Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Photo Processing Routines  
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Posted (14 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

Hello all,

As the popularity of this site has grown, so has the waiting times for getting your photos processed. It's not good for anyone and especially not for me as photographers might get tired of the long waiting times and just stop uploading their photos.

Many suggestions for solutions to this problem have been discussed in this forum and I've read it all with great interest.

After careful consideration, I've decided to try the following:

I will let more people into the photo rejection process. A selected few will get access to the administration pages and given ability to reject photos that are clearly not acceptable for Airliners.net. The normal confirmation emails will be sent out with the rejection messages. Those photos deemed acceptable or "border cases" will be left on the admin page and processed by me in a normal fashion. Therefore, only I will be able to add photos to the Airliners.net database. The "helpers" will only be able to reject photos. My workload will be significantly reduced as I won't have to view and process every obvious rejection and we will therefore be able to process photos much faster.

To help out with this, I am looking for photographers with many photos in the database that have been around for a long time and never or rarely have photos rejected. Furthermore, a fast Internet connection is, if not required, at least recommended as you have to open the large version of every photo to review it's quality.

If you match the above requirements and have the time and interest, please email me for further information. Your help is very much appreciated.

Johan Lundgren
Editor Airliners.net

Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Good to hear.
I've been waiting for about 5 weeks now.
Too long as I only uploaded 2 photos in the que.
Ive already stopped uploading for a while because of the extensive amounts of time I have to wait.

Perhaps after youve made a decision of who will be your "helpers"
I'll start again and see how things goes.

Still excluding the volume of photos to process everytime.
This site is growing steadily and smoothly.
Good work!

What kind of connection does airliners.net use for its server? Fiber optics?


Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5099 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

I wonder, is there any kind of software that can automatically weed thru any obvious rejections? Like scan an incoming photo for pixel size. resolution, and some basic things, that can automate the process any?

Johan, I'm curious, how many photos are sent to the upload page daily (average)?

Basically I like the idea. Kind of a "team effort" - a "team" of photo editors.

Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

4440 photos waiting to be processed.
Oh my. And Johan has to look all of those manually 1 by 1 and add warnings as well reject some and put in the copyright tag for accepted ones.

GOod luck!

(probably with the volunteers which will happen very soon this will dramatically shorten.)

Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

well, the copyrights are most likely added automatically (note how they do not show in the thumbnails), so one less task to perform.
Automating the rejection process is very hard (at least in a meaningfull fashion, setting an automated rejection on every Xth picture uploaded is easy). The software might weed out photos that are the wrong size (too small or too large), but that's about it.

I wish I were flying
User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3414 times:

AHhh.. yes, this was my choice for the best solution, i would love to be a "helper" but my 56K and bazillion hour work weeks wont be efficient...

cant wait to see how it works out! thanks for the feedback, thats really what keeps this site going so well..


User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1541 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3414 times:

Sounds good...also this lets Johan "off the hook" when people blame him for rejections...now it will be a bunch of people
Mark Garfinkel

User currently offlineZander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 611 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days ago) and read 3357 times:

Sounds good to me too. There are probably a large part of the uploaded photos which don't have the quality for airliners.net. And if someone else is rejecting the bad photos and Johan only watch the good ones, the process must go much faster. I hope this will be reality soon.

Alexander Jonsson

User currently offlineDknudsen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days ago) and read 3354 times:

I do not like this idea, as it leaves many oppertunities for somebody's personal opinion of particular people to decide if the photo is acceptable or not. I think this will result in lots of complaint e-mails to you Johan. While I appriciate this must be an awful amount of work for you, you must be sure that personal opinions are not involved in the processing of shots.

User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 57 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (14 years 11 months 3 days ago) and read 3361 times:

Seems to be an interesting idea to say the least. It has good and bad points I guess. But if the final decision is up to Johan I guess ultimately it is going to be ok.

I dare say however that the rejection message should be from the PERSON who rejects it and NOT the "airliners.net team" so that the persons rejections and reasons can therefore be monitored in the event of complaints.

Will this be part of this new system? And will the names of the volunteers be published?

I like it, and I don't like it..... hard decision but I guess with time and practice it could work and really benefit all of us.

