Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The Photo Screening Process Flawed?  
User currently offlineBillsville From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5208 times:

All,

Having been lurking around here for ages and viewing photos for ages I decided to start uploading some of my own. That was a bad mistake.

Having spent some hours preparing and uploading the photos (12 in all), all were rejected. The reasons given were very indeterminate. To me it seems that all photos from new people are out of hand rejected.

The photos were taken with a new D70 with new lenses. How a new camera could take photos that are tagged 'badquality' is beyond me. My background is in Television and graphics. This involves knowing what a correct white balance looks like, knowing what is sharp, knowing what is a good composition. I'm no newbie to photos, scanning, image manipulation and knowing what a good result is.

Having read the FAQ and getting no real determination on what will be accepted or rejected, I uploaded. Silly mistake.

I think the screening process is inherently flawed because...

1. No information provided before uploading on what makes a bad or good photo. If you browse the photo database the quality varies widely even on the latest additions. The FAQ seems fuzzy at best. Even the photos tips page has photos that are comparable to photos in the database.

2. A single screen process. How can a subjective process only be applied once? (the appeal process doesn't count, as you are only allowed two photos in the appeal). Photos should be screened twice by different people if there is any conjecture.

3. The reasons given for rejection are extremely vague. You open the email and it says your photo was rejected because of A or B or C or D or E. At least you could tell us what the exact reason or which area of the photo drew the ire of the screeners.

4. A photograph is a piece of art the photographer has created. If they wanted it this way, they wanted it this way. If they wanted the ground at a slight angle, they wanted it that way. If they cropped something off, they wanted it that way. If its shot through a hazy sunny day, that's the way it was meant. Photography is about art, not just getting a plane and its rego. They upload it because they think its good.

Like it or not, people are going to compare their photos to ones that already exist in the database. People want a reference level. Having read this forum and seeing a lot of disillusioned posters, I can see that no such level exists and your photo getting accepted really is a big lucky dip. People like myself want to be on here because this is the place to have your photos and it has obviously turned into a professional site. But do I feel that having some sort of auto-generated email with a fluffy reason for rejection and then having to pay to join up find out the true reason for the rejection is a bit amateurish for a professionally run site. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way.

I offer the above post not as a critique, but as constructive criticism.

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDiezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5180 times:

Hi Billsville,

Welcome to the forum!

Can you show us some rejections?

Roel.



Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5173 times:

Yes the rejection e-mails are inevitably a bit too generic. But if you want better feedback, that's what the forum is for. Post links to the photos here and other photographers can tell you what they think. Speaking for myself I've learned a hell of a lot from here.

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

Quoting Billsville (reply 0):
2. A single screen process. How can a subjective process only be applied once? (the appeal process doesn't count, as you are only allowed two photos in the appeal). Photos should be screened twice by different people if there is any conjecture.


Photos are usually screened three times before they get in. If there are obvious reasons that the photos dont make it they get rejected by the first screener. But they even might be rejected by the 2nd 3rd, 4th or whatever screener. When appealing you can only appeal 2 thats correct, but once they are processed you can appeal the next 2. Appeal Q is moving very fast these days so there should be no problem doing so.

Quoting Billsville (reply 0):
3. The reasons given for rejection are extremely vague. You open the email and it says your photo was rejected because of A or B or C or D or E. At least you could tell us what the exact reason or which area of the photo drew the ire of the screeners.


Its NOT A or B or C or D. If there is more than one reason the it is A and B and C and D

Quoting Billsville (reply 0):
4. A photograph is a piece of art the photographer has created. If they wanted it this way, they wanted it this way. If they wanted the ground at a slight angle, they wanted it that way. If they cropped something off, they wanted it that way. If its shot through a hazy sunny day, that's the way it was meant. Photography is about art, not just getting a plane and its rego. They upload it because they think its good.


See it from the other side. Its Johans website, screeners apply his rules on the uploaded photos. If Johan decides one day he only wants photos of blue planes in the database then only photos of blue planes will be accpeted.

