Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 186 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
I've been a member for a few months and during that time managed to get a few accepted. My (many) rejections while disappointing have provided some useful learning.
I recently uploaded 2 images which were subsequently rejected, one for Level, the other Over Sharpened. I chose to correct the problems and reloaded them only to have them both rejected again for totally different reasons. The Level rejection is now - Quality, Centered, Grainy, Soft. The other is now Level rejection.
Is there really such a varying degree of subjectivity among the screening process on Airliners? The 2 images below show the same image pre and post Level correction, which incidentally was 0.2 in CS2.
Rejections are part and parcel of trying to contribute to this site but I'd personally welcome some consistency.
There should be a slight slope on the runway there, as you are not perpendicular to 24L from this position. Also, most screeners will have screened many rotation shots from MAN, and so will be very familiar with this vantage point. The background hangar in your image confirms the need for some CCW rotation. So the first screener may just have spotted that first and ticked 'reject' for that alone. Others may give the photo a thorough 'going over' and give you the whole story (particularly if they are working at a slower pace) - and I would have to agree again with those reasons. Having said that, the second edit above is markedly superior to the first.
The quality is not ideal, in part due to the lighting. The grain is apparent and the centering is not in A.net style, because you have cropped very close to the nose, but not balanced that with a close crop to the tail on the right. The softness may be particularly the rear fuselage, always tricky from this angle due to the jet efflux. I would still argue that the level is wrong in the second edit .
There have been pleas before for screeners to get into the habit of indicating all the problems with a photo, rather than focusing on one, when there are more. Many report the frustration of getting a photo rejected for one reason, only to correct that and then get a subsequent rejection for another. I am sure the screening team are aware of this issue.
Good luck with your photos, and I hope you get better conditions next time.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
It's not a question of inconsistency. The screeners will reject for the first and most obvious flaw that they see. This does not mean that there are not other flaws. These are often picked up on appeal.
It is frustrating, I know ...
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 3): The screeners will reject for the first and most obvious flaw that they see.
I personally think, that if the photo was knocked back for all reasons first time around then we might have the chance of fixing them all. I think this would be a heap better than fix a prob, upload with prob fixed, then rejected with an additional prob, upload with that prob fixed etc.
This would then save time for screeners and the queue in general.
And no need to say well its a rejection, deal with it. That's not the point here. Constant rejections can be avoided by telling us all the probs in the first place, then we have a better chance and helping rejection levels, screening times, queue lengths and more to the point, our editing skills.
If well all help it makes life a hell of alot easier. I can't see that its going to take a screener alot more time to tick a few extra boxes. Help the photographers so we can help the screening team.
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
Quoting Garry (Thread starter): Is there really such a varying degree of subjectivity among the screening process on Airliners?
We work within guidelines, and try our best to remain as consistent and objective as possible given our individual screening eyes.
We reject to give you direction towards fixing the shot.
But given there will be many eyes and tens of thousands of shots seen by these eyes by the time your shot comes back around, I hope you can forgive us for having ever so slight variances in our rejection reasons.
Quoting Psych (Reply 2): I think most people who are regular contributors recognise the point you are raising, but this is a problem that is hard to avoid with 30 odd individuals doing the job.
Quoting Viv (Reply 3): It's not a question of inconsistency. The screeners will reject for the first and most obvious flaw that they see. This does not mean that there are not other flaws. These are often picked up on appeal.
Remember those games where you look at two images and have to spot the differences between them? Painful game sometimes... you can spend five minutes looking at the image for the 15th difference. It's there.... but stare, and stare and it's still not apparent.
You flick the page and the solutions show you the one you missed:
Look at the original again, and you'll spot the 15th every single time.
If a shot is to be rejected, then we try to see and therefore reject all reasons on the first pass. I hope you can also forgive us for sometimes missing that last rejection reason.
Remember.... there's no solution page and we don't treat your shots as a game
Quoting Eadster (Reply 4): Constant rejections can be avoided by telling us all the probs in the first place, then we have a better chance and helping rejection levels, screening times, queue lengths and more to the point, our editing skills.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 186 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1845 times:
Guys, thank you all for some really interesting points, inparticular Paul.
I know the feedback from the screeners has undoubtedly helped improve my photo's generally, as I don't want to make the same mistake twice. My view is you have to learn from the rejection. I only have to look at what I took 3 months ago and compare it to more recent and even I can see the difference
At my stage its all about learning and understanding what the screeners have to do and the volume of work they have.
I guess the point is just because an image has been rejected for one reason it may not get acccepted if that is corrected.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1730 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1786 times:
Psych puts this very well.
I have just moved from being a contributor to being a screener in training too and before I forget what it is like to just be a contributor I would like to say a few words.
Firstly there is often a suggestion from contributors of bias, indeed, I have sometimes wondered myself. I have only been screening for a few days, a good few hundred images and I can totally refute any suggestion of that. I have already rejected images of other screeners, they have mine !
The range of images, the range of quality from superb to poor is unbelievable yet the screeners manage to sort these into a band where the information is correct and the images are between very good and excellent.
Every image from the best to the worst is someones pride and joy and for every rejection someone is upset. For a lot of acceptances someone else is upset, 'Why theirs, not mine?' Not every shot that any of us take is going to reach the required standards and correcting a fault that has been identified at a first rejection can sometimes lead to other problems causing a subsequent different rejection. Cases in point are a dark image which when brightened leads to noise/grain and an image that is soft that can move to jagged or quality when sharpened more. Many marginal images are not fixable by a screener pointing out a problem area if the problem is corrected yet transferred to a different area.
Garry shows two images with a difference of angle of, apparently 0.2 degrees. I have been screening for a very short time yet at a glance I can tell that the new version still needs CCW. But he does also give us two edited images that are from the same shot.
As Psych points out though, the edit is much better on the second, even though the angle is still not right. That is two edits by one photographer of one shot, yet have a damned good look at their differences, a damned good look bearing in mind that if you are a screener your decision will be scrutinised by thousands within a few hours.
Now, multiply that by a couple of hundred and 30 or so different pairs of eyes deciding and that is what screeners (I suppose I should now say we) have every day !
Things are not perfect as screening is a subjective business, but take if from me things are fair and as good as HUMANLY possible.
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 186 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
The plot thickens !!!
Purely for clarity - this is exactly what I did after I received the first rejection.
I opened the rejected jpg in photoshop cs2 and the only edit I made was a minor level adjustment, there was no other editing performed. Indeed, why would there have been as it was, at the time, rejected for Level. This was then reloaded.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3077 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Quoting Garry (Reply 9): the only edit I made was a minor level adjustment, there was no other editing performed.
Hello again Garry.
I am astonished to hear this .
I would always say that it is best not to edit an edit - if you follow - because that will lead to a deterioration in the quality of the resulting photo. It is always best to start a new edit from the original file again, as the process of saving the image has an impact on the result. But in this case version #2 is markedly better than #1. This simply does not make sense.
The only way I could understand this is if the top photo above is actually the second edit, and the one below the first? Now that would explain what for me is a really noticeable deterioration in quality in #1 above - the difference is so striking.
P.S. This might make sense also of the fact that the angle of the top photo is a bit better than the first.
Shep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Hello all -
Mick Bajcar now a screener? GREAT NEWS to my eyes... not only is Mick an experienced photographer - he has alway been a good guy in the forums...
He speaks the truth in the forums and he shares wonderful images. I have viewed many of his photos - top notch - be they originating from old film or new digital format...