Craig Murray

User currently offlineLuftaom From UK - England, joined May 1999, 536 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

I would like to say whilst long upload times do not bother most of you, as you don't have to wait a month to get a rejection/acceptance email, please give a thought to the fact that there are far more people who would just love to get just even a few photos accepted.

I can't see why we should not give it a go, what have we got to loose. Nothing ventured will result in nothing being gained.

I would like to add a further suggestion. Would there be perhaps a provision for the people dong the pre screening to add a personal message to some of the rejection letters. I remember when I first tried uploading how difficult it was to comprehend just what was wrong. Now I'm not having a go at the general messages, they are as good as one could ever make them, however what I think would help firsttime wouldbe airliners.net photographers is a personal message (even a line or two) just pointing out what was the problem areas in particular... even something like "Overexposure in the top right hand corner" it takes 5 seconds to type and really helps the photographer in helping themselves really - as im sure it would make becoming an airliners.net photographer far easier as you wouldn't simply get a the generic low quality message.

Now I'm not saying that it is an absolute must, but even if it were to be done for 5% of the photos that were rejected by the pre-screeners (the ones that were genuine attempts (ie airline photos) - just fell short of the quality criteria and not rejected due to a web page being present or the like.

I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this new system.

Best Regards

Bradley Mortimer
Sydney, Australia

User currently offlineTrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3297 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

That should be good, things would speed up and one would hear fewer complaints on the forum about the slow database additions. I hope to start posting soon as I have several pictures... but I need access to a scanner first.


Hop to it, fly for life!
User currently offlineTOP From Germany, joined May 2000, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

I really like this idea and would like to help Johan on this way.


User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

I think it is a good idea - and to keep "THE JUDGES" objective, the photos should be displayed without the photographers name - so this would eliminate "HE REJECTED IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE ME",

When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offlineTwr75 From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 111 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

I think that the criteria for the volunteers should be limited to quality (i.e. graininess, over/underexposure, etc) and not composition (i.e. rear 3/4, side, etc.). Otherwise it sounds like a good idea.

Like a seagull on the MCG of life...
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

I agree that the review process should be anonymous. Maybe the bundling of photos for a shooter should also be abandoned. I have the feeling entire batches get rejected if the first shot in line is not up to standard (or just not liked). This may be due to pressure or maybe not conscious, but it is easy to do something about it.
The number of emails would go up, of course  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I wish I were flying
User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

there is a potential problem in this system - if photographer who checks other photos has photos at the back of the queue it is in his interest that number of shots in front of him gets reduced therefore his photos would be processed faster: there are two solutions: only photos from behind would be checked (not a very good system) priority check for these photographers (after al, if they put additional work in site they deserve priority treatment) - of course if this system is applied there would be need for a limit of other "picture rejectors"

When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offlineN907CL From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

I'm sure Johan will get a group of excellent photographers to review and reject photos before they are sent to Johan. I know Johan will set a strict guideline to reject photos.
Being new at shooting photos with an SLR, I welcome having my photos viewed and rejected by other photographers.

Brian Casity

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

I think this would be a great idea, after all, they aren't going to reject them just because they don't like the person. Its more like they reject the ones that are completely obviously not good enough, and leave the closer decisions for Johan.

I think putting the name of the person who views your photo's is a good idea, because then you get a better idea of just how much better your photo's need to be (that would help me, i get the same message with ones that i first uploaded that were poor, and some recently which had a good chance of getting on).

Regards, Dan

User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3246 times:


I could help you with that, but I only have one problem: I'm using a 33.6 kb/s connection, so I think it would take longer time to reject/choose the photos than you do now...

