Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Give Up  
User currently offlineBrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 312 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

OK, I've had enough now. I doesn't seem to matter what I do, I get rejection after rejection. It seems that all airliners.net wants is a side on, boring visual effect picture of an aeroplane. They wouldn't recognise a creatively angled, lit according to the time of day, interesting picture if it bit them on the arse. I get a rejection with recommendations on how to correct the problem, I reupload and it still gets rejected, often with a new reason for rejection which I frankly cannot see. It seems that photographers are at the mercy of the screeners who don't seem to work to a standard. I spend many hours adjusting my pics. I've been taking pictures for 35 + years and have won several prizes in the past.
Just in case you think this is an unwarranted rant, here's a few examples of reasons for rejection......

Green cast in the picture. This is a pic that you can find on myaviation.net Search using photographer "Brian Whitelegg" It's of a BA 747 taxiing out at LHR. Somehow I managed to upload the same picture twice ! The green "cast" is hardly surprising when you consider that the aircraft is smack alongside a green grassed area alongside the taxiway. The green is only visible in reflection on the white area of the fuselage. It's a bloody REFLECTION for christs' sake, it exists in nature, its not a colour cast ! This was the ONLY reason for rejection. I personally feel in retrospect that the pic is rather a dull one due to the poor light at the time but that aspect was not commented on.

Horizon not level.
Several rejected for this reason. Not unreasonable for some of them. I have a tendency to angle the camera down to the left sometimes when shooting quickly but I disagreed with two rejected for this reason. On printing them and also zooming in on editing software I found them to be out of alignment by approximately 6 PIXELS !! I defy anyone to visually identify such a measurement.

Aircraft too far away.
By this I assume that the screener doesn't like the amount of surrounding scenery kept in the picture which adds to the ambience of the picture. So I crop the picture ( hovertaxiing helicopter ) and resubmit. Now it's rejected for the "not level" reason !! This was the 6 pixel one.

One pic was rejected because I typed the registration with an underscore rather than a dash ! Picky or what ?

I'm sorry, no doubt many of you will shrug me off as just another "whinger" but the difference in the abilities, requirements and views of the screeners for airliners.net means I won't be wasting any more valuable time uploading pictures that I have spent a great deal of time on. I'll stick to myaviation.net, always assuming of course that this post doesn't get me banned from that site.

For those that get pictures accepted...bloody well done ! I know how much hard work you put into your pictures.....but I also know how lucky you were to get past a screener.

PS. Just in case you all think that I feel that ALL my pics should have been accepted I have to say that I agree with probably 65% - 70% of the rejections.

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3017 times:

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
It seems that all airliners.net wants is a side on, boring visual effect picture of an aeroplane.

I understand your frustration, rejections can be a pain, but we both know this statement has nothing true in it. Check the latest Top of the Day photos in the section on the frontpage...

F.



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
It seems that all airliners.net wants is a side on, boring visual effect picture of an aeroplane. They wouldn't recognise a creatively angled, lit according to the time of day, interesting picture if it bit them on the arse.

Flat out wrong! I don't even want to waste time going through the database to pull all the great shots that get added every day.

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
I spend many hours adjusting my pics.

Funny, I spend about 15 minutes doing 5 pictures or so.

The longer you edit, usually the less chance you have of an acceptance. Everyone has felt the same way you do, it is part of being a member of the site. If you keep plugging along I am sure you will finally get the hang of it. Here is one tip: Don't take it personal. Just try to learn. It is way more fun, and you don't get upset and want to leave. I look at A.net as a game. Can I get a photo past the screeners? What do I need to do in order to win the game. Sometimes I lose, and sometimes I feel I lost unfairly, but I still have fun playing. It took me about 9 months of uploading to finally learn this and I have become a better photog, and have had a lot of fun along the way. I wish you the best of luck figuring things out.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2965 times:


MyAviation.net:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photographer © Brian Whitelegg



Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
This was the ONLY reason for rejection

I agree screeners should mention all possible reasons...but hey...sh*t happens

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
but that aspect was not commented on.

Here are other flaws which I could spot...
1) Bad Soft,
2) Bad Angle,
3) bad Motive

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
I defy anyone to visually identify such a measurement.

Then how did the screener find out the 6px inclination?

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
Picky or what

Yes!! If the screeners start to correct our mistakes, every photographer would not be bothered to spend time in giving correct info. Its our picture and we need to make sure that every info is perfect before submitting...

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
I also know how lucky you were

Yup!!! Did you know that even screeners get their photos rejected?

--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
I know how much hard work you put into your pictures.....but I also know how lucky you were to get past a screener.

after that comment, please allow me to be honest with you. The only pictures I have seen on airliners.net with quality consistant to yours were added before 1999.

