Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Picture Opinions / Help Required  
User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

All,

I've just had this picture rejected by the screeners [big deal, I know] however there was no reason given in the e-mail! Nothing at all, just the standard footer stuff. I suspect somebody hasn't ticked a box by mistake or whatever.

However this is a picture that made it to rejection by Johan last time, the reason given then was the standard low-quality warning which I interpreted to mean it was too soft. So I've sharpened it up to a similar standard to some of my other ones that made it in in the last couple of days.

Can anyone help me with what I need to do to get this one in? [Or perhaps the screener who rejected it can 'tick the box' for me?]

http://www.taperell.demon.co.uk/G-EUPO_1_2.jpg

Thanks,


J


Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

Other than the lack of sunshine, I don't know.
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

Likewise, I hadn't realised that airliners.net had become a 'sunshine only' site  Acting devilish

We don't get much of it in the UK after all....



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Jason

Picture looks OK to me.

Did you get a shot of G-EUOC, my flight back to ABZ.

Regards
Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

Sorry, I cleared off early evening before 'er indoors divorced me!

As far as the picture goes I'm not sure what to do. I could cosmetically tweak it and resubmit so my conscience is clear about resubmitting the same picture twice. This seems like the wrong thing to do since I'm effectively trying to get a 'good screener' with [effectively] the same picture.

I'd like to find out what's wrong and submit the *right* one so I can make sure any future ones I submit are the same.

If you see what I mean.  Confused


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Sorry, I cross posted the previous reply.

Ahhh! OK, that's fine by me. I had suspected that this was the reason and I'm happier now that I also know that this is the quality level to aim for.

I'm also happy to check the db prior to posting and I see entirely the reasons for rejecting 'common photos'.

Thanks for the explanation.


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Also,

The reverse is also true. If a similar picture is not on the database, or better yet if there is no picture at all of that particular plane, the criterea for acceptance should also be just a little bit less demanding (those are our instructions).

S2


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

Johan added a new criteria for rejections, called "common photos". I was the one who rejected your pic, and we realized that the reason wasn't showing up properly. Johan has fixed the problem now.

The idea behind the Common criterea is that we already have a large number of shots of certain planes, at the same place, doing the same thing, and of the same or better quality. So for planes already on the database, unless it is of better quality than a similar pic, or taken at a different location, or shows an aspect of the plane so far not pictured, it will be rejected as "common".

To take your example, these pictures of the same plane were also taken from the same location.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Gary Watt



Your picture, while of very good technical quality does not represent an improvement of what the database already has. If your picture had been taken in Vienna or someplace else, where we do not have similar pics, that would be another story. Similarly, if your picture had been nicely sunlit instead of in shadow, it would have been accepted, as the ones already there are not quite perfect.

I know, it makes life a little more difficult for everyone to scan the database for each shot. It's also tough on us as well, as we have to check for each shot we screen. But the result will be a more nicely rounded database, and hopefully, it will push people (me included) to try to find imaginative ways to make slightly more unusual but aesthetically pleasing pictures.

S2


User currently offlineGeorge From Netherlands, joined Apr 2000, 115 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

But, how do you (the screeners) know it is in the database? Do you have a look for every single picture?

Kind Regards, George Polfliet.


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

Yes.

Just kidding.

We do a search based of the aircraft's registration. If we find a similar picture, we open it up and compare the two, side by side. If the new picture is an improvement of what's already there, or otherwise offers something new (like a modified c/s), it can go in.

Yes, it's a lot of work. But we like planes  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

S2


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

The idea behind the Common criterea is that we already have a large number of shots of certain planes, at the same place, doing the same thing, and of the same or better quality. So for planes already on the database, unless it is of better quality than a similar pic, or taken at a different location, or shows an aspect of the plane so far not pictured, it will be rejected as "common".

IMHO this new rejection reason is a very significant change to the acceptance/rejection criteria for airliners.net. For the first time pictures are going to be rejected not on the basis of quality (or lack of), but on the basis of the subject matter. I think we all need to fundamentally think about what we're uploading from this point onwards if we are not to fall foul of this new rejection reason.

To clarify, if an almost identical other than rego picture of [say] a Qantas DHC-8s is uploaded - same location, same view, etc, just different rego - will the new rejection criteria apply, or because two otherwise identical picture have different regos, will the "common" criteria not apply?

Andy
Andy


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

"To clarify, if an almost identical other than rego picture of [say] a Qantas DHC-8s is uploaded - same location, same view, etc, just different rego - will the new rejection criteria apply, or because two otherwise identical picture have different regos, will the "common" criteria not apply? "

As we are looking for duplicates using a search based on the registration, I'd say no. In addition, A near-perfect shot of a certain Quantas like this one

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Joe Corrigan


might be fine if you are just looking for an approach picture of a Quantas Dash 8, but what if someone is looking for a picture of the particular Dash 8 that he rode on with Gramma last week?

S2


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

or better yet if there is no picture at all of that particular plane, the criterea for acceptance should also be just a little bit less demanding (those are our instructions).

Its a shame these instructions are not being followed then judging by the pathetic excuse used to reject my shot of Go Fly's latest 737. I suggest that screener should check my exsisting shots taken at the same location which Johan happily accepts.

Paul


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

Ahem, well, that was me. I accepted the first one, but rejected the second because 1) it was dark, and 2) it was partially obscured (wheels). Johan chewed me out for that. Johan repremanded me for that one (to be fair, it was before we had communicated over these new rules). Try resubmitting. Sorry about that - it can happen when the rules get changed some.

