Post Your Recent REJECTIONS!

@ manny we worked so hard on it :(,Wonder why it got rejected for Copy Right,Reject reason: size grainy soft info centered level category copyright
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ightii.jpg.jpg

Reject reason: quality size grainy soft overexposed contrast centered copyright Should i Delete The jet center in this one? i think i did Over Edit it But i wanted to see what The screeners would say,I dont know why Copyright is on there..:( Thanks for help Manny By the way

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ebsite.jpg.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just_Lucas

,I dont know why Copyright is on there..:(

---

Like I said before, you can't have your own watermark in there.

oh haha sorry i didn't see it if you told me before thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cary

Like I said before, you can't have your own watermark in there.

---

This one was rejected for being overexposed. I really don't think it is, so I may appeal this. Thoughts?

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...at122409PM.png

There is a clear spike in the levels at the right side of the histogram, and to my eye it also looks like it lacks contrast. Do you have an original, unedited version?

Hard to tell with a small image, but it does look a little bright on the fuselage forward/below the cockpit windows and again behind the cockpit over the door. The detail looks washed out there, but again, it could be the small image I'm looking at.

Any thoughts on this one? They rejected it because they said it needed CCW rotation, but I don't see it. It's leveled on the horizon.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_mpo_4758.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris102

Any thoughts on this one? They rejected it because they said it needed CCW rotation, but I don't see it. It's leveled on the horizon.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2_mpo_4758.jpg

---

It's probably worth appealing that one. The water tower sides are virtually square to the sides of the picture. I think they are letting the crooked windsock and other pole on the right, influence their judgment. If you appeal, note that those two are crooked in real life, and that the water tower is level. Architectural features/buildings (which need to be built level) always trump lightpoles/windsocks/etc.

Thanks for your advice, Cary. I just appealed it and I'll keep you updated!

EDIT: Accepted! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris102

Thanks for your advice, Cary. I just appealed it and I'll keep you updated!

EDIT: Accepted! :cool:

---

Yeah. always nice when an appeal is accepted.

Need some guidance on this jp.net reject.

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/4/1/4/3...1345169341.jpg

here are the "similar" ones

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7423684&nseq=0

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7411091&nseq=1

Thanks,


I thought noses/tails were different that full-one shots?

Jeremy, typically same side same approach is considered similar enough (or not dissimilar enough) and you could agree that we see the same image technically in your close up. Although if the dates are different, technically it should be ok. What was the exact reason for rejection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzalu

Jeremy, typically same side same approach is considered similar enough (or not dissimilar enough) and you could agree that we see the same image technically in your close up. Although if the dates are different, technically it should be ok. What was the exact reason for rejection?

---

It was rejected for similar. It bugs me, since it typically does not give me the same image at the same airport note.

Any thoughts on this one? Rejected for "dark."

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...avp_4987_2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDANDO

It was rejected for similar. It bugs me, since it typically does not give me the same image at the same airport note.

---

If it makes you feel any better, I just made the same mistake :) Although I thought mine were definitely dissimilar enough, it is same side and so it was rejected.