Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Appeal Queue - Missing Photos?  
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

Argh - I just had two photos rejected by a screener-in-training for what I considered pretty ludicrous reasons (one of them was a straight-on body shot of the Concorde, rejected for "badmotiv"!). Tried to appeal, but as I already had one photo in the appeal queue it wouldn't let me because the max to appeal is two. So I wanted to remove the photo I had in the appeal queue and then submit these two - I pressed the button to remove the previous photo, and it removed all of them. It then took me to a page where I can choose photos to appeal again, which is fine, but my two newly rejected photos are not on it.

I then went back to my rejection email, clicked on the link in the email and it now brings me to my two previous rejected photos. Yes, I double-checked that I'm looking at the right email; I had a shot of the Concorde and a shot of an F4 rejected in that email, and the link in that email brings me to a shot of an F-14 and a different shot of an F4.

Are these photos just lost forever? What should I do here? I honestly believe they are good enough to go in the database and that a different screener (who was not in training) would have put them in the database. In fact, they did pass through the first screening; the screener-in-training was the second screener. Badmotiv on a straight side Concorde shot!

I don't want to get banned for just resubmitting and would like to just appeal the ones that were already rejected, if possible.

Thanks...


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3397 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Sorry to call you out, but I can't read something like this and not say anything.

Badmotiv on a straight side Concorde shot!

The shot was on the Intrepid barge and suffered from a ton of clutter.

You have really taken to screener-bashing the past few days. Why is that?


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

Uh, this is my first post about screeners-in-training. If others are complaining about screeners-in-training, I really have no idea. Now that I check, I did make a comment about your explanation on another photo you rejected for "badsize", but this wasn't because you're in training (which I didn't even know at the time), it was because your explanation didn't make any sense then either and seemed to reference a rule that does not exist anywhere that I could find on this site.

So I suppose you're the one that rejected that photo? Regardless, there is an appeal process here and as the screener who rejected this is in training, it says right in the email "DO NOT HESITATE to use the appeal function linked to lower down". So it's really not your call on whether you think I should appeal or not - my decision is to appeal.

Just for your reference, here's a photo that's in the database:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Frank Robitaille



And here's my photo:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jeffw2002/intrepid_concorde_01b_jeffw.jpg

Now, if you want to reject it for baddouble or whatever, that would at least make some amount of sense, although I'd still appeal because there are differences in my photo that are important (such as the patches on top of the fuselage and the fading paint). But badmotiv? Come on. The other photo's not badmotiv but mine is? This is my first experience with what some others have been saying about screener inconsistency.

But this is why we have the appeal process and I tried to use it, and my photos were apparently lost (they don't show up by file name in the rejected section either). So I'm asking what to do. I don't really care why you rejected it, I'm asking how to proceed with the appeal at this point, or whether I should just make some arbitrary change (like cropping from 3:2 to 2.8:2) and resubmit.

[Edited 2004-10-19 08:51:53]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3362 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

No, I was not the one who rejected your photo(s).

User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Well it doesn't really matter who was; my question is entirely procedural, it has nothing to do with the reason why or who rejected the photo (so I really don't need any critiques beyond the badmotiv that was in my rejection email). All I want to know is how I should proceed in getting this appealed, or if I should just resubmit.


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3300 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Although the photo isn't bad at all, I think the screener-in-training might have done the right thing. As you pointed out, there is already a very similar photo in the database and the more common a photo, the higher our rejection levels.

Using the fact that we already have a similar photo in the database as a reason for appeal is not a good strategy. Rather, the photo should be unique and add something new. The Concorde is one of our most photographed aircraft (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's a lovely aircraft) and to have a shot of the Concorde accepted, it needs to be very good and special in some way.

Again, this is not meant as a critique on your photos, it's just a clarification of our rejection standards.

Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

I think the (real) reason was Baddouble, nothing with Badmotiv....or yes in case there's a extrange color effect (too saturated?)...

About the lost of info in the appeal section..if you don't have any photo waiting to be screened the info is aparently not shown..( I have the same problem...)

Enrique


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

Thanks, Johan. I still felt it added something new because it shows the aircraft aging over time - the first photo was taken just after the exhibit opened, whereas mine shows some of the dirt and aging of the paint, and the fact that the Intrepid crew is apparently not taking the best care of this aircraft. This is why I submitted it. But your word is gospel...

What about the second photo? There's no photo like it in the database that I've seen:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jeffw2002/intrepid_f4_02b_jeffw.jpg

Rejected for "badexposure"?? The exposure looks perfect to me. Is it because of the bright area of sky in the top left? Not every sky is 100% even, and that was a particularly hazy day. This is New York - the screener may have thought the sky is overexposed but you cannot see the clouds on a day like that here - look at the other side of the river in the background to see how hazy it was. The aircraft themselves are perfectly exposed. This one was a resubmission; I understood the earlier rejection and agreed that the photo could have been improved, but I did improve it and this one looks perfect to me.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Spacecadet....

Just to clarify my last reply...if it was because of the saturation should be Badquality (I'd say) but no Badmotiv....

Sorry for the mistake

Enrique


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Enrique - I understood your reply, but even Johan said the photo "wasn't bad at all", so it couldn't have been badquality. Baddouble I can at least understand (if not entirely agree with), and by his explanation that's why Johan feels it should not be in the database. So, I accept that. What I couldn't accept was badmotiv - as if I don't know what I'm taking a picture of! It's the Concorde!

There's no saturation issue that I can see in my Concorde shot. If you're comparing it to the earlier photo I posted, yes they do look a bit different but I couldn't say which is more accurate. The shot in the database is actually a bit too contrasty with some blown highlights, and to me it looks like there's a bit of a blue cast to it. It doesn't look to me like the saturation of our photos is really any different; the colors themselves are a little different but part of that is just the fact that the paint on the Concorde has faded a bit, as I mentioned, and another part is that it was hazier on the day I was there, so the light is a little different.

Anyway, that shot is dispensed with, as far as I'm concerned, since The Man himself has spoken. I'm hoping now to get him to look at the second shot I tried to appeal, although I'm not sure he'll look at this thread again.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3124 times:

IMHO he could spend some seconds of his precious time (sure he's busy enough) and wipe the appeal queue out.....  Innocent

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...
Photos In Appeal Queue posted Sun Oct 24 2004 19:12:45 by United4EverDEN
Missing Photos In The Queue posted Wed Oct 10 2001 19:58:13 by Sonic99
Missing Photos posted Sat Apr 1 2006 20:06:52 by AUS_Spotter
Appeal Queue posted Mon May 30 2005 09:19:55 by Granite
Appeal Queue posted Fri May 7 2004 08:15:02 by Paulc
Appeal Queue Question posted Thu Apr 29 2004 05:40:08 by Concord977
Appeal Queue posted Mon Dec 1 2003 02:05:47 by Lanpie
Appeal Queue - Gone! Where? posted Tue Aug 26 2003 14:43:08 by JetTrader
Appeal Queue Screening posted Mon Jul 14 2003 01:43:19 by Cathay112
Photo In The Appeal Queue Since Over A Month Now. posted Sun Oct 6 2002 13:15:24 by Rol