Who needs help with their scans / rejects?? We can help you! - Page 250 - JetPhotos.Net Forums

brianw999 · 07-10-2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErezS

Hi Roel,
..........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...

The main issue Erez is that the landing gear being down makes very little difference to the overall image. If the shots had been at a different angle of view then they would both be accepted.

.......and your English is much better than my Hebrew !!!!

07-10-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianw999

The main issue Erez is that the landing gear being down makes very little difference to the overall image. If the shots had been at a different angle of view then they would both be accepted.

.......and your English is much better than my Hebrew !!!!

OK, thanks Brian.

....and

...

Felipe Garcia · 07-10-2012, 04:33 PM

http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3883004
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3883003
http://jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3883008

I got the whole batch rejected as undersharpened/soft, and I'm trying to figure out if they really are soft or if the screener's contacts were getting dry. I know I processed all those together and they were screened together, so it has to be something systematic (9 photos rejected). But for now those 3 will suffice, at least they can give me an idea of what was wrong.

And can anyone check what the issues were with the categories with both the Jetstar and the C-130? Because I have no way of checking the categories, and my upload records are not that meticulous.

Brenden S · 07-11-2012, 09:13 AM

They are definatly not soft.
As for categories, did you tick Warbird/vintage and biz jet for the Jetstar
Warbird and cargo for the C130?
I can't check either, but I dare say that is maybe why. I would appeal the DC-4

Felipe Garcia · 07-11-2012, 01:34 PM

Ah. I must have forgotten the wardbird category, I know I didn't forget with the C-54 because that's an older plane. I'm pretty sure I selected cargo for the C-130 and bizjet for the VC-140, but I don't recall selecting warbird.

Just to refresh my memory, if the plane is military and in a museum is it automatically a warbird?

I will probably go through the batch later today and check, possibly appeal the C-54 (and if theres more that didn't have the category problem and look good)

Thanks for your help Brenden!

AJ · 07-12-2012, 12:09 AM

Felipe, I have to disagree with Brenden.

The primary reason for the rejection of two of your shots was the categories. Secondary was the undersharpened issue. Take this as a suggestion to re-sharpen them before you re-upload.

The C-54 is undersharpened, particularly noticeable across the top of the fuselage. Keep in mind you have 8 recent rejections for soft from a multitude of screeners. This is an indication that you may need to review your editing of these shots.

Cheers.

Felipe Garcia · 07-12-2012, 02:51 AM

Yeah I'm trying to figure out what's happening there, as I haven't done anything different than in the past.

I apologize in advance because I appealed like 4 of the soft rejections before reading your reply.

Brenden S · 07-12-2012, 10:12 AM

ta AJ

AJ · 07-12-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felipe Garcia

I apologize in advance because I appealed like 4 of the soft rejections before reading your reply.

No problem.....I'm sure they can be edited as really nice shots.

Bjorn1979 · 07-12-2012, 09:02 PM

Hello,

Need some help with this rejection for bad framing :

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3895819

Should a place it higher in frame and cut off a part of the tail ?

Best regards,

Bjorn

Alberto U. · 07-12-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjorn1979

Hello,

Need some help with this rejection for bad framing :

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3895819

Should a place it higher in frame and cut off a part of the tail ?

Best regards,

Bjorn

maybe it's because there is too much space in front of the nose?
Nice picture by the way!

let the screeners answer, I was just admiring your picture and gave an opinion which is really a question for my own future uploads

Michael Wolf · 07-12-2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bjorn1979

Hello,

Need some help with this rejection for bad framing :

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3895819

Should a place it higher in frame and cut off a part of the tail ?

Best regards,

Bjorn

Bjorn,

Apart from being a tad low in the frame, screeners also weren't fond of the particular crop. Too much of the wing is sticking out on the left, while it's very tightly cut on the right.

Bjorn1979 · 07-12-2012, 10:08 PM

Okay Michael, thanks for replying. I will try a different crop.

Best regards,

Bjorn

Siegi N. · 07-14-2012, 05:18 AM

Hello for all,
Please opinion on rejected photo:
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3898718

The sun was is me behind, this backlite?

Regards,
Siegi.

ATAAirlines · 07-14-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siegi N.

Hello for all,
Please opinion on rejected photo:
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3898718

The sun was is me behind, this backlite?

Regards,
Siegi.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3882714

in this on, Sun was right of me, too.

jeremydando · 07-14-2012, 03:53 PM

Hello screeners!

Can you give me a bit of guidance on this reject?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3900888

I am not sure what category was not ticked, I did not think this was a small prop?

Thank you.

jeremy

Siegi N. · 07-14-2012, 04:23 PM

Hi all
Hello, can you explain please why this photo is Invalid Hot?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3909941

Here is another pic of this A/C from today, and it's Hot Photo:
http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7405481&nseq=2

Regards,
Siegi.

RingwaySam · 07-14-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siegi N.

Hello for all,
Please opinion on rejected photo:
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=3898718

The sun was is me behind, this backlite?

Regards,
Siegi.

It's more toplit than backlit in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremydando

Hello screeners!

Can you give me a bit of guidance on this reject?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3900888

I am not sure what category was not ticked, I did not think this was a small prop?

Thank you.

jeremy

I can't see what categories were selected. Maybe the screener who screened it will reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siegi N.

Hi,
Please opinion on rejected photo, why Invalid Hot?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3909941
First 737-700 for Aerosvit.

Today JP accept to Marek Kowalczyk in Warsaw:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7405481&nseq=0

Thank,
Siegi.

Siegi, do you even bother reading your screening results? The screener left a comment for you.

Sam.

Siegi N. · 07-14-2012, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RingwaySam

It's more toplit than backlit in my opinion.

I can't see what categories were selected. Maybe the screener who screened it will reply.

Siegi, do you even bother reading your screening results? The screener left a comment for you.

Sam.

I don't reciver comment in my mail.

Siegi.

brianw999 · 07-14-2012, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siegi N.

I don't reciver comment in my mail.

Siegi.

Siegi,
I was the rejecting screener and this is what was left for you in the rejection...

RejectID 3909941
Date Uploaded	Jul 14, 2012 - 11:10
Reasons	- Invalid Hot
Screener 1	Name	*Screener Num 1*
	Decision	InstantReject
	Reasons	- Invalid Hot
	Photog Rem	Not the first Next Gen 737 for Aerosvit. I will raise the issue of the Warsaw shot.

Check the rejection email and you should find the statement "Not the first Next Gen 737 for Aerosvit. I will raise the issue of the Warsaw shot." somewhere in it.