Lasham From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 19 Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5721 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
As a screener I see how high the quality bar is now set. But this made me think how hard it must be for new photographers to get started on Anet.
I was easy for most of us who started a few years ago on anet but today it must be very frustrating for new young photographers.
When screening I see photos from countries that are new to aircraft photography and as is to be expected the quality can be lower than the UK or USA where aviation photography has been going on for years.
MidEx216 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 651 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5709 times:
I personally think that high quality standards are good to have, but there's a certain limit to that. It comes when you get to the point of saying "You may not be able to see it, but you're picture isn't near good enough." I think standards should be high, but not to the point that only pro level photographers with $1000s worth of equipment can get it. That's a reliance on the camera, not the photographer's actual skill (with few exceptions). I have a high level camera (in between the pocket types and an SLR) and I still seem unable to get pictures worthy of the database. It should be more dependent on excellent pictures, not flawless, perfect pictures. That's overkill. (I actually do know one person who has some of the most amazing photos I've seen; he's my mentor, in a way - and he's left A.net because of the lack of consistency with screening (in his own words). He even doesn't upload shots anymore because they are "too artsy for A.net")
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5693 times:
Yes it might be too hard but should the standards be relaxed?: No!!
An ABSOLUTE and RESOUNDING NO!!
I am workig my ass of to even come up with a shot worth submitting and I know once I get there, and once it is accepted it will be validation of the hard work I know I will have done. The only excuse for a crappy shot in the official DB is an accident scene as it is happening, elsewise, it's just laziness.
It would be difficult to do something about this, though. Do you relax the rules for the first picture, or the first ten or? And after that the new guys would still hit the 'quality barrier', unless you coach them intensively and that is probably not feasible.
Quoting Lasham (Thread starter): When screening I see photos from countries that are new to aircraft photography and as is to be expected the quality can be lower than the UK or USA where aviation photography has been going on for years.
If there are few photos from a country, that makes them rare, anway, so perhaps the only thing that needs to be done for new photographers from these countries is to take photo location into account more.
[Edited 2007-01-20 22:33:42]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Lasham From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 225 posts, RR: 19 Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5600 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Did forget to say that when I started aviation photography (a long long time before Anet & the web) my shots were very poor and when sending them to magazines they would get rejected. But it took time and after a few years I got my first shot published when my standard had improved a bit. So I guess its going to have to be the same for the new photographers of today on anet.
With petty crap like this yes. If a shot is 0.02 of a degree off, then get real! Thats just being a pain in the rear from Anets end.
Quality wise no, leave them as is. This of course makes it difficult for young guys that can't afford that camera to improve quality, to get shots accepted. But then again, Anet is only a small and very small part of the aviation photography pie.
Quoting Photopilot (Reply 5): When it comes to editing... and taking 1 hour or more, masking, layers, etc, in Photoshop to post-process an image... well what more needs to be said.
I've personally have found that if you are editing a shot over anymore than 5 mins, in the aim to get accepted here, it simply ain't gonna get on. Anyway, the shot should not be that screwed up that if it takes one that long to get it looking right. To me, if it doesn't look right after a level, crop, resize, dustspot check, colour check and sharpen, it ain't gonna star here. That should take a few mins to complete. Even then, you get to know what looks good and what doesn't once it comes off the camera.
So basically, Quality standards, no leave them, they are fine.
Petty standards like 2 pixels out of centre, or its 0.000001 degree outa wack, then yeah, let up a bit.
Spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1631 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5572 times:
I do believe a lot of great shots are going missed here due to the inconsistencies in screening. That has nothing to do with the rules perhaps? But, that isn't what you asked! I think there could be a little more leniency given out when it's a perfect pic yet not "A.net perfect".
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
Well, I would say yes and no. I do appreciate the high standard A.net requires from us photogs, and it is exactly that same standard which makes up for most of A.nets reputation, so I would say no. But then again, we have seen here in the forum hundreds if not thousands of pictures, which are simply great but fail to meet all A.net criteria to get accepted (not talking about quality).