S2


User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Screener2 There's no U in Qantas!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

LGW


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Well there SHOULD be!  Big grin

S2


User currently offlineA380-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1693 times:


...it can happen when the rules get changed some...

Yes...and it can also happen when screeners exceed their remit and try too hard to think like Johan!

I was led to believe, as I'm sure were many others, that screeners were there to reject obviously bad shots...on a quality basis alone!

Now it seems screeners delete very borderline shots, critique aesthetic aspects of shots...and reject on that totally subjective basis.

What business does a screener have telling anyone to "crop tighter"...or to exclude certain elements ("I have no interest in that bunker"...for goodness sake!).

Before this gets out of hand I think it only right that the pre-screeners guidelines/instructions are published for all to digest and understand...only then can we all be sure whether or not they are exceeding their remit should any one of us get a rejection.

We just want to know where the goalposts are guys!  Wink/being sarcastic

Regards,
Dean Barnes


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Before this gets out of hand I think it only right that the pre-screeners guidelines/instructions are published for all to digest and understand...only then can we all be sure whether or not they are exceeding their remit should any one of us get a rejection.

Dean,

Well said we need something in writing that tells us what the Screeners can and cant do. At least then were know what there looking for and what their responsibilities are.

I have know problem with the "Boss" rejecting one of my shots on any grounds but a Screener playing "Boss" doesnt work for me.

Regards

Paul


User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

I can't claim to have much experience with all this but it does seem to me, from my own experiences and those of others on this forum, that the goalposts can be a bit 'mobile' sometimes  Big grin

I have a good example [today] of a picture which was rejected by Johan for being a touch soft. I resubmitted it with a slight extra bit of USM and it was rejected at screening for 'These photos were very dark in the tone....'. Well, the tones are identical to the first one that made it through!

I think I'll just drop this one in the recycle bin! Big grin

J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

It might simply be that the softness was the first thing he saw, and once that thing was fixed, another became more visible?

Charles


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

I think our friends from Sydney will not like this new rule. And to be honest with myself I'm tired of so many Qantas 747's and people uploading tons and tons of photos just to be on the top of the list.

Luis


User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

Yes but the point is that it passed screening first time with all it's faults and failed the second time with [possibly] one less!

J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineScreener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1650 times:

Anyone who thinks they can do a better job, please put up their hands! (sea of hands appears)

Look guys, it's a lot more diffcicult to screen photos than everyone seems to think. And as human cloning is currently outlawed, legally we have to be 8 *different* people.

Now, there are some photos that are terrible, and they get rejected. there are some that are great, and they get accepted. The rest, and that's a *lot* of photos fall somewhere in between. The screeners have been asked by Johan to tighten up our standards for what we let through, because in the recent blitz he did on the queue, about 50% of what the screeners let through was subsequently rejected. Meaning that we were erring too much on the side of caution.

This new rejection reason is to help us to deal with those cases that are in the borderline area. So there's nothing to stop you all photographing Swissair A319/20/21s at ZRH, or American MD80s at ORD, or BA 757s at LHR, *but* those pictures are going to have to be good to get in. It's something we have been kicking around for a while - there's nothing wrong with having numerous shots of a particular aircraft in the database, but if there are already a half-dozen good final approach shots of VH-OJF at Sydney (for example,and don't pull me up on this, cause I haven't checked to see if there are!), then all we're saying is if you submit a mediocre one, it won't get in. Because there are already better shots of the same a/c in the same place, so what's the value to the database of adding them?

S4


User currently offlineScreener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1650 times:

Kingwide:

as I just mentioned in the previous post, we are all human, and it should not come as a shock to you (but it will probably cause a storm of protest if I say it) that what one screener lets through, another might reject. That's because a large number of pictures are teetering on the edge of "just good enough to let through" and "just bad enough to reject". I would say though, that a large percentage of these pictures that are passed on will then be rejected by Johan, and while I might err on the side of caution on a particular pic, one of the other screeners might decide it's not good enough and reject it, for quite valid reasons.

As regards rejection reasons, sometimes there is one glaring thing wrong with a picture that distracts from other problems - e.g. blurry, or poor scan quality. It's only once this first problem is corrected that a seconf or third problem becomes significant. So sometimes you might get scans rejected with just a single reason, sometimes with two or more reasons. We do try to cover multiple faults by rejecting with multiple reasons wherever we can.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

This is a good thing. Maybe it will stop the complaints that there are too many nearly identical shots  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Others will complain that their shots are not being accepted of course  Innocent



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 25, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1639 times:

Like I said, it was pretty borderline anyway. I think it's heading for the recycle bin.  Smokin cool


Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
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...
Quality Rejection - Help Required posted Thu Jul 27 2006 22:34:20 by FUAirliner
Photo Usage (size) Help Required posted Tue Jul 18 2006 21:43:11 by LGW
A Little Help Required With Centering posted Wed Jun 14 2006 09:33:26 by JumboJim747
Some Help Required posted Thu Apr 20 2006 01:45:10 by Ryan h
Help Required On A Rejection posted Thu Mar 30 2006 14:15:56 by JumboJim747
Dirty Help Required! posted Mon Mar 6 2006 17:12:16 by Scbriml
Even More Help Required! posted Thu Jan 5 2006 21:05:31 by Eadster
A Bit Of Help Required... posted Fri Dec 16 2005 23:44:07 by A3204eva
Roll Film Scanning, UK Help Required posted Sat Nov 5 2005 11:23:51 by Dendrobatid
A Little Help Required With A Lens... posted Thu Oct 13 2005 14:00:26 by Jkw777