Quoting Billsville (reply 0):
But do I feel that having some sort of auto-generated email with a fluffy reason for rejection and then having to pay to join up find out the true reason for the rejection is a bit amateurish for a professionally run site. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way.


See it positive. at least you get some feedback. If you send photos to a magazine or an Image ageny you might not even get any feedback if they accepted it or not. Soo its not that bad eh?  Wink/being sarcastic



-
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5140 times:

Welcome to the hard end of downloading to A.Net. We have all had your feelings , but at the end of the day its a system that we all have to follow. I agree its very frustrating when you have spent hours editing 20 pictures only to have them all returned due to a vage auto answer such as "bad quality".

The thing is after a while you do improve your skills. As others have said the help of this forum should be your guide.... You will then start to notice what is or isn't up to scratch.. Yep you will be baffled with a reason sometime's but if you do a re-edit on the photo and you really do feel its up to A.Net quality , try a reload. Always remember though to put a note to the screener to let him know that you HAVE done some work to the picture,rather than just re-uploading it.... If you do that you can get the old slap on the wrists !!!

I think you have to remember the volumes A.Net now operates. If the screener had to judge and write an idividual reason for rejection for each photo the que would be 50,000 pictures !!!! Yeah it would be great to have a note for every rejected pic saying "the wings to dark" or "there to much grain in the sky" etc etc.... But its never going to happen when screeners have to sift though 1500+ pictures A DAY !!

Good luck, i know its hard and i have (and still sometimes are) go though it.... Just today for example i had a contrail picture rejected for "Bad distance" when there are thousands of pictures that are the same.... Oh well

Simon C



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Billsville (reply 0):
To me it seems that all photos from new people are out of hand rejected.


At first it feels like that, feels like you are the victim of a conspiracy against new photographers. I had that feeling too when I started. But it's simply not true.

But it's all part of the process of learning what is and what is not airliners.net material. We (screeners) don't pretend to be photographic Gods who know all about photography. We simply apply the airliners.net standards, whatever they may be. It takes a little while to learn the compositional style, sharpness levels, etc, etc that the site prefers. When I now look back at what I had rejected when I started here, I wholeheartedly agree with those decisions and I'm glad my portfolio is better for not including those inferior images.

Lastly, when screening we could not care who the photographer is. There are SOOOO many photographers we could never remember all their names anyhow.

Please, please, please post your rejects and we can work constructively to help you learn the ways of airliners.net.

And, I endorse Peter's corrections to some of your incorrect assumptions about the screening process.

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineEmbraer145 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2001, 311 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5122 times:

Billsville...One advise.
Kukkudrill...One remark.

Don't try to understand the reasons for rejections. I've done it. Post threads with my rejected pics and asked how to improve them. Resulted in a couple of reactions from tributers to this forum who always agree with the screeners and always pissing of the one who have posted the thread. You can read this in other threads too.
I have the same at the moment. One picture accepted to the DB and another one rejected due to "badcamera angle". It was easy for me to compare both originals and the visible poles etc are exactly the same. Dunno how it's possible, but it happens.

I've stopped postings about my rejections due to the reasons mentioned above. Consistency is far away sometimes, but it doesn't bother me anymore. The advises you get most of the times are correct when you have pictures which must be rotated just a little bit. Further most of the advises are strictly personal and most of the times they are not valuable to improve the picture due to the ersonal taste of the one who has posted. I am not saying that I am an expert, but with almost 600 pics in the DB I am not a complete outsider too.
I upload my pictures once and when they are rejected it's not worth for me to try to get them in again.
There are a couple of good other databases, which I will not mention, because that's also a very sensitive subject here.
You can always write me via my profile, although I think that my post will be deleted very soon by the moderators of the site. (happens most of the times with posts like this one).

Maybe it stays in, and I know for sure that a lot of people will stumbling over me. As said earlier it doesn't bother me anymore.

Best regards

Aart



DAI - Dutch Aviation Images.
User currently offlineBillsville From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

Here are two of the 12..