This is no new proposal, but having a new category, like Artistic pics, would give many photogs a chance to develop a different side of our craft. And developing some tool to allow for some sort of prescreening would help a long way both photogs and screeners to make all our lives easier. For me this is crucial in order to have less frustration among photogs and less work for screeners, and I am sure this is technically easy to develop.
All in all, while we all probably would feel better with less rejections, in the long run keeping quality high is the way to go.
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Ryan h From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 1477 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5558 times:
I can see where people are coming from in that photos are rejected for the slightest flaw that only the screener would notice and the main audience of this site, people at home/work etc viewing the photos arern't going to care about a photo being 0.02 of a degree level.
In my opinion the extreme standards have put people off from uploading and will continiue to in the future. You will only see photos from the same small band of die hards who know how to play the rules.
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5547 times:
As a newbie myself with only 4 photos in the DB I would say "No, do not relax the standards for anyone." There are sites out there for any old aviation shot, keep the standards high here and people will continue to rise to the bar.
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5539 times:
Keep 'em high. As for people bitching about minute rejections (lil off center or level), get it right in the first place. That's the easiest correction to make while editing.
The extremely high standards are what attract people to this site. As the standards get higher, some people bitch and leave, but just as many, if not more, are getting hooked on aviation photography and coming to Anet. The two extremes when it comes to quality are myaviation.net and airliners.net. Ask yourself which you like more, and that should answer the question about lowering or raising quality levels...
Plus, as standards have risen, so has the technology of photographic equipment to match that. So, overall it probably hasn't gotten all the match harder to get accepted here.
P.S. What pisses people off is not the high quality, it's inconsistencies in screening. There's a difference...
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2054 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5541 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I was kinda surprised to see this thread being started by a screener but thank you Tony for doing so; I think it´s a nice topic to have a discussion about.
I don´t believe lowering the standards for new photographers will help anyone; of course it would increase their motivation for a short period but at one point you´ll have to apply the high standards again and the new photographer will start from the beginning again. And imagine all the "old" photographers who get their shots rejected for some small issue and see an accepted photo in the db with a very obvious flaw: that´s gonna lead to endless inconsistency discussions and I think we all start to get tired of those.
The only thing that will help is maintain the current standards but apply them as consistently as possible with some amount of common sense; with common sense I mean that there is no need to reject a shot only because it´s levelled 0.15 degrees off or centered 10 pixels off or for contrast because the black reference is 0/0/1 and not 0/0/0. Because that is NOT accepting photos by the rules but only nitpicking and apart from keeping ever more (respected) photographers away from uploading to A.net it doesn´t do anybody any good.
As for the current standards a common reference as to what is accepted and what not is a most helpful tool and though I´m sure I´ll get on some people´s nerves by advertising it over and over again I can only point out that such a reference exists and that any feedback is most welcome (also and especially from screeners like you Tony as you have the background info many people need).
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3010 posts, RR: 59 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5511 times:
A very important question, Tony, and nice to see a debate like this again here.
Doubtless if I were starting now, without the knowledge I have gained from being a member, I would fail miserably to succeed. Having said that, this is exactly what happened to me over 2 years ago. I shot, edited, uploaded, and read my rejection emails regularly.
The key (for me) is whether that new photographer is keen to learn what is required of him or her; can find out the information/get the help they need here; and feels they are being encouraged, not discouraged.
When I began I did not have a username for a couple of months, so was acting pretty much in the dark. Not what I would recommend. I believe more needs to be done to help new uploaders - with better guidance and information. From things like illustrated guides to rejections (Thierry's is a great start, but why so little crew input?) to better upload guidance - e.g. the upload page itself, which is just as it was in '04, with that annoyingly unclear information which confused me (and others) into uploading at 1600 wide initially (why not encourage new uploaders to use the dimensions 1024 x 683 - had the upload page told me that it would have helped me a lot in my early days). I still believe certain things could be rewritten to make life a lot easier for those new to the site.
Generally I am content with a high standard. But I am not wholly content with the way things get communicated here. Focus on the latter will make the former easier for some to tolerate.
All the best.
