NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
Quoting 9VSPO (Thread starter): 1. They only accept your best images. This actually goes in your favour because it makes you a better photographer!
2. They do this job for virtually nothing and their time is just as precious as our's!
So I just wanted to say a big to all these guys that do the work and make this site what it is!
Finally, someone making some sense.
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 1): They accept images that conform to the guidelines they have to follow. Completely different
If you care to read the guidelines you will see that this process produces only the top photos. These guidelines are based on photography and not anet's own depiction on what a good photo is. Much as you would want everyone to think.
You take a good picture, it gets accepted. It doesn't get much easier.
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 2696 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4): If you care to read the guidelines you will see that this process produces only the top photos. These guidelines are based on photography and not anet's own depiction on what a good photo is. Much as you would want everyone to think.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Have a look at some inflight magazines, aviation mags, whatever. You'll see tons of great photos that wouldnt be accepted here. Those photos are good, the photos on a.net are good. But everything that's good is not accepted here.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 5): You have no idea what you're talking about. Have a look at some inflight magazines, aviation mags, whatever. You'll see tons of great photos that wouldnt be accepted here. Those photos are good, the photos on a.net are good. But everything that's good is not accepted here.
Actually you have no idea what you are talking about, I see plenty of pictures in magazines that are not the greatest quality. Give it a rest.
:D didn't say all were great. Have a little look after images you fancy, then since you're an expert on all things a.net, maybe you can figure out if they would be allowed here or not? I think you'll find quite a few
9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 2631 times:
Yes there are many images in magazines that would not be accepted here but they have a major significance, ie; they are newsworthy or the photographer is already asociated with the magazine and that has nothing to do with quality but "it's not what you know but who you know!"
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 2611 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 16): D didn't say all were great. Have a little look after images you fancy, then since you're an expert on all things a.net, maybe you can figure out if they would be allowed here or not? I think you'll find quite a few
Quoting 9VSPO (Reply 17): Yes there are many images in magazines that would not be accepted here but they have a major significance, ie; they are newsworthy or the photographer is already asociated with the magazine and that has nothing to do with quality but "it's not what you know but who you know!"
You are basically right, Publications are not going to publish the greatest quality picture, usually the picture has some sort of newsworthy quality. Doesn't mean it is of the highest quality.
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18 Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 2585 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 18): You are basically right, Publications are not going to publish the greatest quality picture, usually the picture has some sort of newsworthy quality. Doesn't mean it is of the highest quality.
Unfortunately you seem unable to differentiate between technical quality and motivational quality. Forget megapixels and ISO for a second and look at the image.
I'm all for technical quality and noiseless images, but I'm more about motive. There was a stunning shot, a closeup of the new MAS 777 special livery, that was rejected for motive and subsequently added. It became a very popular picture. Why was it rejected in the first place? It's these types of pics I would like to see a.net open itself to, as it would boost sales and visits, make photogs upload more, and make the d/b more interesting to browse.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 2579 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 1): They accept images that conform to the guidelines they have to follow. Completely different.
ChrisH has it spot on. I am not denigrating the screeners, but lets lay this one to rest - the screeners accept photographs that conform to a certain set of guidelines that are laid down (or evolve) by Johan and the rest of the screening team. Whilst by some measures this policy may result in TECHNICALLY good photographs being displayed on the site (assuming the screening team have their act together and screen consistantly and accurately), it by no means results in ALL good photographs making it. You just need to open your eyes to the world of aviation photography outside of airliners.net, and which well known photographers DON'T upload here, to realise what's going on.
Quoting Ander (Reply 13): They get to see thousands and thousands of photos we will never see
Yes, indeed - we won't see, and many others won't. And that, in some cases, is the REALLY sad thing (think about it!).
Quoting 9VSPO (Reply 3): Try being a screener for a couple of weeks and see how long you want to carry on.....
I did... In fact, I tried it for the best part of three years! And one of the main reasons why I lost motivation to do the job was because I lost belief in airliners.net's policies and standards as being in the best interests of aviation photography generally.
TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54 Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 2540 times:
Quoting Skymonster (Reply 20): You just need to open your eyes to the world of aviation photography outside of airliners.net, and which well known photographers DON'T upload here, to realise what's going on.
Horses for courses. No one single solution is best for everybody - just look at the number of breakfast cereals available at the supermarket.
While some of the aviation photography superstars are doing what they enjoy on some different website(s), other photographers like 9VSPO are here enjoying themselves. Whatever floats your boat, but this topic was intended as a positive one. Could we get back on-topic?
TZ
[Edited 2005-11-26 23:34:46]
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months ago) and read 2499 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 19): Unfortunately you seem unable to differentiate between technical quality and motivational quality. Forget megapixels and ISO for a second and look at the image.
I'm all for technical quality and noiseless images, but I'm more about motive. There was a stunning shot, a closeup of the new MAS 777 special livery, that was rejected for motive and subsequently added. It became a very popular picture. Why was it rejected in the first place? It's these types of pics I would like to see a.net open itself to, as it would boost sales and visits, make photogs upload more, and make the d/b more interesting to browse.
I believe a great photo has to be that of technical quality (exposure,grain, noise etc} and motivational quality. I feel this DB is awesome to browse! Due to the fact the screeners keep the bar high.
