Bobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
I got a rejection for a nice picture of a Pan Am 707 taken in the early 60's. There are zero pictures of this plane in Pan Am livery on airliners.net. I submitted it as 1024x537 because 1024 is the minimum width for landscape mode. The rejection says the size is too small or the size is very unusual. OK, which is it, too small or very unusual? I can make it bigger but I can't change the proportions. Will a bigger size still be rejected as very unusual size because it's too narrow? I thought the standards were lower for rare pictures. What do they want me to do?
Bobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2651 times:
The airplane fills almost the entire width of the photo. If I crop to change the aspect ratio I will cut off part of the plane. That's why I'm so frustrated!
Airlinelover From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 27 Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2611 times:
Give us a link to the rejection part. Maybe we can look and see what we can do..
If all else fails, APPEAL!
Chris
Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
Bobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 22 hours ago) and read 2495 times:
This copy is reduced further in size (600x315), but I'm just trying to show the problem with the aspect ratio. I like it the way it is even though the ratio is 2:1. Since it is a rare picture I would hate to crop any of the plane out, and cropping the small empty space on the left doesn't help much. Thanks for looking.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
Don't crop it.
That is a great image. If aDOTnet doesn't want it up here, that is their loss. It is worth more than a thousand identical Southwest 737's taken this month.
There seems to be this idea among the screeners that if they reject a picture like this you will simply go back to 1963 and take a better one.
I have a number of pictures, decent, color pictures of prototypes and experimental airplanes, or the first two built, sequentially numbered sitting side-by-side. I don't even upload these anymore because they are best possible scans of pictures that are forty years old and they will be rejected. The criteria says they will make quality concessions for rare images but it just does not seem to be true.
I appreciate the glimpse of the picture. Thanks
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
There seems to be this idea among the screeners that if they reject a picture like this you will simply go back to 1963 and take a better one.
Really? And how would you know such things? It is easy to sit here and type negative things, isn't it.
We try to hold uploaders to a certain standard. If you are scanning a picture and preparing it for the web, there is no reason (as an example) that the picture should be unlevel. Or the color be all wrong. Or cropped smaller than it needs to be. The fact that a slide or print might be 30 or 40 years old is irrelevant, take pride in your work.
The criteria says they will make quality concessions for rare images but it just does not seem to be true.
For anyone reading this, I will tell you, straight from the horses mouth, that this statement is a flat out lie. Not only do we "make quality concessions" but we work with our photogs to make their images as high quality as possible. Just because something is old doesn't mean it has to look like garbage. But there are the photographers who don't want to hear it, who aren't willing to make the adjustments neccesary to produce a quality picture.
RayPettit From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 608 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 2338 times:
I do not have the benefit of seeing the original print of this 707, but I'm at a loss as to why its been rejected merely because of the ratio of the image.
I take pride in levelling and cleaning my slides uploaded here, which are mostly 30 years old, but then I'm dismayed that some shots from the sixties and seventies get through which contain dirty marks which can clearly be seen.
Yes, its easy to type these words not being a screener, but there appear to be some inconsistencies in what is acceptable so I can understand why people get put out.
If you look at the 1960's pages here you will see a black and white airliner photo uploaded early January 2005 proportioned at 1024x522 ~ narrower than the 707 in question. Its had over 400 hits and so I would say that compares well with, say, a bulk standard side-on Southwest 737 shot uploaded at a similar time.
I respect the screener's decisions, but feel I have to help defend Bobster2's case and I hope he successfully appeals the image.
Jetjock22 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 2313 times:
Clickhappy - I respect yall as screeners and know you guys take pride in your work, but yall dropped the ball real bad here. This picture is one of the finest old photos I have seen on this site, and I have seen quite a few, most of which are pretty shitty, based on their age. A few examples:
- I fail to see what is wrong with the pan am shot. Much better than some of these from the same time period. I think we know what has spoken here, and it is not what you want us to believe clickhappy.
ps - no disrespect to the photogs whose pictures i put in here, just simply using them for comparison
Vzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 820 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 2245 times:
(Bobster, please tolerate this modification of your shot.)
To my mind, converting the picture to a more conventional format detracts from the overall feel. The original emphasizes the 707's sleek lines and also highlights how much less hectic the airport environment was 40 years ago.
Clickhappy or any screener:
What then is the minimum height for an image 1024 pixels wide? The Upload FAQ section gives this unclear and contradictory guidance: "Furthermore the photos need to be bigger than about 1024x768 pixels. We suggest using sizes around 1000 pixels in width."
Thanks,
Mark
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
Clickhappy perhaps you should count to ten before typing your response. A lot of anger there.
Did you read my entire post or just the part that apparently stepped on your toes? I don't think I've ever written one critical word about this site, the administrator or the screeners before. There is a word of wisdom in non-profit organizations: "Be kind to your volunteers."
