Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2502 times:
I think it is always a good axiom not to post in anger. But I am angry about my experience of A.net over the last week, so shall try to remain rational.
I received another rejection overnight. I appealed, in order to follow procedure in such circumstances, but that was also rejected. Once again, I cannot agree with the decision of the screeners. Here is the photo in question, rejected for 'motive':
Motive Rejection
I put quite a lot of effort into the original framing of this shot in camera, and the subsequent crop in editing. I felt very confident about the motive being acceptable, and wanted to provide some variety to my uploads. My confidence was, in part, based on many previous acceptances for this particular motive - see examples below (and for those who object to personal plugs, the thumbnails show all that is needed).
My argument would be that nothing has changed in the way the 'motive' criterion is defined. Yet it seems acceptable for the screeners to change the interpretation of the criterion without identifying this to the photographer community. I am not aware of any clear statement on this between the time that the above were considered acceptable close crops and the present, and I am a regular here.
Too many photographers here are now complaining about such issues and, although I have worked hard to support the site and the crew, I struggle to see any justification for what I perceive to be an 'unlevel playing field' for uploaders.
There needs to be a better communication process between the screening team and uploaders. Legitimate concerns expressed by photographers need to be listened to and - if appropriate - acted upon. There are too many negatives currently with the site that ultimately relate to this issue of communication. I hope someone has seen fit to add this to their to-do list.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2466 times:
Paul,
Could it maybe be because you can see the faces of the crew quite clearly (notice that on all the others the crew is obscured)?
Tony
PS Great shot BTW!
[Edited 2006-12-16 14:22:59]
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
AviatorG From St. Lucia, joined Apr 2005, 263 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 1): I fully agree with Paul. His previous acceptances have substantially the same crop as the recently-rejected shot.
I am very interested to see what comments 'the' screener would post regarding your rejection. It is very unlikely that this photo was rejected by error, having been rejected twice. I too would be quite angry had this happened to me. Best of luck finding some resolution with this shot Paul, its another great one for your collection.
Jajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Nice to have;
* A "guide" with explanation of all reject reasons and photo examples! For instance, "motiv" would cover exactly what kind of shots that will be accepted in the database. This guide would be updated every time a rule is being changed.
* Some place, maybe a forum section, where screeners (and Johan) can inform on changes.
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2447 times:
Sometimes it happens - you just can't get a shot in despite it being similar to others.
It's a great shot Paul, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Hang it on the wall of your study with the title "dichotomous practice in the field of aviation photography screening (2006 Paul Markman)"
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
Nice shot Paul.
I can understand your frustration but after the recent verbal outburst in Bad Motive, Now Acceptable? (by UnattendedBag Dec 15 2006 in Aviation Photography)
I would be very surprised if any of the screeners would spend some time to post here in the forum in the near future. But hey, that's just normal in this zoo here. The vocal argumentative minority wins against the majority having a common sense left.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 20 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
Quoting Jajo (Reply 4): A "guide" with explanation of all reject reasons and photo examples! For instance, "motiv" would cover exactly what kind of shots that will be accepted in the database
There are far too many variables.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2417 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 2): Could it maybe be because you can see the faces of the crew quite clearly
No - that's not a problem at all for motive. The pilots being visible in their working environment is fine for motive. In fact, I would argue that their visibility here enhances the motive.
The problem in the screeners' eyes must be the space above and below the fuselage. My argument would be that this is a very minor issue, given the other positive aspects of the image. Also, it is as it is because I am constrained by other site demands - I am not allowed to crop in any ratio 'narrower' than 3:2 (even by a little bit) and I would feel that cropping closer on the left and right would not allow the image to 'breathe' (and could get me a motive rejection for that).
For me this is a good image, worthy of a place here, and it is being rejected following a subjective - and stringent - reading of this rule. I want to feel screeners look for reasons to accept a shot, and only reject if the problems are clear.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): I think it is always a good axiom not to post in anger.
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): Too many photographers here are now complaining about such issues
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): I struggle to see any justification for what I perceive to be an 'unlevel playing field'
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): needs to be a better communication process between the screening team and uploaders.
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): need to be listened to and - if appropriate - acted upon
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): I hope someone has seen fit to add this to their to-do list.
Reading your posts becomes more and more like watching a soap opera. Even the small snippets above are longer then what most people post.
You make a lot of demands for someone with zero authority here. We have no "photographer's rights". You get what is given to you here whether you've been around for 8 years or 8 days.
So you get a rejection you don't like, you write a book about it, (sniff, sniff), and i'm sure you won't drop it until you get your way. The posts here are becoming more and more like I remember at Brand -X.
Tappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 46 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
I have to say..These posts are getting tired and do no good. I am quite sure that the screeners have a gazillion pics to judge. We all have to live with these rejections. I have been rejected on probably my last 20 tries and at one point (many years ago) I had some of the most hits/views etc...We all have to accept and move on.
Mark Garfinkel
p.s I do, however, like the photo that started this thread.
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
I think Paul has a valid point. You could call these his "trademark shots" he's uploaded before with no problems. It seems odd that they get rejected twice. Usually when there's a change to the motive rule we get some sort of a notice.
I guess we missed it this time.
Nice picture Paul.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Jeff - to be honest, given your apparent contempt for much of what I have to say, I am surprised you bother to open any of my threads.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 9): You make a lot of demands for someone with zero authority here
If I sound like I am making demands then I apologise to readers. My recent posts have been motivated by a genuine desire to see improvements for us all. Of course I don't like rejections, but my post here is motivated by a desire to see better communication between elements within the site. I think this is a fundamental problem for photographers with the site these days, and I know I am not on my own. Screeners feel driven away from the Forum, and people like me who feel we have genuine issues to grapple with have an increasingly ineffective forum for discussion.
But I reckon their are too many deaf ears and so I will learn my lesson and stop. I am sure you will be cheering .
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 9): So you get a rejection you don't like, you write a book about it, (sniff, sniff), and i'm sure you won't drop it until you get your way.
Sorry Jeff, but instead of going into all the work you did for posting your reply, why wouldn't you use all this time and effort to help Paul understand why this picture was rejected? OK, the screeners might be off (again) for a while, but at least WE can help ourselves, can we???
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
9V From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2369 times:
You gotta remember Paul, PIA 777's are common as hell now at MAN. There are hunderds similar shots already on here and you already have almost identical shots.
However, it does look slightly different. The crop looks slightly odd to me. The pic looks slightly too oblong and looks awkwardly cropped where the left hand side landing gear is.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting Tappan (Reply 10): We all have to accept and move on.
Yeah, I guess moving on is always the easiest way to treat an issue...
I agree with your opinions expressed in this thread Paul, however I'm also sure it won't lead us anywhere as it falls under the usual screening inconsistency issue and we've had tons of similar threads.
The source of this issue originates at a higher level and it won't be solved by single photographers posting rejected shots especially since, as Peter noticed, these threads mostly lead to verbal outbursts and thus keep ever more screeners away from the forum.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 9): We have no "photographer's rights". You get what is given to you here whether you've been around for 8 years or 8 days.
This is right and wrong. I thougt we'd already come to the conclusion some months ago that the site is a symbiosis between Johan and the photographers; neither one can live without the other. And if you depend on someone you should listen to his needs and take care that he feels alright otherwise you'll end up feeling quite bad yourself.
I think it would be a good thing if we all took the opportunity of this contemplative phase of the year to think some things over and re-start with full energy next year. (I know this might sound a little pathetic ... )
A good point to start with would be to work on our culture of discussion.
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2350 times:
Quoting Acontador (Reply 13): Sorry Jeff, but instead of going into all the work you did for posting your reply, why wouldn't you use all this time and effort to help Paul understand why this picture was rejected? OK, the screeners might be off (again) for a while, but at least WE can help ourselves, can we???
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2338 times:
Quoting Acontador (Reply 13): Sorry Jeff, but instead of going into all the work you did for posting your reply, why wouldn't you use all this time and effort to help Paul understand why this picture was rejected?
Not my job. He's a big boy, to me the rejection is valid.
Quoting Tappan (Reply 10): I have to say..These posts are getting tired and do no good.
Quoting Tappan (Reply 10): We all have to live with these rejections....We all have to accept and move on.
BINGO
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 15): I think it would be a good thing if we all took the opportunity of this contemplative phase of the year to think some things over and re-start with full energy next year. (I know this might sound a little pathetic ...
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
I think its a great shot and highlights (in a great way) the inconsistencies this site has developed.
Tappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 46 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2295 times:
The rules here are tough. They are based on technical qualities of a photo over creative qualities. It was not always like this. Today, this "Air India Moon Shot"
would be rejected, yet look at all the views it has got. But, with all the great new equipment, it would be my fault if I turned in something like that shot today.To be honest, it has made me a better photographer TECHNICALLY...grain, sharpness etc...But, the age old question... are there sometimes when a photo that might be low in tecnical goodies, but different or better than average in creative goodies be given a pass due to it's creativity?? Like this one that I had rejected this week??