Quoting Skymonster (Reply 20): Whilst by some measures this policy may result in TECHNICALLY good photographs being displayed
Andy,
I feel the policy includes motive as well. I understand that Johan's guidelines for what motives are acceptable and which aren't are a bone for contention but it is his site and he has that power.
25 Beechcraft: You´re so right Jeff... all those blinders, including: NOA_angle, -dark, -distance, -motiv, -quality and -centered just a few examples: Denis
26 EGOV: Chris I would really like to see some of your Artistic shots on here , why don't you post some of them on here for us to see . Cheers Dimitris
27 A340600: Yep, nice to see these, LGW seems to get a lot, makes a change and interesting for spotters like me who weren't around in those times, Sam
28 TWAMD-80: Hey Screeners, nice job with the queue. I happened to check my photostats this afternoon and I was overly pleased to see the Q sitting at 6971 photos.
29 JumboJim747: Good work screeners i have also noticed the Q dropping . Must have been due to my computer crashing and me not being able to upload just joking . Anyw
30 9VSPO: Remember also that a lot of photographers in magazines write their own 2/3 page articles too.
31 N178UA: Great work, great thread, we should now have a screener of the year 2005 award goes to .......??? (i think a few knows the winner!)
32 NIKV69: I will give it to the screener that accepts my photos!
33 Granite: Hi all Some nice words and not so nice words for the screeners. Anyway this screener will be dropping out of the forums for good at the start of Decem
34 Psych: Gary - I'm very sorry to read this. As you know, I think your contributions to the Forum are very much valued. I think it will be a great shame if we
35 JumboJim747: I agree with Paul on this . Its sad to read your comment Gary as i know from countless times that you offered me your help . Your Value to this forum
36 TZ: The relentless abuse and bickering eventually takes its toll unfortunately. I have semi-retired from this forum and considering full retirement. TZ
37 NIKV69: I know how you feel but hope you reconsider. For every person here that feels the need to post negative content and bitch that their work gets shot d
38 9VSPO: NOOOOOOOOOOO! You can't! You guys ARE the forum!
39 JumboJim747: Its sad to hear that Tamsin you also are one of the helpful screeners that is appreciated in this forum . Its very unfortunate for us all that so many
40 Andy777: This is a disappointing development, but I probably don't blame you as I am sure that you can all do without the hassle you all get at times. I along
41 9VSPO: Screeners! You should be showing your worth! Instead of saying "oh I want to leave" you should be standing your ground and taking control of this foru
42 JeffM: That is what moderators do. Screeners look at pictures. I'm sure you wouldn't want the mods to screen your photos, why have the screeners run the for
44 StealthZ: It is disapointing that a thread created to pat the screeners on the back has been turned to the point that 2 senior and in most ways 2 of the most he
46 Dehowie: Like Chris said. As the screeners spend less and less time here the gulf becomes bigger. Rejections get less explanation and people who upload become
47 Kereru: Hey now that would be a novel idea wouldn't it? Why not let the Head Screeners have more input to the running of the photography forum? Any objection
48 Dehowie: Nice idea but isnt that already happening? With many threads closed down by Tamsin a head screener i would have figured it was already happening. Darr
49 Paulc: Dehowie, agree 100% with your comments - if screeners like Gary & Tamsin feel they are no longer able to take an active part in this forum then the fo
50 INNflight: That's why he has some great photographers (and screeners) in his team to help him with setting and maintaining guidelines. As you may also have noti
51 Mygind66: You can be very good having opinions about books, pictures etc without written or painted any! ... and I'm not a defender of Johan at all.. We, the c
52 Rotate: I totally understand, that screeners are more and more pissed to help here. The whole Forum came down dramatically in terms of quality. I do spend als
53 Speedbird128: Hi guys and gals of the screening team... I can sympathise with you on your decisions to withdraw from participation in this forum. By being a member
54 Ryangooner: Interesting to see ChrisH get bashed when he stated 2 complete true facts.. Point 1 and point 2 here are fact, back to the topic - well done screener
55 TZ: I do not wish to descend back into bickering, but ChrisH's statement was not an irrefutable "fact". "Your best images" and "images that conform to gu
56 Avro85: Screeners are doing a great job despite all the critics they get. Congratualtions It's always easy to blame them if your shot is not accepted but with
57 Granite: Yes, demotivation really creeps up on you. This affects the photographers waiting for their stuff to be screened. We have a dedicated team of screener
58 Maiznblu_757: You guys are doing a great job despite all this garbage that seems to have gotten progressively worse the past several months. I know when I was scree
59 9VSPO: That is correct but I am not very articulate when it comes to putting my point across. People will always moan and complain as sure as day follows ni
60 INNflight: Not always, but I do agree with you here Robin. All new uploaders / wannabe-uploaders who seek for advice here will realize the loss of members such
62 Sulman: I suspect things aren't getting worse, rather what you're seeing is more contributors, and so a greater relative number of aggressive complainers. To
63 Linco22: Hi Gary, I have only been on a.net for a few months now. I know i'm no pro and this is a hobby of mine i very much enjoy it, and a.net for me isnt th
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
to all these guys that do the work and make this site what it is!
From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