Your photos are too big, they are grainy and they are taken from too far a distance. Most of your pictures seem to come from seat 70k. While 70k may seem to be a great seat, you are apparently using the highest zoom factor your camera will allow adding to camera shake and blurriness.

You need to get closer, you need to have better light, you need a better photo processor or you need a new camera.

It is not impossible to get photos accepted with little to no photography experience, and apparently you have plenty (over 35 years???????). You should know better.



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2937 times:

Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 2):
Flat out wrong! I don't even want to waste time going through the database to pull all the great shots that get added every day.

 checkmark 

Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 2):
The longer you edit, usually the less chance you have of an acceptance. Everyone has felt the same way you do, it is part of being a member of the site. If you keep plugging along I am sure you will finally get the hang of it. Here is one tip: Don't take it personal. Just try to learn.

Exactly, I just got couple accepted and editing them went quickly and trust me I am no PS pro and I am still learning how to use the program. If you have good lighting and exposure your ahead of the game.

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
I'm sorry, no doubt many of you will shrug me off as just another "whinger" but the difference in the abilities, requirements and views of the screeners for airliners.net means I won't be wasting any more valuable time uploading pictures that I have spent a great deal of time on. I'll stick to myaviation.net, always assuming of course that this post doesn't get me banned from that site.

Relax  cool 

Doubt you will get banned, wouldn't you be better served posting your rejections here and asking advice,? Trust me it doesn't work right away but you will improve. Don't forget trial and error, experiment a bit. After some time you will improve.

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
For those that get pictures accepted...bloody well done ! I know how much hard work you put into your pictures.....but I also know how lucky you were to get past a screener.

 confused  Take a deep breath, and don't start buying into the crap thas has been posted here about how things are screened and blah blah blah.

Look, the process here is simple and it works. There is no luck involved. Stop with the negativity and get out there and try. You will surprise yourself.


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
It seems that all airliners.net wants is a side on, boring visual effect picture of an aeroplane.

Replace "airliners.net" with "mikephotos", "visual effect" with "perfect", "picture" with "slide" and "aeroplane" with "airplane" and your statement is 100% accurate  Smile

Mike


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

BrianW999,

I understand your frustration I really do. I've had so many rejections the past few days that I've decided to have a break from uploading. I just can't produce the quality that the acceptance standards require. But whether we agree or not, to get shots accepted here we need to follow what anet are after.

Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 2):
Funny, I spend about 15 minutes doing 5 pictures or so.

Same here. Any longer on a pic and you can be pretty sure that its a no go for here.

If you feel you need help with a pic, let one of us know. Sometimes having other folks edit your pics helps a great deal. For instance INNFlight!! He's helped me contstantly and it all helps.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 5):
get out there and try. You will surprise yourself.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quit whining.

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
I spend many hours adjusting my pics. I've been taking pictures for 35 + years and have won several prizes in the past.

That's your problem. It shouldnt take more then afew minutes.
Also, what you have done in the past is of no concern here. There are different rules here.

Congratulations on your past prizes,....good luck over at Brand X.


User currently offlineSenorcarnival From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting BrianW999 (Thread starter):
Somehow I managed to upload the same picture twice ! The green "cast" is hardly surprising when you consider that the aircraft is smack alongside a green grassed area alongside the taxiway. The green is only visible in reflection on the white area of the fuselage. It's a bloody REFLECTION for christs' sake, it exists in nature, its not a colour cast ! This was the ONLY reason for rejection. I personally feel in retrospect that the pic is rather a dull one due to the poor light at the time but that aspect was not commented on.

If you knew that: a) it was a dull day, b) the grass would produce such an effect on your shot, why did you even bother with it? Give me a break. Anyone with minimal photography knowledge would know better.


User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting Senorcarnival (Reply 9):
Anyone with minimal photography knowledge would know better

That I disagree... But you learn from experience. Maybe Brian is experiencing this issue for the first time. I hope he now realizes the effect of bad light photography.

--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

Well, if that the photo in question, it's bloomin' awful! It's hideously over-exposed and poorly framed. Taken in poor light to boot. And man, it's a BA B747. It's got to be good to be appreciated.

User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 11):
Taken in poor light to boot.

Along with Kodak DX 6490....( I guess that maybe the reason for his recent rejections.)

Photos taken with SLR-like and P/S cameras has to be in real good light and up-close to get a close A.net quality most of the times.

--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlinePsyops From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

I'm going to have to agree with Jeff on this one. Quit whining.

Bottom line is that if you don't want to put the effort in to become a better photographer to get your work on here, then why complain?

From what I can see, to be honest with you, is that your work is nowhere near the level of quality and creativity that currently makes it on this site.

As someone who works at making (not taking) better photos I appreciate the increasing level of difficulty in getting something on here.

