WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3316 times:
Maybe the screeners have a life. It is Valentines Day, they might be spending time with significant others/family etc. I just had 2 accepted an hour ago. Give it time, plenty of photos will come through.
-Matt
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1620 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3294 times:
Quoting Bjcc (Reply 2): 87 accepted, is very very low. The queue moved down, in that plenty of pictures have been screened. But only 87 accepted.
This doesn't just affect photographers, it affects viewers, too. When I browse Airliners.net I usually just hit the "Top of the Last 24 Hours" link and keep going for a half-hour or so. I usually run out of time long before I run out of material to peruse. Today was different - at present there are only 10 pages of photos (150 shots) to look at and it was a lot less than that when I took an "A.net" break earlier this afternoon.
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3129 times:
I see a few jaggies around the Lufthansa titles and along the front edge of the horizontal stabilizer. Overall it appears a bit soft to my eyes, however, so I'm not sure if it can be brought up to standards.
This is a common problem I have with my photos, and I suspect it may be a product of a low megapixel count.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5447 posts, RR: 49 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 4): I thought we were roasting the screeners last week...
I actually thought we were having mature and meaningful conversations with them!
87 photos in 24 hrs, not great but as others said even screeners have lives, maybe events conspired to cause those "other lives" to all happen at the same time!
If that rate continued for more than a few days I would be agreeing with you that something needed doing.
(As of this writing photo search page shows 328 photos added in last 24 hrs, better but still not really enough)
C
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3113 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 10): I actually thought we were having mature and meaningful conversations with them!
I agree. that statement was with tongue planted in cheek, but with the undermeaning suggesting that we don't take this day as an opportunity to have another mature and meaningful conversation with them. Not yet.
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 1): Maybe the screeners have a life. It is Valentines Day, they might be spending time with significant others/family etc
BINGO!
Quoting Bjcc (Thread starter): 3. The required standard is now becoming out of reach of many.
Nah
Quoting United737522 (Reply 5): Edited due to post being replied to being deleted.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2975 posts, RR: 60 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3067 times:
I had spotted this too, but I am very keen not to get into a negative mind set about these things. It was my impression that the reason was not that only a small proportion of photos were being accepted - more that there was not much screening to completion going on.
Therefore I had wondered whether the reason might be that there are big discussions and debates going on within the team about some of the issues and suggestions that have been raised over the last week or so. (The idea that many were attending to their loved ones is also a nice one.)
Now that would be a positive reason for the queue to be moving slowly, don't you think?
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
Quoting Jid (Reply 15): What new standards ?
Have I missed something.
OK you must not have uploaded anything in the past 3 months... so I'll fill you in.
Shots must be absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt, beyond perfect in every way, shape, form and fashion. I'm talking razor sharp (with zero jaggies), absolutely perfectly exposed (irrespective of conditions or time of day), centered to a tolerance of +/- .00249 pixels (vertically and horizontally), the motive must be approved by THREE screeners now (it used to be TWO), and you'd better consult Jane's to make sure your info is all correct (God forbid you forget to tick a box like "Special Paint" or some other obvious error like that). Anything less is totally and completely unacceptable.
My acceptance rate went from 80% to 30% in one month - and I didn't change a thing about how I process my photos. That should tell you something. And it's not just me - it's happening to everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if even the great Sam Chui himself has sat back in his chair, scratching his head wondering why a shot of an A380 in JetBlue colors rotating out of Martha's Vineyard got rejected for "bad angle". Sheeesh.
In short - standards are way up, morale is way down. Some of us have all but stopped uploading.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 16): I wouldn't be surprised if even the great Sam Chui himself has sat back in his chair, scratching his head wondering why a shot of an A380 in JetBlue colors rotating out of Martha's Vineyard got rejected for "bad angle". Sheeesh.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 31 Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2969 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 13): the reason might be that there are big discussions and debates going on within the team about some of the issues and suggestions that have been raised over the last week or so.
If this were true, it would give grounds for hope ...
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1480 posts, RR: 18 Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2957 times:
Kind of strange ... , I really do care about the whole discussion re Acceptance ratio and so on, but I dont give a sh... about when or how fast my/all pictures are screened.
