Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I'm Getting Mad!  
User currently offlinePipoA380 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1594 posts, RR: 50
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3727 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What is going on on airliners? What is wrong?

I've had a 80% acceptation for quite some time now, and I uploaded a lot these last days. Yesterday, I got 11 photos through the screening process and guess what... 11 rejections!!

I'm sorry here but I'd like to know what is airliners.net exactly wishing we do? All get several thousand dollars lenses?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060513_012-hbijv-zrh-0121.jpg
Quality and soft... Where does this picture lack quality?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060513_01-hl7575-dfw-0422.jpg
Quality also...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060513_001-dts-dts-0419.jpg
Quality... What is wrong here? Look at the detail on that one!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060513_04-n843ae-dfw-0422.jpg
Quality and angle. Ok the angle is my bad, but quality...

And some others with the same problem...

Things like these get me into a bad mood because it is ruining my hobby. Come on, I'm absolutely not the best photographer around here... but 11 rejections out of 11... that's too much!

I like getting my pics here, I like my hobby, but it gets me mad knowing what airliners.net is thinking about my shots!


It's not about AIRBUS. it's not about BOEING. It's all about the beauty of FLYING.
82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

Quoting PipoA380 (Thread starter):
Things like these get me into a bad mood because it is ruining my hobby.

if its going to do that then dont bother uploading.

just take them for yourself and then you wont have to worry about them being rejected and having people 'judge' your photos.

even if they do, what should you care? they look good to me. You know your photos look good, does much else matter?

really not the best place to be if you take a.net rules too personally.


User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3687 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...


User currently offlinePipoA380 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1594 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3687 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gary, I like my pics being shared and sometime I think it's going too far, like it this is a competition or something. I take pics for myself of course, but also for others to see.


It's not about AIRBUS. it's not about BOEING. It's all about the beauty of FLYING.
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3681 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.

Martin

[Edited 2006-05-14 11:53:38]

User currently offlineGary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting PipoA380 (Reply 3):
I like my pics being shared

www.pbase.com/gary2880

 Wink

but seriously.

fair enough that you want people to see your photos. but try not to get as stressed over it as you are.

calm down dear, its only a webblesite  cool  if you were british you would know what that is about and may even find it funny.


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3667 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.


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1668 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3664 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.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3656 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3619 times:

1 - looks OK
2 - angle
3 - I'd go for angle
4 - quality and angle

@PipoA380: perhaps have a look at your workflow, because it might need some adjustments.

Just to mention it, my rate fell to 40%-ish or lower for a moment, but it's getting better now  Smile

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3618 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 8):
These are all good shots, but can be improved. The ERJ and 777 need rotation anyway

About to say the 777 is not level at all. Take a deep breath and count to 10. Re-edit and try again.


User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3614 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 10):
Take a deep breath and count to 10. Re-edit and try again.

An airliners.net rhyme for the ages...


User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3607 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!

Now go re-edit and get them back in the que!

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Philippe.

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.

I hope this feedback is of some help.

Cheers.

Paul


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

The first two are a harsh I think. It's a sign that I haven't uploaded for a while that I think they're absolutely fine.

Some of the responses puzzle me. Listen to yourselves. There is little - if anything - wrong with either of them. It's the proverbial size of the hole in the doughnut.

Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 8):
we do ask you to become competent in Photoshop

... and here is the grey area where too much manipulation will get you a manipulation rejection  Wink



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 11):
An airliners.net rhyme for the ages...

You know the funny thing about it is I didn't even realize it ryhmed!  biggrin 


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 15):
... and here is the grey area where too much manipulation will get you a manipulation rejection

No such thing as a grey area, the rules on manipulation/editing are quite clear on what is allowed.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Quoting PipoA380 (Thread starter):
Things like these get me into a bad mood because it is ruining my hobby

I can't believe someone actually rejected YOUR photos....What ARE they thinking?


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

Bit curious why some shots are judged so harshly, when this obvious badcentered image of a common subject is let through? Too low and to the right. Double standards?



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim de Groot - AirTeamImages




what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3378 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.


User currently offlineBigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3369 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?