Yes, I know it is soft..but is it unique...More importantly, can I live with this rejection and not put the screeners down? Yes! The screeners have a tough job.
I will be ok because I can still post it on myaviation.net
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2279 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting Tappan (Reply 20): Yes, I know it is soft..but is it unique...More importantly, can I live with this rejection and not put the screeners down?
Yes but Mark this is a matter of playing by the rules; A.net has a set of rules which have to be adhered to if you want to have your shot accepted. I.e.: had you reduced your image in size and sharpened it a little it might have been accepted as especially the softness issue can be easily avoided.
However some people get the impression nowadays that the rules are not being adhered to by the crew and that's where a big part of miscontend lies and you can't blame people for trying to solve that.
Cosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2279 times:
Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 19): think its a great shot and highlights (in a great way) the inconsistencies this site has developed.
Spot on Chad. Most of the posts regarding rejections recently have been the lack of consistency from the team.
Put the consistency in place and this type of thread will disappear.
I hope the screening team can see the validity of consistency and find the time to comment on the consistency issue and this issue only.
Cosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2243 times:
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 23): Why should they even bother? To get feedback with four letter words?
Fair comment Peter, but the only way forward to stop this IS for some positive input from the team so everyone knows they are singing off the same hymn sheet.
Let's not forget that the input from some of the team has been fairly curt too in certain cases.
I was hopng that perhaps, this being the season of goodwill, the hatchet could be buried and we could move on productively.
25 Tappan: I re-uploaded my MOON photo after a very nice screener suggested that I reduce the size of the photo, sharpen it more and correct the caption. I was w
26 J.mo: It makes him feel good about himself. He is a notoriously arrogant member. I quit trying to upload on A.Net long ago. Not worth the time, effort or h
28 Maiznblu_757: Im starting to feel this way. Havent uploaded since my American 777 was rejected and the screeners couldnt decide if it was "good" or not. One said t
29 AGD: Paul, I had the same impression. Althought a very nice picture quality wise (as usual!), I feel it somewhat doesn't fiill the frame properly.To me, y
30 EWS: Paul, I understand your fustration and to be honest im suprised you havnt given up here yet. It would be a sad shame to loose your superb contribution
31 Linco22: Evening all, Sorry, i'm late again to the thread! Anyway, Jeff good to see you haven't lost your sensitive side. I'd love to have a beer with you some
32 Maiznblu_757: Colin, I never appealed it. I figured Id take one of the screeners advice and rework it instead of appeal. But yea, in chronological order it went li
33 Linco22: Sorry Chad, memory ran off on me there. But your photo highlights the problem of the inconsistances. Regards Colin
34 Psych: Like with plugging, if you don't want to read what follows no-one is forcing you: * I believe the screeners work hard for the site and should be comme
35 Maiznblu_757: So anet is your only portfolio? wierd. Kind of an unfair statement there buddy. I like to help good people when I can. Dont understand that remark re
36 Lasham: Ok The PIA shot has the nose leg cut in no mans land, and the RHS gear is cut in half = Motive. Its the first time I have seen the shot. And I apolog
37 Psych: My apologies to you Chad (and Jeff too if you felt the same). I did not mean my comment to sound like an insult. I had meant that the nature of what
39 Lennymuir: Paul I keep contact with an excellent photographer in here who is also an a.net screener. He got more than a handful of rejections the just the other
40 Psych: Good advice Gerry - I have probably built things up too much in my mind recently, so am going to do just that. Paul
41 Eadster: In my time here, I have only ever seen 2 subjects on the forum in regards to changes. These were waving pilots and close up of logos. That's it. Ther
42 QANTAS077: for shit sake Paul, does it always have to be a psychology thesis when you post? ...it's becoming like Days of your rejected photos Lives...longwinded
43 Linco22: Why have you got an issue with the way someone expresses their views? Surely your not that narrow minded?
45 Frippe: Hello again and please let me add my thoughts here. I think Paul asked for something very reasonable in his first post. He wanted the database to be a
46 LIPH: Paul, I strongly agree with you, but I see in these screening incongruences the only reason why this site is still alive and people wants to upload he
48 Gary2880: and your first class membership helped pay for it!
49 Linco22: Thanks for reminding me. I just think that sly little remarks like that, not just from you and i'm not gonna make a big deal about it, are shredding
50 Tappan: Update on my Moon photo........ Like I said a few posts ago, a nice screener suggested a few improvements. I followed what he had to say, and......I a
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, 
From St. Lucia, joined Apr 2005, 263 posts, 
Best of luck finding some resolution with this shot Paul, its another great one for your collection.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, 
.
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
