Ltena From Mexico, joined Jan 2005, 70 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1136 times:
What are this "new standars"???? where are the standards posted??? Im getting awful rejections like this... I dont see the bad queality really..... Ive seen worst beeing accepted... And I dont mean worst for bad....
This is my shot...
If a.net wants people to upload less crap like mine in the link above they should write down what screeners look for when they screen so "we" can be our first screener... because we still dont know if the photo its going to satisfy the screeners taste... I know the screeners only follow orders... There should be a manual like a checklist to read with the so called "standars" before uploading so we can check for some basic things, like contrast, jaggies and on....
I personally think this new rules su**s but jetphotos its an option I know but we still want to be here in a.net just give us the standards.... And dont try to mke us feel bad saying that there are so much people uploading crap for the screeners.... Tell us what to search for before uploading... that would solve allot of problems... instead of restraining.....
Thats my opinion...
Luis Tena Orozco. Why drink and drive when you can smoke and fly
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
Quoting Ltena (Thread starter): There should be a manual like a checklist to read with the so called "standars" before uploading so we can check for some basic things, like contrast, jaggies and on....
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1090 times:
This is beginning to become the norm around here, and it's getting old. Get a rejection, blame the screeners and some imaginary "new, more difficult" standard. Wanna know what the standard is? Look at a few pages of the most recent acceptances. There is no freaking manual.....
CallMeCapt From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 496 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1087 times:
It's a subjective hobby. What can you say? There's always someone who says their photo SHOULD be accepted.
Some of us just want clarifications. Badquality could mean a lot of things. Personally, I expect rejections among the photos I upload.
But you know what, I love photography and this site is just an opportunity to show off the best photos I've taken.
Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1070 times:
Quoting CallMeCapt (Reply 5): I don't mind the rejections. Heck, I got 4 rejections today, 2 of them I think could have made it. But I'm ecstatic now because I just got 13 uploads accepted out of 17.
Look at the smile on my face.
Good for you, thats awesome. I get excited when i get 7 for 7 but 13 thats really good.
As for the picture that started the thread, its way overexposed.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1033 times:
I understand your frustration, but I have read that there are moves being made to improve the rejection emails that are being sent out. But, despite this, I do have sympathy with the screeners in this kind of situation. Often on this Forum they (i.e. the site) are criticised for the length of the queue, and yet people are also asking for actions from them that will doubtless take up a lot more of their time - such as more detailed and 'instructive' rejection emails. I am also not aware of any new standards being enforced.
It seems much of your upset relates to not feeling clear what is exactly wrong with your photo, and your feeling that other photos that are 'worse' have been accepted. I think this latter point is less to do with standards and more to do with consistency, which has been debated a lot over the last few days here on the Forum.
Whilst I agree that more informative clarifications of standards required and rejection criteria - all easily found for uploaders in the same place - would be nice, I do agree that a close examination of the database, together with regular examination of this Forum, are very instructive.
Given my understanding of how things work here, I too would have rejected this photo for badquality. For me this would be because there are a number of issues present - some maybe more significant than others. I will give you a brief summary of my own view - but do remember, I am not a screener.
* Personally I would prefer a crop that had the aircraft lower in the frame and did not cut off the top of the tail. I know people have different views on such issues, but I think the photo would look more balanced that way. Thus the fuselage would not be placed centrally (as in your shot), but when you look at the complete aircraft it would be more centred.
* The aircraft does not look sharp overall - I think this is particularly noticable towards the rear, where things look just a bit soft.
* I feel there is a difficult to define lack of clarity to the image - hard to describe but, for example, I would like to see that red navigation beacon 'sparkling' more.
* The lighting/exposure looks wrong - the shaded areas below the aircraft looks very dark.
For me, with these areas in my mind, if I were screening the shot, a rejection for sharpening would not suffice, nor would one for badexposure. That is why I would support the use of this rejection criteria in this example.
I have taken a harsh view on purpose, but with the aim of being constructive. I hope you find the above of some use.