Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Avatar
Flying.Fonz
Member
Last Activity: 2020-09-25, 08:54
Joined: 2018-01-02
Location: London
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • That’s understood. However, if there was an issue it ought to have been raised initially so it could be corrected. Otherwise the assumption is that it is ok in all other aspects.

    As always, thanks for your thoughts....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Hi,

    This is the rejection in question. It is a subsequent rejection to the one you kindly offered your thoughts on how to correct. The original rejection did not state centreing as an issue.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8430123



    The original rejection we discussed above was down to over exposure and horizon not level. Both easily corrected, with one being subjective and the other only slightly out. Neither of these corrections can alter the centreing of the image and no additional editing was carried out. Hence the query regarding how can a new rejection reason appear when it wasn't there the first time round.

    With reference to the 'bad info' rejection, that's just finger trouble from my part and frustrating since I checked data entry a number of times prior to it being screened.

    The reason my original message was generic is because I've heard numerous other users mention the same thing and having...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Hi,

    I'm trying to understand how a photo that was previously rejected for a specific reason and no other, is subsequently corrected without changing anything else and is then rejected for something that wasn't there originally. If it was there originally why not include it as one of the rejection reasons because the assumption is that correcting the rejection issues leads to an acceptance so long as you haven't created other problems (assuming you have corrected the original issues appropriately). The question being why was it missed the first time if that is something that forms part of the check anyway, although it is recognised and understood that screeners are only human so errors do happen.

    The concern is two fold. First, we do this because it's fun and take pride in working towards high quality work while hopefully making life easier for screeners. Having the goal posts changed on a resubmission with the photo being treated as a new one which has not benefited...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Flying.Fonz
    replied to Questionable Comment
    Thanks for raising it as I had them too. I emailed the admins on the day to let them know what had happened and that it hapenned to a few guys too....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Is this an acceptable amount of aircraft cut?



    Thanks...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Thanks
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Hi,

    I'm unsure about this rejection so I'm looking for your advise.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8393194

    The overexposure, although subjective and I disagree with it, is easy to fix. My question relates to the unlevel horizon. Prior to submission, I checked alignment against all structures on and off the photo and I've done it again. All are aligned so I'm not sure what is showing an unlevel horizon and would be grateful for a pointer.

    Many thanks
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Thanks. Much appreciated.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Hi,

    A quick question on upload guidelines 3.5 Obstruct/Clutter. In this photo, the tug is part of the motive but obstructs more than I would normally consider to be ok so I'd like your thoughts please.



    Thanks...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It was a really bright day reflecting from everything, especially the underside so you could see it’s detail and what was being reflected. The reason for taking it was the highly unusual position and light combination.

    I no longer have the previous rejection where I think I added a lot of contrast for the reason you mentioned but it took away from what the actual photo was like....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Hi,

    I had this photo rejected for Over-processing before I worked on it again and then it was rejected for the same reason. I could see why the first one would not have met the requirements. However, I keep checking this one and comparing it with the original but cannot identify the problem, especially since it has only had minimal editing. Any help greatly appreciated.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8377420

    Thanks
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X