Printable View
Probably because I appealed it....here it is:Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart schechter
[EDIT] - It got rejected again - I've corrected the link to my own website - can someone see specks on this?
http://www.tavustheman.com/images/AN...L-12292008.jpg
i don't see specks, but i see small birds around the aircraft image. maybe someone mistook those as specks or dust???
That's what I'm thinking as well - but - according to the screeners and head screeners at anet, those are the reason for rejection - my thinking is they want them edited out.
Hi Mark, how are you? Here's what I saw that may be what they are talking about, I don't think they want the birds out bc that would be manipulation. Also did you catch the JAL 747 at FLL this morning?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i2...L-12292008.jpg
Bill
Well darn...thanks Bill - I really didn't see those at all. I missed the JAL - can't get to FLL today - maybe it will stay unitl Monday when I'm down there next!!! :)
http://jetphotos.net/img/1/8/2/5/63763_1232403528.jpg
Bad info? I don't get it...
Should it be Inflight?
I don't understand this one at all:
The rejection reasons are contradictory:
A) oversharpened
B) undersharpened (soft)
C) bad info: CN
D) invalid hot
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2328637
Additionally, the bad info that was rejected on this shot was accepted on my second upload of the same a/c almost 45 minutes later along with another shot an hour after my acceptance - again with the same exact info.
Finally, why would this shot be considered an invalid hot when the second shot of the same a/c was accepted 45 minutes later as a hot photo?
These make no sense to me.
Help anybody?
Link to the accepted shot of the same a/c
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 469&nseq=0
The screeners aren't perfect and the shot was accepted on appeal. I can see where the screener saw parts that were soft and parts that were oversharpened but I felt when I accepted it on appeal it was within our standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
Thanks
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328755
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328756
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328757
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2328759
help anyone? thought these may have made the cut...
Hi Mike, as for the cropping/size ratio ones, try 1024 x 683. That would fix that issue. For the construction numbers go to http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... nquiry.asp . Type in the reg and the serial # is on their. Can't help with the backlighting though. I don't think its that bad, sun is on the nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by threeholerglory
Took me a while to find the heat distortion on this - but I'm a little unsure on the under exposed/dark - my screen is showing it well and it's just been calibrated....
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2348451
Here is another for heat distortion - am I looking at these wrong - yes - there is heat distortion on the ground, but I'm a little unsure on the aircraft - any ideas?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2349098
Perhaps the top edge of the fuse looks a bit wobbly? I would not call that extreme distortion by any means though.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkLawrence
Wow, I'm at 100% rejections with Anet this week. Here are just a few:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ao_mg_7725.jpg
Color, dark, common
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ao_mg_7985.jpg
Motive, grainy, oversharpened
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ao_mg_7744.jpg
Quality, grainy, oversharpened