Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Comment From A Screener  
User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Posted (11 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

I received these comments from a screener.

Jay,

Its been well documented on the forums that the file system will only store one
file with the same name at the same time. Someone else uploaded a pic which was
also named N801FR.jpg and that has overwritten yours. Nothing to be done now -
yours is gone. Use a more unique file name next time.

Andy (screening team)



Where is this documented on the site? Also, this now means I have to upload the photo again. I would think a file name such as N801FR.jpg would be a pretty common thing to call that photo. Does this make sense to anyone else? It also sounds like Andy just doesn't give a shit about my photo being dropped out of the database? Is this the attitude of the entire site now? No wonder so many people are not uploading here anymore.


Jay


42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Now hang on there Jay. Whatever you think about me, or a system that allows files to be overwritten, the file almost certainly has been overwritten and no one can do anything about getting it back. The boss is aware of this issue, but sorting it requires a significant re-write of the queue processing which there is not time for at present. I responded to your question to give you a steer that might mean you avoid this situation next time round. And lets be realistic about the specific picture in question anyway - it has already been rejected, so the loss of the large version is hardly a huge problem.

It seems that the forum search function is temporarily out of action so I can't refer you to a topic to illustrate that it has been discussed before, but this "feature" HAS been discussed before when people have commented that their picture has appeared to "change" to one they didn't take. But you're quite right, N801FR.jpg is a fairly logical name for a file, which means that several people might use it - all the more reason, given the problem that exists, to pick something other than that.

So, I say again, I would strongly recommend that you choose more unique file names for your uploads - I personally use a file name RRRRRR-AAA-MMDDYY.jpg where RRRRRR is the registration, AAA is the airport and MMDDYY is self explanitory. By using a file name like this, the only risk of a conflict is if someone else uses the same file name format, and shot the same aircraft at the same airport on the same date as me.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 17:39:58]

User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

Andy,

I appreciate your reply.

What I also don't understand is why the photo was rejected. Give me some feedback on the shot. It seems like I am damned if I do or damned if I don't in terms of that photo.

If I sharpening it too much, it will be rejected, yet if I don't sharpen it at all, it will be rejected as blurry.

Here is the photo in question.

http://www.jaydavisphoto.com/airliners/N801FR.jpg

I don't think it is a bad photo at all but if you tell me what is wrong with it and how to improve it, I'll be more than happy to fix it and re-upload it. Some of us need a little bit more instruction on what needs to change in the photo to get it accepted.

Jay




User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

Jay, can't really comment on the lap-top - it doesn't show enough definition. But I'll happily look at it in detail when I get home tonight.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 17:51:12]

User currently offlineBoieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

Jay,
Its happened to all of us before, tough luck... Just appreciate that the screener took time to write a message to you, which he wasn't obliged to do in any way. You even admit your sense of creativeness in filenames is limited beneath...

Where is this documented on the site? Also, this now means I have to upload the photo again. I would think a file name such as N801FR.jpg would be a pretty common thing to call that photo. Does this make sense to anyone else? It also sounds like Andy just doesn't give a shit about my photo being dropped out of the database? Is this the attitude of the entire site now? No wonder so many people are not uploading here anymore.

I find that paragraph ridiculous. Andy tried to help you for the next time, instead of creating a message on the forum you could have sent him a kind email asking for more details. If people stop to upload here its their choice, people do mainly so because their material just isn't good enough to fit in here. Remember that airliners.net is the best place to show case your pictures to as many people as you want.

Andy, just a question, you say his picture had already been rejected by someone else yet how do you know that if his picture was replaced by someone else's?? Planes do come to airports many times and people can modify pictures slightly from upload to upload.

Just my 2 cents,
Tim


User currently offlineBoieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Looks like I replied a bit too late...

Your picture has a lot of small imperfections:
-Badhorizon (buildings)
-A tad soft
-upper part of the plane looks kind of overexposed
-slightly grainy

There's some margin though on the picture, by playing with it you can get it better.


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

Tim,

Just to clarify... Jay had a picture of N801FR which was screened and rejected badsoft - he copied us with the rejection e-mail. When I went to the appeal page for Jay's picture and clicked on the thumbnail, a large version of a totally different picture of N801FR was displayed. Jay's picture is taken at Denver I believe, whereas the other picture was a ramp shot from (I think) Phoenix.