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3369 times:

Quoting BigPhilNYC (Reply 21):
people here ahve spent thousands of dollars on camera equipment for the sole purpose of getting shots on Anet.

Definately bad motive  Wink


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3366 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Phil

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.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3351 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.


25 BigPhilNYC : Oh, I agree. But I think it explains where the frustration comes from. Hope all is well, Gary! -Phil
26 Post contains images Gary2880 : aw now im sure they get a... orange, in the stocking at christmas
27 Post contains links and images TimdeGroot : Obviously not View Large View MediumPhoto © Christopher Hammarborg Gimme a break Tim
28 TimdeGroot : Actually Philippe was implying he hadn't spent thousand of dollars on lenses. Sure I can understand the frustration, but some people seem to let that
29 Post contains links and images PUnmuth@VIE : View Large View Medium Photo © Christopher Hammarborg       Edit: Tim was faster than me[Edited 2006-05-14 19:02:15]
30 Mogget : What exactly is the issue with "heat haze" ? I mean, surely this is natural ? In my opinion, an untouched photo that has heat haze in it is far better
31 Post contains images ChrisH : There's an obvious difference though Tim, I'm sure you can see it? Also, lots have happened in the last 6 months, I doubt that 757 wouldve gotten in
32 TimdeGroot : A difference sure I can see that. Your shot is however much more of a "non a.net" type crop than mine, so I don't see why mine should serve as a examp
33 Granite : Hi Phil Yes, understandable. Regards Gary
34 Post contains images ChrisH : Oh so you keep track do you? But it never affects screening decisions! Alright then Timmy, whatever
35 ZSOFN : Chris, stop hijacking this thread!
36 JeffM : Tom, do you really expect Chris to say..."Oh, Tom wants me to stop hijacking this thread....damn, what was I thinking? I'd better stop now!" He enjoy
37 Post contains images ChrisH : I thought it was a legitimate question? The shot to me is unbalanced, that's why I asked. Seen shots rejected for alot less. You may have a different
38 Linco22 : The point of this thread is this, a photographer has expressed his frustration at some rejections. He has been given, on the most part, decent advice.
39 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Regards Gary
40 ZSOFN : I know - a bit of hopeless optimism on my part!
41 Post contains links and images PipoA380 : Hey guys, Don't worry I was quite mad before and things got better now. So yes I have appealed the decision of 2 of the shots, the Swiss one (rejected
42 Post contains images Gary2880 : he always knows
43 Post contains images Christeljs :
44 TZ : That's the sound of the nail being hit on the head. TZ
45 StealthZ : I agree with the fact that buying $$$ equipment just to get on A.net is a mistake.. well certainly not my motivation anyway. In addition to that often
46 JeffM : ...sounds more like a dead horse being beat.....
47 NIKV69 : Why are we talking about this again? The thread was about 4 pics that got rejected not this whole annoying thing about who and what we shoot for. No
48 StealthZ : Ah Nik, Why are we discussing it again, because the thread starter raised the issue. No one forced you to click on the thread or the posts. Cheers
49 DC10Tim : Was the Swiss A320 shot rejected for being soft again? If so, it is a puzzler for me as it looks fine. Tim.
50 JeffM : BINGO. Next time Chris, don't forget to ask the golfer if it's o.k. to continue....how could you be SO careless?
51 Post contains images QANTAS077 : i can't believe i read through all this crap, some of you slappas need to get a life! golf sux!
52 Post contains images EZEIZA : Yes, and in fact I have seen several threads on this issue in the past. Let me rephrase: I believe its a grey area because I tend to think that any h
53 Post contains images PipoA380 : Yes, that's what I do. I have my own webpage too. Saying it's a loss of time is a little harsh, that's true. Yup, I'll try to re-edit it. Best regard
54 Mogget : Wow, I was under the impression that any form of editing would be looked down upon. Surely untouched photos are the ones that should be given greater
55 ZSOFN : I doubt there's a single shot in the database from the last 2 years or so that hasn't been edited somewhat; it's just a necessary part of photo submi
