Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you!

[Brenden S]

Overexposed and blurry at the same time. I take it you had a low shutter speed? Try shooting on manual next time. I have a 7D and shoot 640th sec and F8/F9 pending on how harsh the Australian Sun is.

[ATAAirlines]

Originally Posted by Brenden S

Overexposed and blurry at the same time. I take it you had a low shutter speed? Try shooting on manual next time. I have a 7D and shoot 640th sec and F8/F9 pending on how harsh the Australian Sun is.

I try it ... Thanks

Hi,

I must write it in the beginning, because actually I meant to give up and forget it, but I feel that it's a mistake was made by the screening team.
So I decided now to write it anyway ...

As can be seen in this post my acceptance percentage is very high in recent times, because I really do all the efforts before the upload, so I wonder ... Is it not it a shame to ruin my beautiful statistics with a little mistake ?

As you can see, there is no many shots of this registration on the JP database.
In fact, my previous accepted photo is the 3rd in total accepted to the database.

I sent an appeal and received an answer :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your appeal for photo id 3878453 has been processed and has been rejected.
Admin Comments >> less than 45° to your other photo in db
>> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3878453
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair I did not check if it's more or less than 45° , but in my opinion it's not always so critical, I also see many accepted photos which the difference is much smaller than between my two photos.
Also I think [in my humble opinion] that there is a fundamental difference between the two shots, (different angle, better lights, etc...) and I think that sometimes would not hurt to think "outside the box".

By the way, my decision to write this post is in response to an email from one of the team member, he wrote to me "Apologizes but IMO It is a harsh rejected", So I see that I'm not the only person who thinks I wuz in this case ...

Have a nice weekend to all !

Erez.

[Michel]

Hi all,

These 2 pictures are rejected by Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots. I try to check all my pictures on dust spots before upload, but on these 2 pictures I cant see any dust spots. Do I need to make an appointment with the optician?

1:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3884122

2:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3884119

TIA

[rmk2112]

Originally Posted by Michel

Hi all,

These 2 pictures are rejected by Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots. I try to check all my pictures on dust spots before upload, but on these 2 pictures I cant see any dust spots. Do I need to make an appointment with the optician?

1:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3884122

2:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3884119

TIA

Hi Michel,
I've circled the only ones I can see, there may be others, I'm not very good at spotting them myself. Though I would say, IMHO, the rejections seem rather harsh especially with the Embraer...
Regards
René

[Michel]

Originally Posted by rmk2112

Hi Michel,
I've circled the only ones I can see, there may be others, I'm not very good at spotting them myself. Though I would say, IMHO, the rejections seem rather harsh especially with the Embraer...
Regards
René

On the Lufthansa I can see the dust spot on the upper side, but not on the tail side. On the Embraer i dont see him at all. I cleaned the Lufthansa on the hand of your example...for the Embraer I sended a appeal.

Thnx for helping me out.

Michel

ps,

The Embraer is accepted

[Siegi N.]

Please help,
I have rejected photo it
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3884791 for "Horizon unlevel".

What i need rotate - CW or CCW?

Regards,
Siegi.

[Simpleboy]

Originally Posted by Siegi N.

Please help,
I have rejected photo it
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3884791 for "Horizon unlevel".

What i need rotate - CW or CCW?

Regards,
Siegi.

To my eyes it needs some CCW rotation.

[ZK-TUI]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3885243
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3885242

Both for soft and bad rego...
Where specifically are they looking at the softness because I thought the looked fairly sharp on my screen....?

But for the bad rego, is that because I put in ZK-NG? I didn't catch the rego but I know it was one of the NG 733's.

Cheers

[AJ]

Originally Posted by ZK-TUI

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3885243
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3885242

Both for soft and bad rego...
Where specifically are they looking at the softness because I thought the looked fairly sharp on my screen....?

But for the bad rego, is that because I put in ZK-NG? I didn't catch the rego but I know it was one of the NG 733's.

Cheers

They are both very soft.
From the upload guidelines:

If you do not have the reg info please leave the reg box blank examples such as - G-BM??, N4*****, UNKNOWN and so on will not be accepted.

Where did the 2148 come from?

[ZK-TUI]

Ok, I'll give them another look on the household computer, I can't see it on my MacBook weirdly...

As for the rego, I should've known that, and no idea where that c/n came from...

[AJ]

Originally Posted by ZK-TUI

As for the rego, I should've known that, and no idea where that c/n came from...

Looks like you may have left it there from your ZK-OJE upload.

Hi,
Just to understand ...
Why it's considered as Similar?
You can see clearly that the previous "similar" photo was taken before landing, while the new photo was taken after takeoff.
And what about "Soft"? I see that it's sharp.

Best regards,
Erez.

[coke]

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3891528

Personally i think that the cut is acceptable..

please take a look and give me some feedback

thanks!

Jerry

[ATAAirlines]

Originally Posted by coke

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3891528

Personally i think that the cut is acceptable..

please take a look and give me some feedback

thanks!

Jerry

Agree with you.

I never know which cut is available?!

[AJ]

Hi Jerry,
The crop you chose is unbalanced and makes it look like you simply forgot to add the tail!
Here are some variations that would be accepted:



The middle one is certainly my preference!
Try not to cut through large features, such as engines, wheels, doors and windows for a neat crop.

[coke]

Thanks AJ, appreciate the feedback and I'll see if I can come up with another edit soon.

Jerry

Anybody, please ?

Originally Posted by ErezS

Hi,
Just to understand ...
Why it's considered as Similar?
You can see clearly that the previous "similar" photo was taken before landing, while the new photo was taken after takeoff.
And what about "Soft"? I see that it's sharp.

Best regards,
Erez.

[Diezel]

Originally Posted by ErezS

Anybody, please ?

Hi Erez,

It is considered similar because unfortunately the angle the picture was taken at, is about the same as your previous shot.

It is also slightly soft (right wing, tail) but that can easily be corrected.

It is not a bad picture at all.

Roel.

Originally Posted by Diezel

Hi Erez,

It is considered similar because unfortunately the angle the picture was taken at, is about the same as your previous shot.

It is also slightly soft (right wing, tail) but that can easily be corrected.

It is not a bad picture at all.

Roel.

Hi Roel,

First at all thanks for your answer.

I'm really trying to understand the point, but unfortunately I can not.

In the previous photo the airplane is on final approach before landing with the wheels down and the angle of the nose is towards down.

But, In the rejected photo, the airplane is during the climbing after takeoff with the wheels up, and the angle of the nose is towards up.

So... I'm really sorry, but I can not understand the problem.

All the best,
Erez.

PS: as always I'm apologize if I have any mistakes with my bad English...