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...in?filename=FedEX_N608FE_SYD_1.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...filename=Emirates_A6-ERB_SYD_1.jpg
(I wanted the haze in this shot it makes for an interesting view)

One of the ones I wanted to show now doesn't show in the rejected pile anymore.

It doesn't take long to type a few words.. "Spots around Tail"...."wings Underexposed"....

A question if I may. If the screeners are dealing with such a large amount of photos and they can't type a simple message surely they can't also be giving the photo the due considerations it deserves???

[Edited 2005-02-25 12:03:32]

User currently offlineEmbraer145 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2001, 311 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5089 times:

Quoting Billsville (reply 7):
A question if I may. If the screeners are dealing with such a large amount of photos and they can't type a simple message surely they can't also be giving the photo the due considerations it deserves???


That's exactly what I am thinking about.



DAI - Dutch Aviation Images.
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

My two cents worth:

-- There's a little bit of grain in both. Standards are so high that this would be enough to earn you a rejection. It can easily be fixed using software like Neat Image.

-- First photo: nice sharp shot, well framed, clearly you should do very well here with a bit of persistence. Unfortunately most of the plane is in shadow -- another common rejection reason. Try to shoot from below only when the sun is low and behind you.

-- Second photo: you might have wanted this effect but for a.net it is hopelessly heat-distorted. We all have photos we like but won't/can't upload. This one also needs rotation to level the horizon.

If I may add another piece of advice, size your pics to 1024 px wide. Easier for most people to see on their monitors, and can improve the chances of a marginal shot.

Keep at it. You'll be adding pics to the database in no time.

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Billsville (reply 7):
A question if I may. If the screeners are dealing with such a large amount of photos and they can't type a simple message surely they can't also be giving the photo the due considerations it deserves???


(Ignoring Embraer145's completely unhelpful posting)

There's two sides to every coin... How about considering that because we are spending so much time analysing your image, we then don't have so much time for eveything else? Your statement is like saying that just because the train driver doesn't have time to tell his passengers about the view out the window, he therefore isn't driving his train properly... it doesn't follow.

In a lot of cases, especially in borderline cases, screeners do add those personal comments you refer to. I like to do that to help a photographer.

However, the long (standard) explanations with each rejection category were carefully written to explain those rejection reasons. In both rejects linked above I can see quite an obvious CMOS dust spot in the upper left quadrant. It ought to be apparent, after reading the rejection email and looking again at the image, without further instruction from the screener(s). The second image is also not level - the majority of the vertical poles and buildings are leaning over. It's necessary for all such verticals to be truely upright to avoid a "badangle" rejection.

As for the heat haze... that's a little more subjective. I would say that the majority of the aircraft is obscured by the haze, rendering it less effective than a composition where the haze is behind the aircraft, or obscuring only a smaller percentage. With such subjective decisions, you are free to use the Appeal-to-Johan facility if you feel we've made a bad call. I'd urge you to address the CMOS dust and angle problems first though, or Johan will reject the appeal for that.

Embraer145:
If you ask for opinions, you will get many, some are right, some are wrong. That's life. Anybody can say anything (within reason here). The screeners decisions and explanations should help, and that appeal facility is your ultimate tool to check that the process is being run as Johan intended. If you disagree with Johan's line of thinking, then ultimately you disagree with airliners.net. Now, let's all try and pull together on the same team?

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Oh, and one more thing. The database is run, and all the volunteers use a lot of their time because they want to help people share their photos and make airliners.net a great place to visit. We want you to have your pictures in the database, not the other way around.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5031 times:

Quoting Tamsin (reply 10):
Now, let's all try and pull together on the same team?

Agree with you here Tamsin but in order to do so A.net should accept critics as well. Love needs to come from both sides.
The rejection emails as the currently exists are no help to anybody.
The more frequent uploaders don't pay attention to them and the new comers are overwhelmed with something like 5 possible reasons of what possibly might be wrong somewhere in the picture mainly about a scanner they probably don't even have.  Confused
Therefore i can understand Billsville as well as Embraer145 posts.
In my view it is about time to update the screening rules and rejection emails to the current "digital" standards.