I submitted several pictures of one-of-a-kind airplanes. Prototypes, experimentals, first of production, first two built, consecutively numbered sitting side-by-side and had them rejected badquality. I am talking about tail number not in database, aircraft type not in database and in some cases, not one example of the type left in the world, even in a museum. Rejected badquality for showing some sign of their age.
One of my pictues that is up in the database here was rejected badcenter the first time. I went in and constructed a ruler in the image. It was within three pixels of being perfectly centered. You guys do a good job but do you really think you can see 3 pixels?
I am now in posession of dozens of large format pictures of 1920s and 1930s military airplanes in Hawaii. These are so detailed that you can read (with a magnifying glass) stencils on a plane parked a hundred feet from the camera. I'm not going to bother to submit them because there are some cracks and stains. I will still submit a decent shot of a plain-vanilla airliner because that is what you seem to want and it is not my website.
The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions. That picture should be in the airliners.net database. That kind of picture is what many of us come here for.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Ryan h From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 1451 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
I would ignore all the politicsa and crap here and put it on myaviation.net.
It is to good a picture to be sat in the dark on your hard drive unseen by anybody.
Bobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 2167 times:
Hello again everybody. The crisis is almost over. I just spent the last two hours searching for the original negative. I don't why I cropped it so narrow when I scanned it the first time several years ago. It must have been an accident because I usually scan the full frame. It was long before I heard about airliners.net and image screeners. By the way, there's absolutely nothing of interest that got cropped out. Now I have to go install my scanner. I haven't used it for a couple years. I'm going to scan the negative again to prove to the world that I can follow the rules about aspect ratios. It also means that I'll have to fix the dust and scratches again. Thanks for all the nice comments about the picture. I hope the final result will be worth all the effort.
JetAv8r From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 2154 times:
prove to the world that I can follow the rules about aspect ratios.
Can any one point me to any place where the aspect ratio rules are written (other than some post in the forum)? I remember searching a while back to no avail, it almost seemed like the rule was made up or didn't exist! (I'm in no way implying that it was).
Thanks,
Alex.
Edit: Come to think of it, I even asked here and got no answer. The only replies were other photographers who were just as confused as me.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months ago) and read 2026 times:
Slamclick said: The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions
On the contrary, the cropped picture of the 707 posted by Vzlet is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that many inconsistancies and problems can easily be corrected, even with old images. The original has a large area of wasted space on the right hand side which adds nothing to the image (I might have a different view of this by the way if the wing-tip had been included), and with the revised crop we now have something that works for both the subject AND airliners.net.
Furthermore, we've now learned that there is indeed more image above and below the subject, but that would necessitate a rescan. So the photographer can have it either way - cropped to exclude some of the wing as seen above, or to the original width but with more above and/or below so as to achieve an acceptable height/width ratio.
Clickhappy said: We try to hold uploaders to a certain standard. If you are scanning a picture and preparing it for the web, there is no reason (as an example) that the picture should be unlevel. Or the color be all wrong. Or cropped smaller than it needs to be. The fact that a slide or print might be 30 or 40 years old is irrelevant
Clickhappy is RIGHT ON. We do lower standards considerably for old and rare subjects, but not so much that a reasonably easily achieved correction (or as in this case, a rescan) could correct an issue. Judging old images is often the most difficult part of the job - balancing the need to get rare subjects onto the database against knowing (or having a very strong suspicion) that with a little more effort or a slightly different approach an even better result could be obtained.
26 Vzlet: Is the aspect ratio rule something that can/will be revealed to the photographers?
27 Wietse: If only you were a more popular photographer on here, we might be able to see it... Ah come on, give the screeners a break here. They spend a lot of t
28 SlamClick: Well, now that we know there is more image outside the top and bottom framelines by all means un-crop it. Just the other day I was thinking how we rea
29 Dendrobatid: With my large numbers of old black and white photos of rare aircraft now on the database I feel that I have to step in in the defence of the screeners
30 SlamClick: You might well be right but WHAT IS happening to the golden frogs in Panama?
31 Dendrobatid: SlamClick. I am probably the only one on here who understands where you're coming from on that one ! Presumably you did mean Costa Rica ? Mick Bajcar
32 SlamClick: To be honest I had to look some things up. I used to see the golden frogs along the creeks in the jungle-covered mountains around El Valle de Anton, P
33 SlamClick: Back on topic: I sure would like to see some favorable resolution of this issue. That is a tasty, even if imperfect, photo of a classic 707 in its nat
34 Cboyes: Vzlet Is the aspect ratio rule something that can/will be revealed to the photographers? You had me rolling around on the floor with this one. I would
35 Rampkontroler: "Slamclick said: The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions On the cont
36 Clickhappy: This shot was added today. For all you screener haters out there all I can say is "have a nice day."
37 SlamClick: Clickhappy you seem a little bitter. I have no idea what kind of communications you have with the would-be uploaders here, so perhaps it is justified.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1198 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 1451 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
