I won't mention any names but suffice to say I don't think this site is so desperate for Los Angeles rotation shots that this photographers work deserves preferential treatment. This isn't a shot at the photographer because they can't screen their own work - except when using colleagues passwords! This is a criticism of the process and the fairness of the queue system - again.
Why is it that this continues to happen?
Any constructive and useful comments would be much appreciated.
CallMeCapt From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 496 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3262 times:
I don't think it's justified to pass judgement on screening methods and photo's that get accepted if one is not involved in the process. One persons opinion on the amount of certain photos in the anet DB does not necessarily reflect everyone elses opinion. Craig, I can see the point you are trying to make and am neither disputing or advocating it. I have personally sent an SMS to 1 of the screeners and emailed another to go to Kingsford Smith together and get some helpful advice but both times my messages have gone completely unanswered. So be it. Do they not want to share their advice? Maybe.
In this system of anet, you are bound by the rules and the, for want of a better word, politics of the administrator and his team. Maybe they get preferential treatment, maybe they don't. I can't make any conclusions as I only know them in a limited capacity through this website. I've compared some photos of mine to others on the database, including screeners' photos, and cannot see how mine get rejected but they're photos didn't. Hopefully, it's because they see something in the photo that I don't. You have photos on the database, some I have on my hard drive, but at least you have them on the database. I don't have any yet and it gets hard to believe it isn't personal. I had a bit of a whinge the other day and got it out of my system.
One thing I do know, if one tends to complain about the system, the complainer may be frowned upon.
enough of my rambling, I'm hungry.
Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3202 times:
To be honest,
I am a fair person. Hate to see others cheat, don't like for terms to be unfair, rules to be broken, etc. But hell you reach a point when you just get over it. I have noticed recently that the screening crew has done a great job to reduce the wait time for us "normal" photographers. Now we might not all bring amazing LAX Rampshots but I feel that I/We are being treated fairly. You can't be the "Queue Police" 24/7. Let what you can slide and don't ask questions. You'll only loose in the end. I have had 3 or so shots accepted into the DB today and there was no cutting. All along the same lines the other 1000 or so photographers have been following.
Now if an airline pilot pays $20 for the F seat you paid $2,500 for are you going to cut his neck for it? You have to remember that these guys put their time in to make our pictures what they are and keep a.net up the standard it has set for itself.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3181 times:
Craig, sorry you did have a go at me everytime when you mention you intended not, as usual. I don't mind coz I did nothing wrong.
There is no cheat at all. I found out that all mine shots were screened last night because more than half of them have lot of dust spot and got rejected all as baddirty. The headscreener screened only the dirty ones and rejected them but did not add any of them. The rest of the non-dust spot affected pictures are still following the normal Q order, will be screened on the day when they should. No Q jumping whatsoever. I re-uploaded 5 cleaned picture after got them rejected, so those 5 showing unscreened in your screen dump.
I have thought about you will start another question thread about me, when I found out one of the headscreener screened all of mine last night all at once, only to reject the dusty ones because almost half of them were badly affected. Quite the opposite, the headscreeners are doing this to make sure no preferential treatment are given to me. They are making sure non of my "dirty" picture will be get on into the db , with dust spot showing. I can't afford to have any baddity pic get in anyway, because you will start another thread to compare and question about it!
I think one of the headscreener will comment here to solve this issue. I have DONE ABSOLUTLY nothing wrong here. Thanks for spending non necessary time worry about me.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3167 times:
Further to this, you now owe me a public appology. I DO NOT use my collague's passward to screen my photo. This is a very wrong accusation which you need be very careful to write this in the public forum. I have already explained that the last night screening were done by a headscreener that making sure all my dirty picture were removed.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5550 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3162 times:
Craig, Is the screenshot you posted, your upload stat's or Sam's?
Sam, what you are saying here is that your shots get prescreened(thru no influence of your own as you say), that in itself is a slightly unfair state of affairs. The rest of us would not be looked on favourably if "many" of our uploads showed dustspots, although we would appreciate the chance to correct and reupload without waiting for the complete upload cycle.
Another point, we are continually encouraged to make sure our photos are of the highest possible standard that A.net requires yet one of this sites leading photographers, one that many look upto for inspiration, uploads "more than half" baddirty photos?.
Whichever way I try to look at it, I am afraid it looks like "preferential treatment"
Sam, quite frankly, with your talent, your commitment, your access.. you don't need it
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3150 times:
No, perhaps I can't explain it right. It was rather a complicated matter to explain.
I DID NOT ask any priority at all. They're all screened last night out of my own surprise, I found out most were rejected, I then ask one of the headscreener in email, he explained most of them are dirty and others past the screening will ONLY be screened on the day they should be, no Q jumping at all.
The reason the headscreener is doing this, is to make sure they don't get added by some other screener, 2 of mine recently slip through , I was told to re-upload them as they're dirty. If some more of mine slip through (screener sometimes overlooked) then I am sure someone will start another thread ask what's going on.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3130 times:
Ahh the life of Mr. Chui, a very controversial one indeed.
I too have had photos accepted only to not find the dust spot on them until well after the photo was already on a.net. No worries, I reuploaded. Missing dust spots is a very easy thing to do, and happens to everybody.
INTENSS From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 317 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3095 times:
Quoting CallMeCapt (Reply 1): I don't think it's justified to pass judgement on screening methods and photo's that get accepted if one is not involved in the process.
I do, if the person in question is also uploading photos. After all, it's ALL of the photographers that make up this and other photo sites, not just the screeeners and their preferred photogs.
Quoting N178UA (Reply 5): Quite the opposite, the headscreeners are doing this to make sure no preferential treatment are given to me. They are making sure non of my "dirty" picture will be get on into the db , with dust spot showing.
So you're admitting you would get preferential treatment if the "headsceener" didn't step in, thus allowing dust spot laiden photos into the database?
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5550 posts, RR: 65 Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
I was the Head Screener who pulled all of Sam's images from the queue.
To direct add.......nope, not at all. Sam has been having a bit of a problem with dust spots. A few images had slipped through so when I came across some of Sam's stuff I decided to pull them all and check for dust. Sam was fully aware of this and had been discussed with him. Other Head Screeners were fully aware too.
For the record, quite a few of Sam's images were rejected for dust. The others were screened as per normal because they were on my screening page.
I even got a message from Sam asking me not to screen the rest of then but leave in the queue and reject the dirty ones. I could not do this.
Hope this puts an end to the saga and thanks Craig for keeping watch.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3073 times:
Quoting INTENSS (Reply 15): So you're admitting you would get preferential treatment if the "headsceener" didn't step in, thus allowing dust spot laiden photos into the database?
2 photo were slipped in with few dustspot shown, I do everything to ensure photo are in good quality, clean and acceptable during upload. Sometimes screener overlooked at the pic, this happens many times, not only to me.
See DKLAPA's reply:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 11): I too have had photos accepted only to not find the dust spot on them until well after the photo was already on a.net. No worries, I reuploaded. Missing dust spots is a very easy thing to do, and happens to everybody.
No preferential treatment happened to me, anytime. If you like to know, I believe because a few person are always keen to watch my back, all screeners are here to make sure that I don't get preferential treatment, to stop sending any wrong messages across.
Personally, I would appreciate someone to email me, or the screeners, what's going on if they spot anything irregular, before making a public post without knowing the truth and accusing someone or the screener is giving me preferential treatment. You're doing something very irresponsible here.