Pete


User currently offlineRunway27right From United States of America, joined May 2004, 131 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2765 times:

You are correct and NOT whining! I will not submit my photos here again. Even though my complaints were vindicated by 'long time' screeners. I will not submit to myaviation either.
I instead submit to JP.net. My post will most likely be deleted because the truth does hurt.
I've actually been contacted more on JP by magazines & others wanting to use my photos than I have on A.net (I have more photos on A.net too)

I've been hearing that JP screeners are getting more like A.net screeners by several photogs. I haven't seen that myself.

But hey, the A.net hierarchy do not care what we think.



Keeping PHL Spotting Alive Daily!
User currently offlineSenorcarnival From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting VasanthD (Reply 10):
That I disagree... But you learn from experience. Maybe Brian is experiencing this issue for the first time. I hope he now realizes the effect of bad light photography.

If he's been photographing for 35+ years, I find it hard to believe this greenish issue has never come up. Indeed, one would hope he learned from the experience.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
I will not submit my photos here again

Oh God not this again  banghead 

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
Even though my complaints were vindicated by 'long time' screeners.

Which means nothing. Just because someone(whether ex anet screener or not) is willing to be your crying towel and agree with your foolishness doesn't give credability to your argument.

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
I instead submit to JP.net. My post will most likely be deleted because the truth does hurt.

Great, as is your right. I hope your post doesn't get deleted. JP is a great site. Just because this site has high standards doesn't make one better for exposure than the other.

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
I've actually been contacted more on JP by magazines & others wanting to use my photos than I have on A.net (I have more photos on A.net too)

Just because an entity spots your photo on JP and not anet or vice versca doesn't mean anything as far as quality of the two.

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
I've been hearing that JP screeners are getting more like A.net screeners by several photogs. I haven't seen that myself.

OMG, then what will the excuse be?

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
But hey, the A.net hierarchy do not care what we think.

I think they do actually, if you what you think actually made some sense. Give them a try.


User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

The other site must be crazy to accept these photos...with todays better photographic equipment.

I betcha the above photo would not get accepted by the other site...

--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Meh, I have been taking more time with my shots recently and I'm 4 for 4. I don't know if the standards have gone up but whatever. That shot was bad and was rejected rightfully so. There have been some boarder line shots recently that I have disagreed with but this isn't one.

User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Brian -

Have a look at the recent photos added to the database. You cannot honestly say that the BA 744 shot is along the same quality. It's not even remotely close. On top of what Vas mentioned, the exposure is blown way out as well.

I hate to shatter your ego, but I doubt even "brand x" would accept that photo.

The difference between you and the rest of us is that while we ALL get rejections (Yes, ALL OF US DO), we try to LEARN from those rejections, and apply those lessons to future uploads. I would suggest you try that approach instead of complaining about rejection after rejection. Complain about it once - fine - then make changes to your processing to avoid that same rejection in the future. Eventually you'll run out of reasons and start getting some shots accepted. That's how I did it.

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
But hey, the A.net hierarchy do not care what we think.

After a comment like that, I think the "A.net hierarchy" won't care what YOU think any more.

Thread lockage is imminent at this point...

Drew  wave 



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2722 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 19):
The difference between you and the rest of us is that while we ALL get rejections (Yes, ALL OF US DO), we try to LEARN from those rejections, and apply those lessons to future uploads. I would suggest you try that approach instead of complaining about rejection after rejection. Complain about it once - fine - then make changes to your processing to avoid that same rejection in the future. Eventually you'll run out of reasons and start getting some shots accepted. That's how I did it.

I think this about sums it up. I think enough has been said about this. It's sad to see people leave but frankly that BA 747 is well below standard as was correctly rejected.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Quoting Runway27right (Reply 14):
You are correct and NOT whining! I will not submit my photos here again. Even though my complaints were vindicated by 'long time' screeners. I will not submit to myaviation either.

LOL....yet you feel a need to throw your 2 cents in here though?

Brand X is just that, nothing more.


User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2679 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 21):
Brand X is just that, nothing more.

I'd say Brand X has quite a following... and their quality standards are similar to those at photobucket.com and image-shack. Those might be appropriate sites to upload these shots to as well!  bigthumbsup 

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5688 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 19):
I hate to shatter your ego, but I doubt even "brand x" would accept that photo.



Quoting VasanthD (Reply 17):
The other site must be crazy to accept these photos...with todays better photographic equipment.

I betcha the above photo would not get accepted by the other site...

You know what's funny about all this Brand X stuff, the thread starter never said he would upload there, he said he would continue to upload to MyAviation.net!!

Is there a "Brand X" Paranoia creeping in here?



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 21):
Brand X is just that, nothing more.

and I am sure that it what you thought it was back when you threw your fit here and uploaded there only.