I find it totally justified that from time to time screening is slower. The reasons for that have been mentioned allready a thousand times the recent years !!!!
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 962 posts, RR: 35 Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2928 times:
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 16): OK you must not have uploaded anything in the past 3 months... so I'll fill you in.
Well I have been uploading at my normal rate, my acceptance level is 92% which is on average where it stays. Sometimes it will dip into the 80's when I have been a bit lazy with my processing ... So I have not noticed any difference.
Screening rates will change as screeners live there lives.... So again no change.
Just my observations from sunny Mobberley-on-Sea.
Jid
[Edited 2006-02-15 12:00:02]
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 31 Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
Quoting Jid (Reply 23): my acceptance level is 92%
I am (genuinely) happy for you. Nothing has changed in my photography or processing methods, but my acceptance rate has gone from 70% to 42% this year so far.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
25 Flyfisher1976: I understand that screeners are not paid, but regardless, they have a job to do. So are you implying that when things get busy in their personal life
26 Linco22: Viv thats only a reflection on this sites demands not your photography. My acceptance ratio has never gone above 50% and dont really see it going abo
27 Jid: It tends to work in cycles, there will be periods where there appears to be not a great deal of screening being done, for what ever reason. Then ther
28 Flyfisher1976: Or 87 out of 10,000...this could be normal too. Incidentally, I had 5 photos that were "lost" shortly after they were accepted. I was told to re-s
29 Jid: I had only one .. It took me a few days to upload it again, sent the e-mail off to the screeners and it accepted and added tot he DB in a few hours.
30 AndrewUber: Sounds like you are quite a lucky guy. Here in Indiana the Powerball is currently at $300 million, you might wanna get a ticket! Drew
31 Jid: Drew ... get me a ticket , I am over in LA on Friday for a week, is that near Indiana ?
32 Bjcc: I think some of you are still missing the point. I have not suggested, apart from being a possibility, that the screeners are not screening. What I am
33 TimdeGroot: Let's keep this constructive guys, and don't start falling into the old pattern again. There has been a lot of screening the past 24 hours, but most o
34 Jran225: LMFAO!!!! Thank you Drew, you just made my day! Regards, -Omar S.
35 Flyfisher1976: Will do...Thanks! What pattern is that? Are you referring to the number of people who are aggravated by many aspects of this websites direction when
36 INNflight: Ever thought that having less photos accepted is better for every individual photographer? Your own work gets more exposure. For free. F.
37 Flyfisher1976: I'm sorry but either this is a overly abstract theory, or I have misunderstood what you were trying to say.
38 TimdeGroot: The pattern of unconstructive forumposts. Let's just leave it at that. Tim
39 Flyfisher1976: I just think it's funny that when these issues are brought up they are deemed "unconstructive". As stated earlier, morale among many photographers is
40 TimdeGroot: Implications that we don't screen enough are hardly constructive. If you have been following the forum at all of late you know that is just what we ha
41 INNflight: When saying 'less photos accepted' I wasn't talking of my own shots, but in general. If we have 1000 photos a day added they quickly dissappear in th
42 Bjcc: Tim The idea was not to be 'unconstructive', just to find out if there is an issue with either low quality submissions or unreasonable expectations of
43 Viv: Not so. But some of the replies don't contribute much. I believe that the points raised - particularly those concerning the "Quality" rejection crite
44 Flyfisher1976: Are they? I wasn't aware of this. I don't have time to sit down and read every single line of every thread...Was this specifically mentioned elsewher
45 Viv: Posted by Tim de Groot on 1O February: my thought about the suggestions so far and the chance of them ever being implemented. 1- Revision of rejectio
46 Ghostbase: I have just started uploading in some quantity again after a break of a few months and although the screening time is perhaps longer than we have been
47 Viv: You are perhaps referring to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre?
48 Jat74l: Hey no screener bashing here! My re-uploads that were "looked at" by Psych have all been accepted! The ones I have individually hand crafted have, err
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 317 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2215 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 962 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1480 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