As far as I recall, there can only be one picture in any queue with the same name at a time. It is highly likely that Jay's picture was rejected, then the other picture rejected, and the second picture has overwritten Jay's in the rejection queue. If when we screened the picture Jay's had already been overwritten by the other picture, the thumbnail and the large version would not have matched in the screening script and the picture would have been rejected baderror - its the appropriate reason to use when the thumb and the large version don't match. Unless the screener involved wasn't being very dillegent (possible but very unlikely given the magnitude of the problem), I suspect that Jay's picture was overwritten after it was screened - that would mean that the rejection reason would relate to Jay's picture which the screener would have seen, but that after screening the picture was overwritten.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 18:02:55]

User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5497 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Jay, you could probably still just use the N801FR.jpg....but put your initials after the reg#.....N801FRjd.jpg.

Just don't go shooting with Jonathan Derden  Wink/being sarcastic

JC


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

Another thing about file names... Like I said, I tend to use RRRRRR-AAA-MMDDYY.jpg (see above for decoding!). I often process pics and then don't upload them for weeks on end. By using a file name like that, I can do the upload without having to check back to find out where and when I took the shot, the date part of which I can rarely remember by the time I finally get around to uploading. If you're picking fancy file names though, just make sure your file name IS NOT LONGER than 30 characters, including the .jpg - anything more than 30 characters is another thing that will cause problems.

Andy

[Edited 2003-08-27 18:07:30]

User currently offlineBoieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Thanks for your clarification Andy. Sorry to both of you if what I wrote sounded insulting, it wasn't meant to be in anyway.

Your filenaming system sounds pretty good, however on a personal note I'll stick to my famous "ok"s.

Tim


User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3037 times:

About your criticism,

How can you get rid of the background? That won't work.
How can it be too soft and then yet too grainy at the same time?
To me, that doesn't make sense.


How would you get rid of the overexposure on the top of the plane?


Thanks for the feedback!

Jay


User currently offlineBoieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

First of all not criticism but input,

It can perfectly be soft and grainy at the same time, if you shoot using a higher iso. I find the building & sky are a little grainy, theres a little grain (insignificant) under the area under the wing. The grain is there in the first place the sharpening just makes it more visible...

How would you get rid of the overexposure on the top of the plane?

Send an email to Gary Watt.  Big grin He's a very talented guy in Photoshop, I mean an Air Holland 767 in Aberdeen.  Smile

I've played around with your picture a bit, by sharpening it up, playing with levels,etc... turns out the picture wouldn't match the quality required.


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Well, yes i'd say its a bit soft and a bit dark, but its not grainy, definetely underexposed. I'm not sure how well you'll be able to fix that in photoshop, as when you brighten it up the upper half of the fuselage will look a bit blown out. Also if you rotate if 0.5 degrees anti-clockwise and sharpen it up (maybe 80-100% USM at 0.5 radius).

Cheers

Dan


User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Tim,

If you are saying my slide is a poor shot, can you tell me why?
I'm shooting with the best equipment out there.
Canon EOS 1VHS, with a Canon 70-200mm, F-2.8 lens and using Photoshop to work the image. Is my scanner that bad?

I've had plenty of shots accepted before, but for about the past 8 months, I can't get one into this database. It almost isn't even worth trying to upload here anymore.

Can't imagine what else it would be.

Jay


User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

Also, to anyone out there. I've got about 6 shots of this plane. I am going to re-scan all 6 shots in tif format. If you want to "try" and make any of them better, let me know and I'll send them to you. Surely all 6 shots can't be that bad that one won't get accepted to this database.

Jay


User currently offlineRayPettit From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 608 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Can I comment on the filename issue?
I think its quite sensible for people to create a filename that is more likely to be unique than just plain old N801FR.jpg and my system would never have that - instead N801FR_cleananet.jpg indicating that it was the cleaned up version suitable for upload to this site. But there are hundreds of ways to do this - as most of my photos were taken a few years ago the chances are that I'd be OK anyway, but there.

However, I don't think its really reasonable to expect every photographer to delve into this forum for advice on this issue.