56 Post contains links and images Flyfisher1976 : I don't have time to read every post in this thread so forgive me if this has already been said. Am I the only one that noticed the dust spots on the
57 PipoA380 : I'm sorry but I don't see any on my picture there... Where do you see them exactly? Thanks BTW, the rejection reason was quality only, there is a "Du
58 JeffM : Evidently. That is a whopper! I would have leveled it as well, it's leaning to the right.
59 Post contains images Ander :
60 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : Excerpt From Airliners.net Reject Reasons: QUALITY- "This may be the result of several perceived problems happening simultaneously"
61 Codeshare : IMO every rejection reason should be broken down to specific reasons. KS/codeshare
62 Flyfisher1976 : I agree...However, this is not always the case.
63 Post contains images Cosec59 : And then you would moan that it takes 4 weeks to have a photo screened
64 Post contains images Codeshare : No. You then know what is wrong with the photo and perhaps be able to eliminate it the next time. KS/codeshare
65 Edoca : As was explained recently, many screeners spend quite some time anyway examining each picture, so breaking down the rejection reasons further should
66 JeffM : If you are getting multiple rejection reasons on your photos now, maybe it's you that needs to look more carefully at your images.....not the screene
67 Wallace : For what it is worth, recently I too feel aggrieved by a.net and their inane reasons for rejecting photos. I have adopted a new attitude and modified
68 Post contains images Codeshare : Really? I didn't know that.... oh harlee-ha. Now I do, really. I'll quote myself: Thank you. KS/codeshare
69 Post contains images Ptrjong : Wow. So you never got a rejection that was actually correct. Peter
70 JeffM : DA... if you take more time to look carefully at your photos....BEFORE UPLOADING.....maybe you won't get that many rejections.?..... Get it now? Can'
71 Codeshare : Jeff, it's obvious I look at the stuff before I upload. I just want to get better. On this site photos have to be up to the a.net standards. That's wh
72 Gary2880 : your needles stuck Jeff.
73 Wallace : Jeff you are correct, a little tart with the comments but none the less right. I do get rejections lots of them (justified or not) after all I'm only
74 Viv : So you don't learn from your mistakes. Good luck with that philosophy and your rejection rate - you'll need all the luck you can get. Just my opinion
75 Wallace : You only thing that one learns here is how to make your photos more acceptable to the screeners. Everyone is a critic.
76 Ptrjong : That is certainly not true, unless you're quite good perhaps.
77 Post contains images Mattbna : It seems to be going in that direction anyway... 14000-something photos in the queue? 20 or 30-something screeners? I must be missing some math somew
78 Post contains links and images Interpaul : I don't want to open a new thread but if I had to, the title would me very similar to this ones. This shot is obviously of minor quality and it's horr
79 PipoA380 : Jan, The picture you're showing isn't soft to me, it's more a relection problem. It makes the whole fuselage kind of strangely contrasted... The word
80 Post contains links Tycho34 : Hi, My first experience posting a picture was quite bad but I think it happens really often due to the high standards of the site. The first answer wa
81 JeffM : Motive is questionable in my opinion, and the exposure hurts my eyes.
82 Post contains images Tycho34 : Oooops! I agree that the picture is overexposed. I was focused on sharpness, and not on exposure ! That proves that I still have a lot to learn ! Tha
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...
Getting The Sky Blue - How? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 23:36:48 by Jorge1812
LON-MAD - A Stop In ZRH - Long Enough To Shoot? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 15:00:44 by Glennstewart
Is Confidence Getting The Best Of Me? posted Mon Sep 11 2006 00:32:38 by San747
SXM Shots Getting Overrated? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 20:52:03 by A340Spotter
Getting Over That High Quality Bar posted Wed Aug 23 2006 22:34:09 by Psych
Getting A Rebel XT Tomorrow. What To Expect posted Wed Aug 16 2006 18:56:30 by Cadet57
AA Mad Dog: Worthy Of Upload? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 06:38:02 by FlightShadow
Does This Pic Have A Chance In Hell Of Getting In? posted Wed May 24 2006 06:10:47 by CYEGsTankers
Getting The Quality Settings Right posted Tue Apr 4 2006 08:54:09 by AirbusA346
MAD Visit posted Fri Mar 24 2006 10:27:56 by Carpethead