@Billsville:
I like the compositions and the first one might be saved with some work, the second one will end up in the bin anyway i am afraid.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineStMawganE14 From Gibraltar, joined May 2003, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

A question - Why should Embraer 145's posting be ignored?

It puts some valid points and gives all of us an insight into views which are not necessarily holy writ. By discussing these issues we are furthering the argument and, being intelligent human beings, are able to make up our own minds.

Volunteers have done exactly that - they have volunteered and they want to screen. They will all have their own reasons for doing so and I thank them for it. I do not however feel sorry for them nor do I feel that I should not criticise or listen to views which they may find "completely unhelpful". If Tamsin is bemoaning the lot of the screener then perhaps she should get out more!

All I would suggest to Tamsin is that she be willing to listen to other views before dismissing them as being unorthodox or unhelpful.

I rarely post to this forum but enjoy the debate and the tips I pick up. Sometimes however I have to put finger to keyboard.

Brian



Live for today and have another one tomorrow!
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

Quoting Aviopic (reply 12):
In my view it is about time to update the screening rules and rejection emails to the current "digital" standards.


There are no "digital" standards.



-
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Welcome to the Forum Billsville.

Though it may not be much consolation, I think it is true to say most of us have been where you are now and have experienced those feelings of frustration. I recognise that sense of outrage that all your hard work feels like it has been thrown back at you. But I also recognise the points that Tamsin makes - I too look back at my rejected images now and, with the hindsight I now have, and with all that I have learned since last September (when I started uploading), recognise they simply did not meet Airliners.net standards.

One of the reasons I do not upload any of my photos to other sites is that I believe A.net has the harshest criteria - that appeals to me as a bit of a perfectionist. But I also feel that if I have a photo that makes it on here then it must be of a certain standard - and a high one at that.

I would be lying if I said I have not raged about rejections that I have felt were harsh or showed inconsistency, but I accept that screeners are human and will therefore make mistakes. Plus it is always going to be impossible for all screeners to have exactly the same opinion about everything. But my experience to date tells me that very often they appear to be right. Though I am not one myself, if I put a screeners hat on and look at the 2 photos you linked, I too would reject them:

- in the first there is a clear dust spot above and to the right of the nose - and that is always a reason for a bad quality rejection, no matter how good the photo is. But, easy to sort out by cloning it out. The image is also grainy - but again you may be able to sort this out with appropriate use of Neat Image - free to download a version from the Internet.

- straight away looking at your second image I noted another dust spot just above the left winglet. Plus there is the problem again of the grain and the issue of the heat haze. I would have rejected that too.

The key message that I hope you get from this post is that there is a learning curve to this (which I am still very much on myself) and if you are prepared to persevere, your standards will doubtless improve. You are right in your point that, with the equipment you have, plus your obvious ability to take a good airliner photo, you will be able to get images accepted on this site.

Keep at it and good luck with your future uploads.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineBillsville From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5013 times:

The point I was trying to make with the Emirates photo, is that yes, there are a lot Emirates A340's in the database, but this was a different angle with the haze, it provided a different view.

Because there are so many photos taken side on etc, maybe its time to look outside the square.....

Just a different point of view.


User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5007 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Embraer145 (reply 8):
That's exactly what I am thinking about.

That's what I ignored, because it didn't contribute to moving the discussion forward. I did not suggest anybody else ignore it.

I'm not bemoaning the lot of the screener. Please re-read:
Quoting Tamsin (reply 11):
Oh, and one more thing. The database is run, and all the volunteers use a lot of their time because they want to help people share their photos and make airliners.net a great place to visit. We want you to have your pictures in the database, not the other way around.


Like I said, and I re-iterate... We're all doing this because we want to do it, and all want the same thing. We all have parts to play in the big team.

Thanks for your suggestion Brian... maybe I should get out more and screen less?  Wink/being sarcastic (that's a joke, BTW, in case anybody tells me off!)

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (reply 14):
There are no "digital" standards.

So we keep talking about possible scanner problems even though 95% of the uploaded images are shot digital ?
Sounds very strange to me but have it your way, it's not my playground.

