screened

This is incorrect. The image already on the DB was screened and accepted at 04:15 UTC, while you submitted your image to the queue at 04:38 UTC, i.e. 23 minutes AFTER the first image had already been accepted.

[zephyrmk4]

Hi so i'm curious on my latest rejection - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=9102709

I uploaded the photo to the queue as hot before the current accepted photo was even screened (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10138588). So when searching to see if it was in the database nothing showed so it was queued.

How does this work? Obviously it's second in queue but it was uploaded intierly knowing there was no other photo in the database.

[zephyrmk4]

Sorry, I must've misunderstood. I was hoping to reupload the photo, but I don't want to make any changes to the image itself and was after a more detailed reason behind the rejection for more understanding to it. I understand now that it's against the forum rules to ask for feedback after an appeal. My bad.

[dlowwa]

Image has already been appealed. In the future please post questions about rejections before appealing, as you have already been asked to read here:

https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/a...ning-from-crew

Re-uploading the image with no changes will likely result in a warning being placed on your account.

[zephyrmk4]

Thanks for the feedback.

Wasn't 100% sure where to put something like this but I have a query regarding an appeal result.

This was recently rejected for a similar photo - https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8781199

I, however, beg to differ; The only attributes that same I see in this is the aircraft and possibly lighting. However, everything else is significantly different in my opinion; the background, angle, state, lighting (to an extent).

After the appeal, I was led to the upload guidelines. which I then linked that the only reason for the appeal would be the point of:

'Similar refers to:
- a photo taken from the same sequence the same day e. landing, taxiing, ramp parking or take off'. Regarding that, the photo already in the database was taxiing and the photo rejected was being pushbacked, and considering ramp parking and taxiing are different I'd assume pushback and taxi are different. Im only bringing this to the forum because I feel it's more responsible rather than reuploading with a note to the screeners incase I'm missing something regarding the rejection. Sorry for the hastle just really wanting a more in-depth reason for the rejection.

Cheers.

[dlowwa]

Thanks for the reply, one other thing, the photo at the bottom was owned by Mount Cook Airline and operated by Air New Zealand, but since then Air New Zealand now has full ownership of the link fleet. So there writing 'Operated by Mount Cook Air' was removed from below the Star Alliance logo. Would either of those points be enough to differ the two uploads?

If the change to the livery were more significant, it could make it not similar, but in this case the change is so small as to not be noticeable (you needed to point it out to me) so doesn't really factor in.

[zephyrmk4]

Thanks for the reply, one other thing, the photo at the bottom was owned by Mount Cook Airline and operated by Air New Zealand, but since then Air New Zealand now has full ownership of the link fleet. So there writing 'Operated by Mount Cook Air' was removed from below the Star Alliance logo. Would either of those points be enough to differ the two uploads?

[dlowwa]

Afternoon everyone, quick question; would the following image be rejected for being similar to the one below it?
Thought I'd check considering the two different backgrounds.

Yes, very likely to be considered similar.