As a quick fix, would it be possible to put some advice on the upload page. There are a number of rookie or occassional photographers who upload to this site (often with excellent pictures). All we need is a Help button to say something like "Try to make your file name unique to avoid your image being overwritten in the screening process"

Ray


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Ray,

We screeners have just passed a list of fix requests to the boss... I'll ask for a change of that nature to be done too. No promises when, but I'll ask for it to be added to the list.

Andy


User currently offlineBoeingholiday From Austria, joined Apr 2002, 456 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

I've asked this several times in the forum Big grin

done the same mistake as well


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2866 times:

"I'm shooting with the best equipment out there.
Canon EOS 1VHS, with a Canon 70-200mm, F-2.8 lens and using Photoshop to work the image. Is my scanner that bad?"


Ah come on... I am really sorry, but having all that flashy stuff doesnt guarentee that you get top quality slides. Exposing is just as tough as framing it, if not tougher. If the word out here is that it is underexposed, why not accept that and try to avoid that in the future. And the PS done on this one is not sufficient at all. Its not sharp, it is soft.

"How can you get rid of the background? That won't work."

He didnt mean that. What he was doing was refering to the background to show his point about it not being level.


How can it be too soft and then yet too grainy at the same time?

Softness and grain are not related. Often a picture that is sharpened up may appear grainy, but a picture can easily be soft while grainy. And a sharp shot can be without grain too.

To wrap things up, don't hide behing your equipment, saying that it is superb, and therefore your pictures are topquality too. Accept the critisism and input and work from there.

Respectfully,
Wietse




Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 days ago) and read 2835 times:

Wietse,

I'm not hiding behind my equipment. I've had a lot of slides accepted in the past, but now I never get anything accepted. I almost did not upload these shots as I get so tired of the frustration of "trying" to get something accepted to this database anymore.

Why do you think so many have chosen to go elsewhere with their photos? To me, it almost seems somewhat impossible to get anything accepted these days. My shot is pretty special, since it is a fairly new aircraft. I could see why it might not be accepted if there are a ton of other shots out there just like it.

So how would you "sharpen" a photo without adding grain? I'm all for learning about other Photoshop techniques.

As for being under-exposed, Mark Abbott, who lives in Denver told me to try and over-expose everything I shot that weekend due to the weather and I did. I still also feel that the shot is/was level from the photo I loaded onto my web site. I pulled out the ruler/grid on Photoshop and it looked level to me.

I am all about learning Wietse, because I want my shots to get accepted. What I don't like is someone telling me it is a bad shot, yet not telling me how to improve it.

If you think you can make the shot look better, have at it. If you don't want to do it, tell me how to make it better, please.


Jay


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 days ago) and read 2816 times:

Looks as if it was shot in pretty odd lighting... I don't think much can be done to save the blown highlights on the aircraft's fueselage. I'd move on and wait for days with some sun and blue skies.

Staffan


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5052 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 days ago) and read 2811 times:

I learned that lesson a long time ago. Registrations are bad file names to have because someone else could easily upload the same plane. so I have a very simple, stress-free system for mine. I combine the registration with the serial number of the photo as shot from my camera.

for example, an aircraft with a reg# of N721UW was shot as picture # 5558 on my camera (img_5558.jpg) so the uploaded version becomes N721UW_5558.jpg and that way I know right off which photo it is, especially if I shot 4 pics of the plane. Now the chances of someone else would have the exact same numbering system and end up with the same exact upload are pretty much nil. Makes my life easier!  Big grin


bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineBoieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 days ago) and read 2802 times:



Jay I never said your shot was bad. I simply said it had its problems which could if done well be dealt with. I just pointed out the stuff that looked wrong, there are people on here which are very good with Photoshop they can give better advice than me. Please take what I wrote as input and not personal attacks against your pictures.

Tim


User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Tim,

No problem, I did not take your comments towards the photo as a personal attack. Don't worry about that.

If someone who is very good in Photoshop can give me some hints on at least trying to make this photo better, I'm open to suggestions.

As for waiting for another day to shoot that plane, I live in Dallas, not DEN.

Jay


User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Jay, like you say with your equipment and some experience that I think you have, you should get top notch results.
I essentially use the same equipment as you, so you should get the same results.

