ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1415 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3760 times:
Well if it's any encouragement I would appeal the first 2 shots; I'm not seeing any problems on my admittedly cheap monitor at least... There are some minor heat haze issues with #2 but I wouldn't say it's really posed any problem with quality; no wiggly lines as far as I can see. Perhaps some jaggies though along the front portion of the bottom of the fuselage.
The 3rd shot (airport overview) looks like it has some jaggies and overall quality issues. Did you have to enact any noise reduction? Some of the aircraft on the apron look a little "melted".
The last shot has some quality issues; it's a tad oversharpened to compensate for what looks like some heat haze problems to me...
Tin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3754 times:
I know where you are coming from, I can't get anything accepted anymore either. My acceptance is down to 52% and it appears that my shots aren't worth shite as far as this site is concerned. I'm now at the point where I am not uploading at all.
I have been looking at many shots that have made the site in recent weeks with a particular focus on LHR. I have recently purchased a new widescreen monitor with 1680x1050 resolution and this really highlights issues with photos. Some of the accepted shots have real quality, over sharpening and jagged issues. It infuriates me when I look at some of my so called quality and jagged rejections when photos of lesser quality make it in. I could offer examples, but this would be the detriment of fellow photographers and I am not prepared to do this.
I can empathise with the screeners as they must see thousands upon thousands of photographs and I for one would not want to do what these guys do. Filtering out the crap and exceptional shots is easy, but a vast majority are going to be in the do we? don't we? accept range and I seem to be falling into the latter more often than not.
I have mentioned before that monitors play a huge roll in this. My old 17" TFT was great, my more recent 19" TFT was crap and I will probably pay the price now for having a very high definition screen as what looks great on here will probably look bad on a lower quality monitor. I have yet to upload anything edited with the new screen so only time will tell. If the trend continues I'll probably call it day.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
Well the Korean one has heat haze so I can see the rejection there.
The Swiss one is a bit more harsh although I do feel that it may be slightly too sharp. I don't know but looking at it, thats my take on it. It has a slightly jaggered tail (rear of tail) but maybe an appeal on this one is an idea?
American Eagle is jaggered around the tail and the stripes.
The overview has a fair amount of grain at the top of the image.
So work on them but I think the rejections are right with some but harsh with the other.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1712 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3737 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
For what my opinion is worth, I really like Nos 1 and 3. No 1 I would consider an appeal.
No 2, the contrast looks a touch too high to me....all detail has gone from the undercarriage
There is heathaze on No 4, not severe, but nonetheless it is there, the worst bit being forward of the wing root. The angle is, as you say, way out.
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3729 times:
No we don't ask you to get thousands of dollars worth of lenses, we do ask you to become competent in Photoshop. All these shots can be fixed with better processing, although I think the airport overview is already there.
Of course if A.net makes you mad then perhaps you should find yourself another venue. I don't think a.net's worth losing any sleep over.
These are all good shots, but can be improved. The ERJ and 777 need rotation anyway.
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3680 times:
Dont be downhearted, I've had many rejection that in my eyes are perfect. But there is now point get yourself wound up about them. Your hobby is for you , not anet. Anet is just a rather nice thing on the side!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3069 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3618 times:
I do understand the sentiment behind your post - I reckon the majority of us who take this 'seriously' (i.e. don't upload rubbish) don't enjoy rejections if we are honest. It's worse when you can't see the problem (and I am sure if you had you would not have submitted it).
For me A.net is saying by the majority of its screening behaviour that it is striving to have only the highest quality photos accepted. I translate this as meaning:
* you really need to be using a DSLR for the majority of 'standard' motives, with decent quality glass - though not necessarily really expensive - to provide a good quality original
* you need to be proficient in post-processing
* you need to produce a result that the screeners will not think could be further improved
This is my take on your shots, for what it's worth - and I give this feedback with what I think would be a screener's hat on:
Swiss - generally a good quality shot. The lettering could be tackled a bit to remove what looks like oversharpening. So too with the tail and engine logo and that thin line above and just to the left of the wing on the body. So I would say slightly oversharpened rather than soft. And I would say this can be improved. This is a good example where the 'quality' rejection leaves you in the dark somewhat.
Korean - for me this sits slightly high in the frame, but let's not get into that debate! The wing and engine have a heat haze problem, so that would explain the quality rejection for me. It's a small problem, but enough for the high standards that I perceive are now required. The level might be slightly off and that contrast is high - e.g. the very black wheels.
Overview - this looks to need some slight CCW rotation to me and also has a slightly dark feel. I think this is one of those examples where - although it is a fine photo and there is nothing glaringly wrong with it - the screeners may have felt it could be improved further.
Embraer - this definitely needs some CCW rotation. But the heat haze is apparent again and the sharpening has led to some notable jaggies and a general feel of 'wobbly' straight edges, such as on the livery lines. I am not sure this one is rescuable.
Cosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3451 times:
It amazes me at times how many of the "screener bashing" threads appear.
If a pic is rejected, accept the decision and learn from it.
Screeners work very hard to screen our photos. Unpaid!
A rejection from A.net is not the end of the world. If you have a photo that is pleasing to you and meets the standards YOU are happy with, then isn't that what this is all about?
I have quite a high rejection rate. Does it bother me? No. I treat it as a learning curve and keep trying to raise my game.
So come on, we're all human,share an enthusiasm for this hobby and should bear in mind that without the screeners this site wouldn't be what it is.
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 8): Of course if A.net makes you mad then perhaps you should find yourself another venue. I don't think a.net's worth losing any sleep over.
I agree for the most part, but the fact remains that a majority of people here ahve spent thousands of dollars on camera equipment for the sole purpose of getting shots on Anet. So it's understandable if there is a little bit of frustration from rejections, don't you think?
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5603 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3439 times:
Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 21): I agree for the most part, but the fact remains that a majority of people here ahve spent thousands of dollars on camera equipment for the sole purpose of getting shots on Anet. So it's understandable if there is a little bit of frustration from rejections, don't you think
Agree but that's not a screener problem. If they want to spend thousands just to get stuff added here then so be it. Doesn't make them any better than anyone else.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3424 times:
Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 21): I agree for the most part, but the fact remains that a majority of people here ahve spent thousands of dollars on camera equipment for the sole purpose of getting shots on Anet. So it's understandable if there is a little bit of frustration from rejections, don't you think?
Let's not forget that many photogs here get great results with inexpensive point and shoots. I started a thread the other day in which someone got a great shot of Slam Dunk One with a point a shoot. If someone spends X amount of dollars on a DSLR and good glass the fact still remains that the shot has to be captured properly and edited properly and you will get your shot in the DB here. All this other stuff about why Tim's shot got in when it's not centered and shooting for yourself and not shooting for here is all well and good but it's like a dog chasing it's tail. The frustration is understandable but counter productive to your goal.
: Oh, I agree. But I think it explains where the frustration comes from. Hope all is well, Gary! -Phil
: aw now im sure they get a... orange, in the stocking at christmas