Page 2 of 2

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:36 pm
by gh6912
jelpee wrote:
I screened this image. Overall it could be sharper. Soft areas are visible at the engine openings, tail cone. As I take a second look, I agree with Tim that it is also flat, and should have mentioned it. I would increase the contrast and see if it adds some sharpness to the image first. Nice lighting. I caught the El Al on the morning of Jan 19th at The Holes as well...it was a LA special paint. I need to edit it and send it in for screening.

Jehan



Appreciate it Jehan! Like I said I figured it could use a little work and didn’t plan to appeal. I’ll add some contrast and see how it affects it and go from there. Thanks for the help and can’t wait to see your shot from the holes!

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:09 pm
by gh6912
On 3/8 while uploading an image of an E-4B a screener added a personal message in a rejection that stated "Sorry, you haven't enough quliaty for large size. Please don't upload over 1200 pix."

Today I had an image that I uploaded on 2/29 screened and the screener added a personal message in the rejection of "You were asked not to upload over 1200 pix, as your quality is not enough for large size. Thanks"

I'm not sure how I could have heeded that waring 10 days prior to receiving it, but hey what do I know, my image quality is not adequate!

WELL, for this screener's information, of my 194 uploads, 117 are OVER THE SIZE OF 1200x. So I think you HIGHLY need to reevaluate your screening methods. Some images should not be uploaded at large sizes and I do understand that. BUT I feel now I am unfairly being targeted by this screener simply due to my name. I never ever had such obnoxious screening rejections on multiple photos until the recent past week. So whoever you are, it is NOT appreciated that you are screening with a bias and I have no clue what I did to anger you.

Re: Post-screening gh6912

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 11:10 pm
by gh6912
Can now make that 121 uploads larger than 1200x so maybe this has been straightened out? I sure hope so...