25 Post contains images JeffM : That situation never happened. Don't know why you are making that up. Probably trying to make some lame point, but failing once again. There was a ti
26 Post contains images Runway27right : LOL and the biggest laugh I've had. How many times do 'some' of you have to prove how anal you are. NIKV69, Thank You for again proving my point - A.n
27 Post contains links VasanthD : So you mean to say the other site never rejects photos of this quality? And if you want a better feature than the other site, just upload to www.myav
28 Post contains images AndrewUber : Perhaps you need your eyes checked or maybe you need to upgrade to a VGA monitor, because that photo is not even "fair quality". Enough already.  
29 SkyWestFan : Of course I'd never say it about my photos but I have the tendency to get really excited about a "great" shot of mine right after capturing it; and in
30 Post contains images Edoca : I'm surprised to see so much misplaced superiority feeling on this forum occasionally. I fully agree with most of the posts here, let that be clear. T
31 DLKAPA : Gee...Thanks...
32 Eksath : Sorry,buddy! To be brutally honest that picture of G-CIVX is nothing special to justify the poor quality. There are 72 pictures of G-CIVX and thousan
33 JeffM : You'll see the light one day Eric, the comment was directed at the majority of photos and people there, not all. That's all the time i'll waste on th
34 NIKV69 : And we are anal how? Why is anet anal? Please back up your words. Is this written somewhere? Where do you get this from? These sites are here for pho
35 Cosec59 : I am amazed that this thread has attracted so much attention over night. I read the first few posts before bed last night and thought that the thread
36 Viv : I fully agree! A correctly-exposed shot needs very little editing, normally just levelling, cropping, resizing and sharpening. I'm sorry to say so, b
37 Wallace : It took me some time to realise that if you want your photos on this database then you have to conform to Airliners standards. The sooner you realise
38 QANTAS077 : I'm sure the great photographers from this site that upload to both appreciate your pearls of wisdom...don't be bitter n twisted, it's starting to su
39 Post contains links Beechcraft : Well, at least Johan understood: http://www.myaviation.net/
40 Willo : ...and like all things in life, anet has evolved and quality is now an issue. I'm sure when brand X gets to a certain point, it too will evolve and c
41 Post contains images INNflight : Glad at least somebody noticed that, Chris. Only a little bit it seems...
42 NIKV69 : Or as a famous man of mystery once said... "Crikey, I lost my mojo!" I disagree, truth be told so called "creative shots" are actually not as hard to
43 BrianW999 : To those of you who have given positive feedback, thank you all. It is appreciated and will most certainly NOT be ignored. I probably won't give up be
44 Wallace : Even real photographers can not agree on the merits of a photograph. For instance the Photography Monthly, Judgement section, two very experienced pho
45 MartinairYYZ : BrainW999, You are not alone....... I have given up, and stayed away from uploading to A.net since late october.... one day I may decide to come back,
46 NIKV69 : Ok, understandable. Then why this? Why do you accuse people of these things? If you are not happy with the process you may find emailing the screener
47 Willo : It actually contains lots of pictures that conform to the standard here. Yes, there are lots of "creative" and "different" shots, but there are many
48 Post contains images JeffM : As if I give a rat's a$s? I suppose you feel you fall into that category? LOL.... Whatever.."Monty"..
49 INNflight : Somehow it feels like this is not the first time I hear that... it's getting old. ...and I thought the statement above was outdated? Please, how ofte
50 AirbusfanYYZ : I feel the same way. I am proud to have almost 1,200 of my photos here on a.net and I must admit it has made me a better photographer over time. Sure
51 Sulman : On Airliners, you submit images that conform to a very formal set of guidelines. This is not necessarily the case in most other areas of photography.
52 Flyfisher1976 : I would really love to be able to see the rejections that are the subject of this whole thread...Were they removed? Been there, done that....Yes, I ca
53 SoBe : See reply #3
54 TZ : The image was correctly rejected and this discussion is not progressing in a positive direction. TZ
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...
I Give Up posted Wed Mar 8 2006 19:44:56 by BrianW999
Ok, I Give Up posted Fri Nov 4 2005 11:41:27 by Ander
Bad Info: OK, I Give Up... posted Tue Sep 27 2005 22:33:47 by SNATH
Alright...I Give Up. posted Wed Jul 6 2005 16:21:16 by Bjcc
Give Up? posted Sat Mar 19 2005 09:03:40 by Derekf
Don't Give Up! posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:00:47 by BIGDEN
Help With Rejections (im Starting To Give Up!) posted Mon Apr 19 2004 22:09:53 by LHRSIMON
I'm Willing To Give Up Spotting For Safety Of All posted Thu Sep 13 2001 02:24:59 by BA
I Give Up! posted Sat Sep 8 2001 19:33:23 by Kcle
More Rejects, Maybe I Should Give It Up? posted Fri Aug 2 2002 18:31:57 by AKE0404AR