Best regards,
Jorgos Tsambikakis
Helsinki, Finland

User currently offlineBlackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Sounds good so far but there might be some problems like for example "Dknudsen" mentioned. I wonder who will do the job. That you have many photos in the db doesn't necessarily mean you are objective. I would say we had many photos less if those who get every shot added didn't upload so many, let's say "boring" (which isn't an offense to anyone), which doesn't mean bad in some way but you know what I mean. People with few shots try their best, I think and everybody want some of his shots get added, but those who are really good could select their shots a bit better.
Another thing is that I don't think we need reasons for rejections. Anybody can watch the pictures in the db and see the requirements pretty easily. And if it's a "border case" it's Johan's decision anyway. So he'll like it or not. Maybe that would make people upload their pics again and again but think about it. Wouldn't it save some time?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineBlackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

Just one more thing in case those who have many photos here feel offended. Of course I can understand what for example Chris Sheldon said in the other thread. Such photographers are building most of the db and are very important for the site and I like the work of many of them. I was more thinking about scan quality, scratches, dirt and stuff like that. Or take AirNikon as a good example. He has the most pics but he's always adding a big diversity of aircraft from all over the world which is never boring. I know you all want your photos get added which is of course not wrong but sometimes I just think - did we really need that photo? Another good example would be Jan Mogren. He has only about 80 pis but only excellent photos. And the his views show that this kind of work is appreciated.

User currently offlineLuftaom From UK - England, joined May 1999, 536 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Correct me if I'm wrong but my perception of how this would work is that there would be a number of individuals who would weed out all the really really bad shots and the ones that will be rejected on account of being to small, not being of an aircraft or having a webpage ad in them.

This would then allow Johan to look at the ones that have a chance of being accepted and thereby in the time available to him upload more photos by the virtue of the fact he does not have to look at the ones that have allready been rejected for reasons mentioned above.

Is this close to the mark or have I completely missed the target?

User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 4280 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Well, I have always voiced support for some form of editorial assistance for Johan. The workload the he must face on a daily basis is massive to say the least and without some help in reviewing the constant barrage of photos that are sent in on a daily basis, could possibly lead to the shutting down of this site........a victim of its own sucess!

Now, I do have one concern however and that is with the asking for help from the rank and file A.Net'ers. My concern is mainly to do with the area of objectiviety and partiality. Lets face it, human nature being what it is, who's to say that one of the assistants that Johan selects decides to give a thumbs down to a photo based not on the quality of the photo, but whether the assistant has a grudge against a given photographer. Personally I have said (and will continue to do so) things, made comments and statements that have angered a few of my fellow A.Net'ers. What should happen if someone who really dislikes me should start giving most of my submissions a no vote ? I am not saying that this will happen, but the possibilities of an assistant exacting revenge against a photographer is wide open. Of course this is dependant upon on how much power and say so Johan gives his assistants. I rather like the idea of bringing a non-A.Net'er, someone who has no bias towards anyone here, someone who is completly impartial.

That said and my concerned voiced, I will continue to support Johan with his decision.


"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (14 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

We have to be careful, however. I hope that one guy, who thinks that any pic which closely duplicates another should be rejected, doesn't have sole power to knock it out.

Let's say for instance, that two identical pictures are taken, of the same plave and the same plane, same situation, but a year apart. Some people might want to see that the plane was seen at this place 2 years in a row, or more.

The panel of "prescreeners" should concentrate on the purely qualatative aspects - Grain, aesthetics, clutter, size, etc. And Johan should make them agree to this when they sign on.


