Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
87 Photos Accepted In The Last 24 Hours  
User currently offlineBjcc From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 327 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5455 times:

A touch worrying...I need to go out more often perhaps, but anyway. I have just had a quick count and on 14th Feb, just 87 photos were accepted.

I don't recall how many were waiting to be screen but this suggested one of 3 worrying things.

1. Screeners are not doing a lot.

Maybe, but I don't think this is the case.

2. The standards of photos submitted were not that good.

Again maybe.

3. The required standard is now becoming out of reach of many.

Maybe the quest for perfection has has been taken a bit too far too early?


Discuss



BernieC

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5449 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



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineBjcc From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 327 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5446 times:

Wake

You missed the point.

87 accepted, is very very low. The queue moved down, in that plenty of pictures have been screened. But only 87 accepted.

It seems that over the last few days the situation been much the same.

Like I say, either the submitted pictures were unusually bad, or the standards are maybe too high too soon.

BernieC


User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5427 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.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11354 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5418 times:

I thought we were roasting the screeners last week...


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineUnited737522 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5294 times:

Edited due to post being replied to being deleted.

[Edited 2006-02-15 05:24:48]

User currently offlineTunisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1844 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5288 times:

Gee, I hope my other 3 photos don't get rejected! This is my first real go at it.

This was rejected for common + jaggy (I really don't see the jaggy):

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ections/big/20060214_DSC_0083F.jpg

[Edited 2006-02-15 05:27:23]


Someday the sun will shine down on me in some faraway place - Mahalia Jackson
User currently offlineUnited737522 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5269 times:

Jaggy? Are you kidding me? I see no jaggies...

User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1284 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5262 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.
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5253 times:

Quoting United737522 (Reply 7):
Jaggy? Are you kidding me? I see no jaggies...

Jagged logos (front and tail), jagged wings (leadig edge), jagged tail plane (Horizontal stabiliser), but all very easily fixed. Top shot regardless.

Quoting Bjcc (Thread starter):
The required standard is now becoming out of reach of many.

Its getting that way for me now, but I'll go down with a fight.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5697 posts, RR: 44
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5253 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11354 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5246 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5226 times:

Quoting Bjcc (Thread starter):
A touch worrying...

LOL.....about how many pictures get accepted?

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!  Wink

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.

yeah, seems someone got upset..... imagine that.  Smile


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

Paul


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5144 times:

I got three more of the dreaded 'Quality' rejections yesterday (out of three shots screened).

I am really struggling to meet the new standards.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 14):
I am really struggling to meet the new standards

What new standards ?
Have I missed something.



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5127 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.  scratchchin 

In short - standards are way up, morale is way down. Some of us have all but stopped uploading.  down 

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 16):
(it used to be TWO),

It has always been 3 screeners.



-
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5116 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.

 checkmark 
 laughing 
LOL (actually, not figuratively)


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5102 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
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5090 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.  scratchchin   scratchchin   scratchchin 

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 !!!!  banghead  banghead  banghead 

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 19):
If this were true, it would give grounds for hope ...

Dont be giving up on us Viv.

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 21):
Dont be giving up on us Viv.

Not yet, but I am pretty discouraged.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5061 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
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5051 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images Jran225 : LMFAO!!!! Thank you Drew, you just made my day! Regards, -Omar S.
35 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
Nearly 2000 Photos Added In The Last 24 Hours! posted Sat Aug 30 2003 15:44:28 by EGGD
Top Of Last 24 Hours posted Wed Jul 26 2006 10:03:13 by Viv
My First Shot Accepted In The DB posted Mon Feb 23 2004 04:46:21 by AndrewAir
Hows Fuji Provia 100F In The Early Morning Hours? posted Tue Oct 8 2002 05:29:39 by Alaskaairlines
Updating Photos Still In The Queue posted Mon Aug 19 2002 18:20:39 by Airplanenut
Great Batch Of New Photos In Last 24-48 Hrs! posted Mon Jun 7 2004 04:46:23 by Andrewmorrell
Portable Storage For Digital Photos In The Field posted Tue Mar 14 2006 09:28:12 by LGW
Did Anyone Get The 777-200LR In COS Last Week? posted Tue Apr 26 2005 21:22:22 by Bronko
Rare Aircraft Photos In The DB posted Fri Dec 31 2004 12:55:43 by Capricorn1
Corrections To Photos In The Queue posted Sat Jul 17 2004 17:50:23 by Skymonster