However your post exactly indicate where the problem lies and why i posted my thoughts.

Regards,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4988 times:

Quoting Aviopic (reply 18):
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (reply 14):
There are no "digital" standards.

So we keep talking about possible scanner problems even though 95% of the uploaded images are shot digital ?


yes we do because the other 5 % should also get pointers on how to improve the rejected photos.

Quoting Psych (reply 15):
in the first there is a clear dust spot above and to the right of the nose - and that is always a reason for a bad quality rejection


Wrong. dust spot --> baddirty

[Edited 2005-02-25 13:49:03]


-
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4980 times:

Well, I dont take pics but read this foum quite a bit, so maybe this advice will help  Big grin
If you get some rejections, have a look at them again, and if you don't know whats wrong or how to improve them, start a thread in this forum asking for some help/advice about the pictures.

Personally, I think that the database has got some top quality pics in it, which makes this site the best for aviation photography



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineBillsville From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4978 times:

The point I'm trying to make has been perfectly proved in this thread so far.

-The photos were rejected, I accept that.
-The email was very vague as to the exact problem.
-So to work out why they were rejected I have to pay money and join to find out the exact reason.
-People in this forum post have provided the exact details (Thank You).

A long way around a process that could be much smoother and easier.

It would be so much easier, and I bet you would have less antagonism to the rejection process, if the specific details of the rejection were stated and not glossed over as it seems by getting a preset email. If you want better photos, tell people whats wrong so they can fix it.

As I said before I'm just trying to provoke some constructive discussion on the subject.

[Edited 2005-02-25 13:34:52]

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

Quoting Billsville (reply 21):
It would be so much easier, and I bet you would have less antagonism to the rejection process, if the specific details of the rejection were stated and not glossed over as it seems by getting a preset email. If you want better photos, tell people whats wrong so they can fix it.

Exactly my thoughts Billsville.
A pity Big Pete only wants to address to the 5% slide shooters.  Laugh out loud
Who still get 5 different possible failures for one problem btw.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4960 times:

The way I understand it the screeners have a number of tickboxes describing what is wrong with the rejected pic.
The problem seems to be that the rejectee can't understand what exactly is the problem since the reasons stated are a bit vague.
How about a set of new tickboxes like:
- jaggies
- sensor dustspot
- unlevel verticals
etz etz

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineEmbraer145 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2001, 311 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4944 times:

Quoting Tamsin (reply 10):
(Ignoring Embraer145's completely unhelpful posting)



This is exactly what I mean when somebody have some criticism at the actual system of telling what's wrong with your pics.

A example:
Don't even know which rejection it is anymore. When you have a serie uploaded from AMS. Everybody knows you were along the runway outside. In that rejection male it's stated that the picture was taken behind glas out of a window.

This is one of the examples I can only laugh about. What is the constructive appointment to improve these kind of shots.

