Print from discussion forum

Topic: Screening Inconsistencies - Becoming A Joke
Username: UA935
Posted 2008-01-08 04:21:13 and read 1701 times.

I have mulled over whether to post this for a few days now but I am pretty annoyed by this one.

Whilst I appreciate that screeners have different eyes and opinions I feel that the following displays and unacceptable level of inconsistency.

The following image was rejected for contrast:-

I re-edited and uploaded again.

It was rejected soft. I appealed and the rejection was upheld soft - Why was this not in the original rejection - OK I can accept this, different monitors, calibration etc - are the screeners all using their LCD's now?

So I re-edit the image and it is rejected blurry! I appeal and state that the image was first rejected for contrast, then soft, soft on appeal and now blurry.

On appeal the decision is upheld "Blurry" and I get a message that I should be more consistent with my editing.

Surely if the image was that crap and out of focus the initial rejection should have been contrast, soft, blurry.

Whilst everyone has different eyes and opinions surely the head screeners who are top of the screening food chain should have rejected it for blurry and not soft at first appeal.

Soft can be remidied, OOF cannot.

I accept now after 3 attempts and 2 appeals that the image is crap and not for here but am very annoyed that an appeal to head screeners resulted in a Soft rejection, I then waste another upload only to be told OOF and blurry.

I don't care for acceptance ratio's but just lately I have had more rejections than ever and nothing has changed with my post processing.

Topic: RE: Screening Inconsistencies - Becoming A Joke
Username: TimdeGroot
Posted 2008-01-08 04:23:21 and read 1698 times.

Why not accept the image is soft/blurry because it is. It's not inconsistent if it keeps being rejected for soft/blurry, except the first time so sorry about that


Topic: RE: Screening Inconsistencies - Becoming A Joke
Username: UA935
Posted 2008-01-08 05:58:54 and read 1648 times.

With all due respect Tim Soft and Blurry are two different rejection reasons.

One of which can be corrected the other which cannot.

Rejection 2 and appeal 1 were for soft.

I re-edited, sharpened further and reuploaded.

Rejection 3 and appeal 2 were for blurry which cannot be corrected in post processing.

If rejection 1 or 2 or the first appeal stated blurry I would have given up then however a head screener rejected on appeal for soft which can be corrected.

Topic: RE: Screening Inconsistencies - Becoming A Joke
Username: LIPH
Posted 2008-01-08 06:47:53 and read 1617 times.

I see your point when you say that in some cases rejections inconsistencies can be annoying. I think it's something we all must deal with. No matter, keep going.
Apart from that I must agree that your shot is a bit blurry. Blurry shots are IMHO not fixable at all...


Topic: RE: Screening Inconsistencies - Becoming A Joke
Username: Viv
Posted 2008-01-08 08:18:31 and read 1555 times.

Two points:

(1) Just because a shot is rejected does not mean it is "crap" - read the rejection e-mail where this is clearly stated.

(2) The screeners generally cite only the most obvious defect in the rejection e-mail - this does not mean that the image does not have other defects which may be mentioned when the shot is appealed and again rejected.

Finally, the shot is not great enough to fight a battle for. Move on and better luck next time.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of or any entity associated with

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.