25 Lanpie : The new photo process is a good idea. I think airliners.net is receiving an average of 500 to 1000 new photos a day creating and giving a lot of work
26 Oph06 : Good idea.. May I sugguest, the helper(s) can not weed the photos which came from his/her own country or place. Please consider...
27 Post contains images Cliffie : Folks, it comes down to a voting process. How about the following. An number of us received an email this morning. Let's say the same persons get a pa
28 PUnmuth@VIE : Hi! I like 2 ideas mentioned in the above replies: 1.) Removing the names from the photos to be judged 2.) and the idea of not letting peoeple vote ab
29 Post contains images Chris28_17 : I think that the criteria for the volunteers should be limited to quality (i.e. graininess, over/underexposure, etc) and not composition (i.e. rear 3/
30 CYKA : I would do it, I have a cable conection.....but no photos on the database.
31 9A-CRO : since the "pre-screeners" will only have power to reject, and not to accept, it would be reasonable thing to do that they do not check photos from "tr
32 Post contains links Shamrock77 : I believe this has the potential put this site onto the next phase; a true community!! With more people helping in the process, it can only get faster
33 Ckw : Well, I think its a step towards true peer review, and I endorse it - but I suspect its going to be a painful gestation ... whereas rejections from Jo
34 Cfalk : Since there will be a number of people reviewing pics, why not require 2 or even 3 people to finally reject a pic and dump it from the queue? just a t
35 CX777 : Hi Johan, Lets face it... like you say.... one person cannot do it all. As far as the photos are 'judged without any bias or favouritism' it will real
36 Bodobodo : My view is similar to that of others who have suggested that the assistants should be responsible for weeding through the obvious rejections while lea
37 Tim : I totally agree with "PUnmuth@VIE's" two points: "1.) Removing the names from the photos to be judged 2.) and the idea of not letting peoeple vote abo
38 Post contains images BO__einG : hey! I have an idea that may also help reduce upload stress. Well with all these photos in the queue, we wait weeks until something happens. Ever sinc
39 Chris28_17 : i kinda like bo's idea, at least to see the filenames would be nice, i often forget which photos i've added CHRIS
40 Thomasphoto60 : Bo, that's a good idea. Often we upload a photo, thinking that we have that show stopper shot. But after you have had a chance to reflect on that pic
41 Chrisair : I like the idea that Bo came up with. I have problems with file names a lot, and sometimes this leads to duplicate submissions. Maybe not a thumbnail
42 Post contains images BO__einG : hey, thanks for your comments guys. Chris/Chris/Thomas. Very heartful of you guys I forgot to mention about the batches.. well I cant really think of
43 Chrisair : I believe that would be too much Bo. I'm really afraid that one of these days J's server(s) will blow up if too many search features are added. The be
44 Avman1 : Ladies and Gentlemen, Johan is asking for help and many are offering excellent solutions! I have posted photos in the past and found that some are vie
45 Bodobodo : I'm not sure if making it a popularity contest among submitted photos is the best solution since if you look at the Best of 24-48 hours, 7 days... lis
46 Skyliner : With regard to the issue of objectivity on the part of those evaluating the photo, how about a procedure so that each time a photographer submits work
47 Blackened : I agree with Bodobodo. All photos should be judged the same no matter if they're attractive for many views or not. As long as the quality is Ok and al
48 AndyEastMids : Coming to this a bit late but, sounds very good provided (in my opinion): 1. The judgemental policy of airliners.net does not substantially change. If
49 Blackened : AndyEastMids: You're right but your last suggestion would make it too complicated. If a photo gets rejected and Johan had to watch it to decide whethe
50 Thomasphoto60 : I would be rather curious how many people have volunteered their services thus far. As for myself, well I just don't have the extra time to spare. Tho
51 Davus : Hey guys, This would have to be one of the most productive threads ive read here in a long long time. Well i have to say that i was fiully in favour o
52 Cicadajet : While I see a problem with Multiple Judges, I believe/(hope) Johan's message is that assistants will reject images that are *obviously* unsuitable (po
53 Paulc : Johan, great idea - i am sure there will be a few 'teething problems' with this idea but given some time for people to get used to it then i think it
54 Cfalk : Johan, Please hurry with the new setup. The upload queue topped 5000 this morning! Charles
55 Ckw : At the risk of delaying implementation of the setup, but perhaps heading off hassles after it starts, would it be possible to have some kind of nomina
56 Da fwog : I've already put my name forward to Johan, offering to take on some of this work (if he wants me), and so I've given the matter a lot of thought. I th