With Kind Regards

Aart

BTW nothin personal against you Tamsin



DAI - Dutch Aviation Images.
25 IL76 : If you want better photos, tell people whats wrong so they can fix it. Every day, about 1000 photos get rejected. Who's going to write these 1000 emai
26 Jan Mogren : Added tickboxes might do the trick... /JM
27 Aviopic : Please read Eduard. That is not what Jan or me meant. Just the same checkboxes as are used currently just with the specific info instead of a wide ran
28 IL76 : Willem, please read. I was commenting on Billsville's comment, not yours or Jan's. Jan's post was added while I was typing... More tickboxes would be
29 PUnmuth@VIE : I edited my post with the 5 % so that funny big Willem can understand what i meant (maybe) Wrong. When you have never been ther you cant know if its
30 Wietse : Sorry, but appearantly you do not. Both samples you have posted are clearly not acceptable on Airliners.net. Look at the halo around the nose gear on
31 Aviopic : Sorry Eduard, the posts are going fast hehe Thanks Peter, it makes more sense like this. Still i think the emails can be improved for both slide and
32 Dendrobatid : The standard rejection messages are dreadful in my opinion and there has to be a balance between the time the rejection takes the screener and the inf
33 Billsville : Wietse yes I do, but I'm not argueing that point. It doesnt take long to type "too much Noise", "Spots above left wing". We're not asking for a novel
34 Wietse : I am not attacking you, I am sure you are a nice guy, an internet forum is no way to judge someone. But I am discussing the way you come rushing in he
35 Aviopic : On the email side i agree with you Billsville as you probably noticed. I have to agree with the screeners though when it comes to typing which should
36 Post contains images KLGAviation : Guys, Before reading through this whole topic, I will tell you what I have gathered from the screening process. It's subjective. Those who get shots i
37 Embraer145 : Hi Wietse (here we go again) FYI I haven't start a thread for ages, because I edit my pics the way I like to do that. I know you don't like them (you
38 Jan Mogren : Billsville, about your uploading 12 pix: it says in the upload FAQ "We do recommend however that you start with sending in one or two. If they pass th
39 Diezel : When the forum members were yelling for more screeners we got more screeners, when we were yelling for a quote system in the forums we got one (and it
40 TZ : Please read to the end before hanging me for something! badexposure = Image is badly exposed, either too dark or too bright. Should not be hard to wor
41 TimdeGroot : Ok lots written hear and I'm not going to read everything but will comment on a general level. Yes the rejection emails are outdated and can be improv
42 Post contains links and images Clickhappy : The ironic part of this thread, in my opinion, is that I started a thread with the exact same title 2.5 years ago. Boy a lot has changed in that time,
43 Embraer145 : It's not necessary to type all these things personally. If you now have a couple of "buttons" which you can choose for a rejection. It must be easy f
44 Post contains links Psych : Sorry about that one - I do know that one really. Chris - I have to say that I cannot agree with you on that one. I, for one, know that I have felt c
45 Post contains images Futterman : It's all Sam's fault. What may surprise you is that, as has been said over and over and over again, it works both ways. While you do have a justifiabl
46 Post contains images BREmer : I've never spent too much stuying the a.net standards, but I have to say the rejection e-mails really don't help me too much. 'Bad quality' can be alm
47 Post contains images NIKV69 : Futterman, You can remove your lips from anet's ass now! He was just merely voicing his opinion. He is a newbie to the way anet handles it's screening
48 Post contains images JumboJim747 : Hey clickhappy That previous thread you started looked funny because you where not a screener then but a screener being a critic of the screening proc
49 Billsville : All, Thanks to all who have contributed. This topic was not a personal vendetta but merely an inquiry as to why the process works the way it does. Fro
50 Psych : Billsville, I completely support your (and anyone else's) right to question the process and point out issues in a constructive manner. Often I think t
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...
Q. About The Actual Screening Process? posted Thu Apr 20 2006 22:34:38 by Phxplanes
Is There A New Screening Process Now? posted Mon Jan 23 2006 21:15:04 by AndrewUber
The Photo Editing Process - How Do You Do It? posted Thu Nov 14 2002 00:19:30 by Brianhames
The New Screening Process posted Mon Mar 18 2002 05:04:11 by Ghost77
Why Is The Photo So Popular? posted Sun May 27 2001 06:51:52 by B7474
The Screening Process Is Flawed posted Thu Sep 26 2002 16:31:03 by Clickhappy
Is Something Wrong With The Screening Process posted Mon Oct 22 2001 14:30:20 by KingWide
Mistakes In The Screening Process?Should I Appeal? posted Sat Sep 24 2005 12:10:15 by Alexandru
How Does The Screening Process Work? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 20:39:04 by Sean377
Where Is The Rejected Photo Page? posted Sat Feb 5 2005 23:33:29 by Flyfisher1976
The Screening Process, A Report Or Interview? posted Thu Feb 23 2012 11:40:11 by axelesgg
Is The Appeal Process Effective Or Even Worthwhile posted Sat Feb 18 2012 18:13:38 by JohnR
Mistakes In The Screening Process?Should I Appeal? posted Sat Sep 24 2005 12:10:15 by Alexandru