Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58 Posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3577 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':
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.
AviatorG From St. Lucia, joined Apr 2005, 264 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3530 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 (8 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3526 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.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3512 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.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3492 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.
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: 41
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3484 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.
p.s I do, however, like the photo that started this thread.
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3454 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, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3454 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, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3454 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
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!
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, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3425 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: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3413 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.
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 ...
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, 2081 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3354 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 (8 years 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3354 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 (8 years 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3318 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.
: 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
: 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