57 A380-200 : Hi everyone... Well said Chris! As a software developer I sometimes cringe at what appear to be simple suggestions when I consider how such a feature
58 Mirage : At least the system should be as it was before, first in first out. Now I have 426 photographers ahead of me, if these guys are adding new photos on d
59 Carlos Borda : I vote for whatever Johans untimely decides. The way I see it is like this.... it's HIS site and thus he can do with it whatever he wishes. I only wis
60 Tonimr : Hi everybody: Perhaps I'm only summing up what others have been telling, but here is my opinion: He only wants too be helped to reject what clearly do
61 Sgruenig : Dear Friends, sorry, but I'm really not happy with this new solution! Today I was working the wohle sunday on my new photos from the airport-field in
62 Post contains links AirCanon : Hi Tomislav, i know this is OT but i thought this might be of interest to you. Hope the other guys will excuse me. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/
63 Cfalk : Stefan, Did you get any explaination for why they were rejected? Charles
64 Paulc : Is there any way in which the pre-screening process could be amended to show which images have been passed as well as those rejected?
65 Cfalk : Paulc, I agree. Right now their is a brief reference at the bottom of the rejection notice, but it is not specific. It would be nice to know which one
66 Sgruenig : To: Cfalk Yes, they always write that the pictures are to "grainy", but I can't change this because I'm scanning them from 9x13 paperprints. Because t
67 Cfalk : Stefan, Grain is a tough thing to deal with, and may be largely dependant on the screen you use. Looking at some of your pics, you appear to use a lit
68 Cfalk : Stefan, I forgot to mention... To get an acceptable scan from a print, I found that the minimum size was 10 x 15. 9 x 13 was simply too small, and res
69 Da fwog : Stefan, I agree with a lot of what Charles has said. I tried scanning smaller prints ONCE (when the lab made them the wrong size), and it was nightmar
70 Da fwog : Stefan, just another thought - how many photos do you *normally* get rejected from a batch of uploads?
71 Post contains images Sgruenig : To Cfalk: O.k. thanks for you reply. I try to scan the rejected photos now with lower sharpness and hope, that after that they are not so grainy again
72 Post contains images Sgruenig : To Da_fwog: Hi, normally I get rejected 2-3 on 100 photos. And now, nearly 50% are not accepted. I gonna try to scan them a little bit smoother now! I
73 Da fwog : Just a thought - the queue seems to be much shorter now (didn't Charles suggest that we have maybe cleared the backlog?). I would suggest trying to re
74 Post contains images Sgruenig : O.k. now I've uploaded 20 photos, scanned with less sharpness. I hope that they are accepted now. They are now not so grainy. Besos fuerte de la Suiza
75 Sgruenig : Hello friends, now I've heared over one week nothing from airliners.net. I'm really wondering what they are doing with my 88 uploaded photos. 20 of th
76 Cfalk : Stefan, Now that the huge backlog has been screened, all new uploads over the past week or so have been screened within 12 hours or so after upload, s
77 Mirage : Nice attitude. While your photos were being accepted easily, you never came to this forum. Now that you have some problems you come here complaining.
78 Post contains images Jwenting : Sounds good. I finally got confirmation that several are past the prescreeners. Hope Johan likes them as well
79 Brentspeed : I hope this question has not been asked and addressed already, but you understand if I don't read every response in this long list. . . . Here is my q
80 Brentspeed : I forgot to add this to my post: I don't know if Johan will ever read this, but if you do, I have a request: If you are the only one able to acually a
81 Phxairfan : I think the new processing routine, is great, i recived a first stage confirmation days after the new system went to order. I have one question, how l
82 Jwenting : The new barrier has stopped the upload queue from growing, and is now slowly eating into it. Read elsewhere it is now down to about 2000 and pretty st
83 Post contains images ADG : Phxairfan, Well you must be ahead of me in the queue then lucky bugger..... ADG
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...
Old Banner Type On A New Photo... posted Tue Nov 15 2005 18:18:36 by Asgeirs
How About A New Photo Section? posted Mon May 9 2005 14:32:18 by Pepef
Thanks For 2004 & New Photo Stats Page posted Tue Dec 21 2004 21:44:00 by Administrator
Average Time For Photo Processing? posted Fri Oct 8 2004 21:52:52 by Thom@s
New Photo Op For DEN (not For Me Though!) posted Mon Aug 23 2004 05:25:19 by Vafi88
New Photo Stats Online posted Mon Jun 14 2004 19:01:45 by Administrator
New Photo - Thomson's Baby! posted Sat Apr 24 2004 00:25:08 by Work4bmi
What About A New Photo Category: "Artistic" posted Mon Apr 19 2004 23:03:28 by Diezel
New Photo Prices posted Wed Feb 11 2004 11:45:05 by Mcdonobr
Getting Any New Photo Toys For Christmas? posted Mon Dec 22 2003 22:07:53 by JFKTOWERFAN