More Rejections

[casper]

Haven't uploaded to JP.net for a very long time so after my last trip to Dublin I thought I'd give it a go - 11 uploaded, 7 rejected. Can take on some of the rejection issues but these 5 were rejected for 'backlit' as part of the reason.

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2962650
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2962653
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2962655
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2962656
http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2962659

Just wonder how they can be backlit when the sun was behind me?

[Merlin]

Can certainly sympathise with this.

I submitted half a dozen of my Dublin pics to A.net only for every single one to be rejected, although none were due to being backlit 

'Quality' seemed to be their problem, which is a new one for me considering I always go with Photo-shop's recommendation.

Still waiting to hear on the ones I submitted to JP.net

[casper]

I appealled one of them and got this back
'the light is reflected from the bright sky in the background, which causes a lack of conrast on this side of the aircraft'

[Merlin]

I appealled one of them and got this back
'the light is reflected from the bright sky in the background, which causes a lack of conrast on this side of the aircraft'

Maybe they should adjust the upload facility so you can include your GPS position and the bearing you were facing and the time of day and azimuth and elevation of the sun 

Can you appeal an appeal?
 

[casper]

Can you appeal an appeal?

Don't know.

Maybe I should shoot at night - would eliminate the bright sky

[Merlin]

Can you appeal an appeal?

Don't know.

Maybe I should shoot at night - would eliminate the bright sky

Yeah but then the issue would be that aircraft was being backlit by the moon 

[String]

I think they are a bit mean when it comes to some pic's they sem to want perfect professional pic's but some people are not that perfect. I think they should have some information regarding rejection using actual pictures so people know what to look for themselves.

[Dave]

Yea, those rejections do look kinda petty, I don't think the lighting is an issue. The lighting could have been better for sure, it's more on the front than the side of the aircraft however I feel the lights adequate enough. I do know that they have a massive dislike for dark watermarks covering the fuselage thus maybe that was the reason behind not accepting the photos. JP is certainly a let down in this case.

[casper]

I do know that they have a massive dislike for dark watermarks covering   the fuselage thus maybe that was the reason behind not accepting the   photos. JP is certainly a let down in this case.

Funny I was just thinking that when I was looking back over the images I had uploaded. I thought that the watermark actually made the images look not sharp even though the originals were. Maybe I'll move the watermark on the next uploads.

[Angry Turnip]

I don`t see a problem with the photos at all-it can be very difficult to get a perfect exposure when you have white clouds in the backround and even more show if slightly overcast.
 
Do Jetphotos put the watermark in for you? I always think watermarks tend to ruin photos,however it`s very difficult to have any other way to stop people stealing your photos.
 
I am having a problem with a local company who stole one of my photos and used it on their website and removed my name from it.
Solicitors letter is on the way.

[casper]

Do Jetphotos put the watermark in for you?

They make it available, you decide whether to add it or not, as well as it's position and intensity.