I think the problem would be your photoshop work. Techniques like masking which I used on your Peter Max once are essential to getting top results from slides.

I would love to see an original TIFF scan of yours, which maybe I could work on. My mailbox is too small to handle anything like that but maybe there's another way of sending it?

Having said that, I also have to agree with others that this shot is maybe not the shot under the most ideal conditions, therefore making it harder to accept.

Cheers,
Tim



Alderman Exit
25 N178UA : Jay In Photoshop Try use Unsharp Mask Set Radius at 0.2 Threshold at 0 Sharpen amount up to 500% at once, see how it goes, if it still look soft repea
26 JayDavis : Hi Sam and Tim, Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Stuff like this REALLy frustrates me to no end. Tim, if you have another e-mail account, suc
27 Paulinbna : I have said this before and I don't mean any disrespect to you Jay but every since I bought a D-SLR I have had close to 100% acceptance. Now before I
28 Post contains links and images Timdegroot : Paulinbna: Also close to 100% acceptance, all shot on slides View Large View MediumPhoto © Peter de Groot View Large View MediumPhoto © Tim
29 Post contains links and images Scbriml : I agree with the comments that say it's possible to produce results with slides that are as good as digital. In fact, a high-end slide scanner can pro
30 JayDavis : Well my next question would be is my scanner bad? I am using the HP photo smart slide/negative/print scanner. Would an upgrade to a better scanner hel
31 Wietse : Jay, The HP photosmart is used by many, some get good results from it, but I dont think too highly of it. Dont know you budget, but a Nikon Coolscan I
32 Bruce : What about scanning prints???? I see you guys talk about slides and many of you have success with slides - but is it possible to get decent print scan
33 Post contains images Wietse : Bruce, You have no Idea how tempted I am to try that out... I'll let you all know when I do it. Wietse
34 Planeboy : Well, looks kinda good Jay - but I think it is a case of "bad bear"...
35 Exitrow : Bruce/Wietse - I would suggest scanning the neg if you stil have it instead of the print. I have done that with some success in the past. Bill
36 Bruce : I tried a transparency adapter for a scanner one time; it said that you can put a negative in it, and the result looked absolutely horrible. Not only
37 N178UA : Jay If youre using HP S20 that's the same as I use. I scan the slide at 1500 dpi, save them into MAX quality, no compression. and open Photoshop to sh
38 Post contains images Wietse : Bill, I am not going to try and get old prints into the database as I dont have an analog collection. I see this as an experiment and I will try and s
39 Post contains links and images ExitRow : Bruce, Are you using a flatbed transparency scanner? If so, don't. The results are usually as you described them. I use a Canoscan film scanner. The r
40 JayDavis : Thanks for the advice Sam! I sent you a private e-mail. I tried the unsharp mask again. Can your e-mail accept large file sizes? If so, I'd like to se
41 Staffan : Jay, just a thought, when scanning, make sure you have the white point set correctly, otherwise the scanner might over expose the slide when scanning,
42 JayDavis : Staffn, How do I set the white point correctly? I've never even heard of this. Thank you! Jay
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
So Poor Quality From A Screener In Traning,I Quit. posted Tue Jan 10 2006 00:20:05 by Cadet57
Some Explanation From Screener, Pls posted Sun Oct 9 2005 01:10:38 by Jacek
From Screener; This Is A Warning! posted Sun Sep 11 2005 18:57:17 by Airsnaps
Personal Message From Screener posted Tue Aug 9 2005 12:05:40 by Beechcraft
Level Rjxn - Screener/general Comment Requested posted Sat Nov 18 2006 19:33:41 by D L X
4 (harsh?) Rejections - Screener Comment Please posted Sun Nov 12 2006 08:23:56 by D L X
Screener Comment Question As To It's Meaning posted Thu Oct 19 2006 14:13:25 by A340Spotter
A Few Words From A Former Screener... posted Mon Jun 19 2006 06:46:44 by Shep
Screener Removes Comment posted Mon Feb 13 2006 16:48:01 by Sleekjet
Great Feeling To Be The 1st Screener From LUX! posted Thu Sep 16 2004 12:23:54 by Tom3