Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Screening Consistency?  
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 34
Posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2579 times:

Ok i have decided to post this as a seperate topic.
I don't mind having a shot rejected for all the various reasons we have here but to then have a similar if not exactly the same style shot show up is pretty frustrating to say the least.
I actually think its a nice shot.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Glenn Stewart


Well here's mine and i am going to say very little else as i really am stuck for words apart from the fact that it was rejected for badmotive obviously for the fence.
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=n194ua041004dehowie1_filtered.jpg
Like i said i don't mind the reject even though i thought it was interesting enough to warrant addition to the DB as there where none of this style shot of the bech when i uploaded it 3 weeks ago.
All we ask for is consistency within the process and that is clearly not happening.
Frustrated.
Darren


[Edited 2004-10-23 04:53:11]


2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN317AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

Darren,

Why was it rejected? It seems a little washed out. If it was bad people, bad fence, bad motiv, maybe there is a case. If it was bad exposure, I agree with them. BTW, what is bech?

Bill


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Badmotive was the reject reason i forgot to put that in the original post.
The photo was taken about 10 minutes prior to Glenns and i actually think the exposure is pretty good.
Seeya
Darren

[Edited 2004-10-23 04:47:49]


2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 718 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Hi Darren

Nice shot but personally I would much prefer a size of 1024, anything larger has to be superb quality or the extra size just blows up all the inadequacies of the photograph.

What was the rejection reason?

I'd have to agree with Bill that the shot looks washed out and on my screen appears blurry around the cockpit windows. Glenns crop of his photograph, if it was cropped, is much more appealling to me and has sharper colour and detail.

I'm still a novice so I could be wrong so best see what our experts say.

Cheers




Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

HI Ejazz
No problems but from where i sit if you can clearly see the FO waving to the crowd it can't be that blurry.
Looks pretty good on my 19".
Anyway i am not complaining hugely about my reject but the fact that if mine was rejected for badmotive where is the consistency???
Is the CX shot not badmotive as well?
Consistency is the point of my post not complaing about my particular reject.
Thanks
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinePNEPilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Have to agree also, the United is a little washed out and slightly blurry, but we're saying badmotiv. At first glance I thought wow... very similar shots, surely both the same, but after looking a little more carefully the cathay wins by being shot from a lower angle and tighter so avoiding the trees and buildings in the background... also, the detail in the cathay shot is spectacular, for that I would be prepared to forgive a little clutter if I were a screener.

User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Fair enough.
I agree with the detail part but would have thought that cropping out half the airlines name in its own right causes problems.
As for the blurriness i am sorry but i cant see any.
The worldwide service badge/star alliance titles and pitots look sharp and given the shot covers the entire front of the aircraft not just the nose its impossible to be as detailed as one from closer in.
I deliberately didn't cropped to avoid problems with the United Airlines titles being shortened to Airlines(ie Pacific Cargo) which in its own right normally causes motive rejects.
As for being washed out i think the colors on the aircraft are pretty close to the truth.Any more saturation and the stripes on the 744 will look oversturated and the stripes on a UAL aircraft are an excellent indication of whether a pic has been over corrected and i am happy the photo as is.
Glenns shot is excellent if IMHO a little oversaturated.Given we have been in a drought for the last 2 years the grass is far from bright green here in Sydney until the rains we recieved this week.
Anyway thanks for the input
Thanks
Darren

[Edited 2004-10-23 05:27:49]


2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2449 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

One is a nose shot, the other is half an airplane, hence bad motiv.

One looks like it was meant to be framed that way, the other looks like it was shot with something like a 100-400 lens and that was as much plane as the photog could fit @ 100mm, hence bad motiv.



User currently offlineAndrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 41
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

I really like the shot. It shows the entire United Airlines titles, and engine #3. Good composition, great light, the people at the fence only add character to the photo. It's a great shot.

Resize it to 1024 and reupload it. If it's rejected again - appeal it (although the appeal queue is stalled at 40+ days, anyone know what's up with that?).



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineShep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 days ago) and read 2380 times:

What exactly is the FO waving to the crowd?

Looks like a big blurry deformed club hand...

I don't know - what are you talking about?


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

here's my thing with screening consistency (nice photograph btw),

A.net has what, 25+ Screeners? That means 25(+) different people, 25(+) Computer screens, and twice as many eyes. Even if there are set specific rules, when it comes down to it, what one person likes and what another person likes are totally different. I had an issue on another site that I upload to where I asked why a photo had been rejected for darkness when darkness was the obvious motive. I asked why, the screener who had rejected it explained his reasons behind the rejection. Ok thats what I asked for, that's fair, but then, another screener on that site said that he really liked the picture, saw that the darkness was the motive behind the shot, and accepted it. Just a little example of how different people have different opinions.

Anyway, I would like to see a more consistent process, but I'm not gonna hold my breath on it because it's not gonna happen. In fact I think it's good to see differences in opinion because then the screeners aren't complete mindless robots controlled solely by Johan  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Peace,
Eric "Maxwell" Smith Big grin


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Thanks agin for the input guys.
I really wasn't surprised when the photo was rejected for the fence pretty obviously obstructs the aircraft and is a prime candidate for badmotive reject.
Thats cool with me if that is the way it goes.
My point was and is if that is the way its judged then fine apply it to all.
If not then don't apply it to all and allow shots in like the awesome BA744 shot which was simply a great picture with the top of the windsock infringing on an engine.
An amazing photo and well worth being in the DB even with the windsock slightly infringing.
I'd say Shep you cant see his(fo) hand through either your monitor res or the compression applied to the pic on upload.
Clickhappy.Thanks for responding.
Like i said above i cropped the photo to include all the UAL name as i would have thought that cutting it in half(Pacific Cargo instead on Cathay Pacific Cargo) would have been a greater candidate for badmotive.
Thanks again
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2296 times:


DLKPA...

I really agree with you.
Very difficult to be 'consistend' when talking about so many screeners and screeners in-training...
Of course there are and there'll be photos rejected or accepted without a reason but don't forget they screen about 2000 pics a day..How many per screener?

Enrique


User currently offlineAirsnaps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Bailey is correct as far as picture quality is concerned. Although the exposure isn't horrific, it looks a little over-sharpened to me in parts.

Straight from the mouth of a true screener; I think Royal has answered your concern in comparison to Glenn's tidy shot.


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...
Screening Consistency posted Sun Sep 11 2005 21:34:52 by AeroWeanie
Screening Consistency? posted Sat Oct 23 2004 04:20:50 by Dehowie
Consistency In Screening Photos posted Sat Dec 11 2004 19:09:28 by Air2Air
Pre-screening Please... posted Sun Dec 10 2006 05:19:46 by Flyfisher1976
Consistency? posted Tue Dec 5 2006 01:50:48 by AdamWright
MP 744 Freighter Priority Screening? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 09:29:43 by AirKas1
Pre-screen Screening Help posted Thu Nov 23 2006 13:36:03 by Brett
Pre Screening Help posted Tue Nov 21 2006 02:48:17 by JetJock22
Question About Priority Screening posted Sun Nov 19 2006 06:37:48 by XAAPB
Pre-screening Opinions Please (Airport Overview) posted Sun Nov 12 2006 04:06:04 by AviatorG