Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Reuben Morison - Prescreening/editing advice

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default Reuben Morison - Prescreening/editing advice

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1083.jpg 
Views:	173 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	23409
    I've got this hot photo of a Mig 15 in a hangar, it was being held up by those pallets which are slightly obstructing the fuselage, would this be rejected for that?

  2. #2
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1083.jpg 
Views:	173 
Size:	1.12 MB 
ID:	23409
    I've got this hot photo of a Mig 15 in a hangar, it was being held up by those pallets which are slightly obstructing the fuselage, would this be rejected for that?
    In this case since it is quite unavoidable (and there are no other unobstructed images in the DB) it should be acceptable, although the aircraft is quite soft towards the nose due to the low depth of field. If you have a different image where the whole aircraft is sharp/in focus, just leave a note about the obstruction being unavoidable if you decide to upload.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default Grass obstruction

    I'm guessing that grass obstructing the main gear like this would be enough for a rejection, but looking for a second opinion.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_8923.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	1.46 MB 
ID:	25359

  4. #4
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    I'm guessing that grass obstructing the main gear like this would be enough for a rejection, but looking for a second opinion.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_8923.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	1.46 MB 
ID:	25359
    Unless it is a new reg. for which there may be some leeway, yes this is an obstruction rejection.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_MG_2182-2.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	618.5 KB 
ID:	25745
    Not sure if this photo is sharp enough, plus with the sun glaring on the fuselage being slightly overexposed (can't be fixed). Would it be acceptable?

  6. #6
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_MG_2182-2.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	618.5 KB 
ID:	25745
    Not sure if this photo is sharp enough, plus with the sun glaring on the fuselage being slightly overexposed (can't be fixed). Would it be acceptable?
    Sharpness would be ok for me, but I would consider it borderline for contrast/glare.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3471-3.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	518.7 KB 
ID:	26279
    Would this be low contrast?

  8. #8
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3471-3.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	518.7 KB 
ID:	26279
    Would this be low contrast?
    Yes, low/poor contrast (also soft). Probably not fixable.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Yes, low/poor contrast (also soft). Probably not fixable.
    Thought so, thanks. How about this one, with sun reflecting on the tail?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3359.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	669.3 KB 
ID:	26318

  10. #10
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Thought so, thanks. How about this one, with sun reflecting on the tail?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3359.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	669.3 KB 
ID:	26318
    Front of the aircraft is so soft it's almost blurry, so the reflection doesn't really matter.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Front of the aircraft is so soft it's almost blurry, so the reflection doesn't really matter.
    Yeah, since it was such a cold morning the heat haze from the jets was accentuated.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_9878.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	1.18 MB 
ID:	26442
    Would this photo be too similar to https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9120131?

  13. #13
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_9878.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	1.18 MB 
ID:	26442
    Would this photo be too similar to https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9120131?
    No, different side is ok.

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Yay, thanks

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4050-2.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	690.1 KB 
ID:	26443
    Debating this one too

  16. #16
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4050-2.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	690.1 KB 
ID:	26443
    Debating this one too
    Likely a dark/contrast rejection as it's not really a silhouette shot, yet still too dark for regular night shot. Also too soft for 1920pix.

  17. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Likely a dark/contrast rejection as it's not really a silhouette shot, yet still too dark for regular night shot. Also too soft for 1920pix.
    Cheers, shame but thats life.

  18. #18
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Cheers, shame but thats life.
    Doesn't mean it's a guaranteed rejection if you want to try, someone might disagree with me

  19. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    68

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4301.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	839.9 KB 
ID:	26782
    Would this be acceptable here?

  20. #20
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NZDN_spotting View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4301.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	839.9 KB 
ID:	26782
    Would this be acceptable here?
    Maybe if the NASA tail were more in focus.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •