TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 47 Posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
After the recent "long queue" thread (with all its negativity), I want to start a new positive thread where we can all share in some screening successes and enjoy airliners.net. I beg that nobody turns this around into a negative mood!
My example is this one. Simon Curtis recently got his first photo accepted, and it's already very popular and a photo he can be extremely proud of. When Simon first submitted the shot, it was rejected for "badgrainy". Simon reworked the shot and resubmitted it and has a brilliant result. As a screener, it makes me very happy because we are all winners:
Simon's respect is higher because his accepted photo is much higher quality;
The screeners are happy because their screening advice was taken seriously;
airliners.net is a winner because they get a fantastic shot in their database;
Our visitors are happy because they get to see a wonderful photo.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2239 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
The following shot was rejected before... But on the rejection, the screener (I don't who) encouraged me to work on it a bit more, as (s)he said it could be very popular shot in the database. I reworked it and yes, it came out much better.
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5615 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2054 times:
Nice thread starter by fellow screener Tamsin.
With the hundreds of rejections per week, it would be great to comment on them all rather than send the standard rejection message. This will not happen and probably never will.
Personally, if I feel an image is really nice but needs a tiny amount of re-work, I will comment to the photographer. As Tasmin says, if those comments are taken on board by the photographer, he/she re-works the image for the better, everyone is happy.
It was first rejected for badcameraangle. I reworked it because I thought this is one photo that has to be shared and the reworked version got accepted. Plus it is the first and only photo I have sold so far.
I can clearly see the difference between the two of them.
Last night I worked with another photo, it got rejected for baddark. Gave that one also another shot, this time working more with "Curves". When I woke up this morning it had been accepted. Great surprise for me.
PS. the link above screwed up when I used these, "<" ">".
Clearly the system works. Of course some shots can't be salvaged, but instead of moaning about it or constantly reuploading them, invest your time in improving your photo skills, or work more hours and buy a better camera
EGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Very interesting thread but I do wonder how much comes down to either the photographers or screeners personal eye/preferences in what looks correct? Many of my recent uploads were rejected for badsoft saying they needed an extra kick which I have done on the example below but to me it is way over sharpened - but if this is what is required and deemed correct I will have no choice but to sharpen at this level in future - it would be interesting to hear the screeners views on this before I submit my next batch
TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
I tend to agree that areas of that shot look oversharpened to me (but I haven't seen the rejected one so I can't comment on your rejection). I think one thing which catches out a lot of people is the requirement for "selective" sharpening. Often an image will be perfect in places, but soft in other places. As a screener, I see this time and time again on titles - often the titles are jaggy whilst the fuselage, windows, etc are soft. If this is the case, then the shot will often get a "badsoft" reject. When I'm having a good day, I try to add a "badpersonal" to point out which bits need sharpening more. Although having said that, I would expect that photographer should be able to tell that for themselves. Personally, I never apply the same sharpening settings to the entire image - usually apply a conservative sharpening to everything, then start to select areas and sharpen a little at a time. Low-contrast areas need more sharpening than high-contrast areas. That works for me, I rarely get "badsoft" or "badjaggy" rejections since I started doing it in this selective way.
Good question Derek, but I hope we don't go off too far on this "sharpening" tangent, and can keep hearing people's sucess stories.
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
UTA_flyingHIGH From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, RR: 48
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1731 times:
As you probably have observed lately, I have had some differences in opinion with some screeners.
But as Tamsin rightly points out, it's time to move ahead, forget past mistakes and concentrate on positive aspects.
The new screeners have been very good in my opinion in the sense that they regularly take the time to use the "badpersonal" message to help fellow photographers and making them better.
Not being on my computer right now, I can't show you the rejection, but I reworked the shot and here it is (amongst other accepted reworks) :
I am currently working on my LHR W/E shots and I will take into account what has been said on these forums and the personal rejection messages I got.
With positive thinking on both sides everyone will be a winner in the end.
Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
Andrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1707 times:
I'd like to join in and say thanks to all of the screeners. While rejections can get discouraging at times, each rejected photo shows us a glimpse of what NOT to do. There is always a reason, and if we learn from it, our acceptance stats will go WAY up (too bad we can't track it, but anyway).
I must admit, when I dropped $2,000 on a Canon Digital Rebel, lenses and everything to go with it, I was VERY disgusted to have my first batch of uploads rejected. Not even one made it into the database. That was two months ago.
As the screener's standards went up - so did mine. Looking back at the rubbish I uploaded just makes me laugh - I feel I owe the screeners an apology for wasting their time by making them screen grainy, dark, soft photos. But again - I learned from it. Have a look at one of my disasters: http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=AUBERN752ATATL1.jpg
UGH. What the HELL was I thinking.
Anyway, times have changed. I've figured out my camera. I've learned post processing. And most importantly - I am starting to learn what the screeners want to see. Last week I uploaded a batch of 24 shots, and 23 were accepted. The one that was rejected had a corner of a tug in the frame, I knew I should have removed it!!! I was thrilled to see 23 photos added.
Thanks to everyone who has helped me out over the past year or so... Johan, the screeners, Maizinblu757, Tim Samples... the list goes on and on. Without the help of the Photography Forum and the good folks on this site, I'd still have no photos in the d/b.
EGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
I have had major problems with my PC this last 24 hours (excuse excuses) so maybe it was me yesterday but I know looking at the EI 737 image I am not happy with it, so I intend to do it again and re upload and see if I can get it to look how I know it should