P.S. One further point, if I may. Though not a screener I have developed screeners' eyes when viewing photos now. I am very critical, and thus I can understand when photos are rejected for things like minor levelling inaccuracies - if it is visible - and other minor aspects of the shot; particularly when the screener may believe that the problem can easily be rectified. The key is not so much that - it is helping the photographer know what to do. Personal messages cannot be given to all - the rejection emails often really don't help you know what was wrong at all. What people need is a place to go to learn more - like the illustrated guide. Why is Thierry constantly having to plug that? It should be being integrated and linked on the site itself and be receiving regular input from crew, for it to develop as a resource.
G-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5507 times:
Thiery - this thread wasn't supposed to be a plug for your 'rejection site!'.
Knowing Tony, ashe has mentioned this in conversation to me, here is my take. For certain regions of the world, where it is more difficult to achieve the standards expected, could the rules be relaxed? In context, these would be photos from certain parts of South America and Africa. Obviously there would need to be a certain acceptability, but couldn't there be some exceptions to the rules?
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1291 posts, RR: 30 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5502 times:
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 15): I don´t believe lowering the standards for new photographers will help anyone; of course it would increase their motivation for a short period but at one point you´ll have to apply the high standards again and the new photographer will start from the beginning again. And imagine all the "old" photographers who get their shots rejected for some small issue and see an accepted photo in the db with a very obvious flaw: that´s gonna lead to endless inconsistency discussions and I think we all start to get tired of those.
What could help the new photographers - according to me - is help/coaching. A lot of beginners ask guidance and advise via this forum (I am still doing that, because I am still eager to learn and to improve), but I think that there are also uploaders that don't visit the forum or have not even heard about this:
According to me, the ones that ask for pre-screening and take the advice are learning fast and also reduce the workload for screeners (because of less rejections). My suggestion would be for new uploaders (i.e. the ones that are not using this forum) to be coached by one of the very experienced uploaders, before they start filling the queue. I am not sure that there would be enough volunteers to do this coaching (I have no idea about the numbers of new uploaders per week/month?). Another idea might be to "force" new uploaders onto the forum and reserve a specific thread for this...
CJA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5494 times:
Perhaps it would help if Anet could declare its aims, then people could make better judgements about what they upload which might lead to less disappointment. My view is that this is not a philanthropic organisation looking to provide just anyone with a place to exhibit their work. Its a database of aviation photographs with a view to making money from the content, and why not? Bandwidth costs money so why fill the database with low quality shots when ample similar shots of higher quality already exist. As has been stated a thousand times, lower standards are applied to rare shots and higher standards to common shots. Surely this makes reasonable sense. I would say new members from countries with little exposure here are therefore likely to be given a little more latitude. Real frustration is only caused when the perceived rules are applied inconsistently
The advice given to me by a then Anet screener back in 2003 when I came back to this hobby was start on the other site which is more sympathetic to newcomers and less dismissive both in screening and in the advice given to those who want to learn. Sorry but I would say that this still holds true.
Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5463 times:
I think the high standards are high, but I think perhaps there should be some leniency/different category, as was stated above, for artsy shots, which often don't afford the conditions needed for perfect shots. For example, I uploaded the following shot 3 or 4 times, I believe, before it got on, with most versions looking pretty similar:
I'll be the first to tell you the shot's not perfect, but at the same time, it's a much less reproducible shot than the same vantage point in the middle of the afternoon with a blue sky.
Additionally, perhaps with the artsy category could go some of the motive rejections. Hold those shots to the same quality standards as regular shots, but allow a little more diversity and angle differences in the shots that join the website.
LOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5443 times:
To me being a newer member trying to upload to this site is like trial by fire, lots of questions with little to no feedback from people that actually know whats going on. My guess is that alot of new photogs probably aren't masochistic enough to deal with it (ie. 1st reject for "soft", 2nd time for "oversharp" and then a nice "motiv" reject to defeat any hope you had left).
There are definately some good hearted and very knowledgeable people that frequent the forums and do their best to help out fellow shooters, but many times even they are scratching their head with a question about a rejection. While the screeners only seem to respond when they feel like it or if the thread is titled "Hey you stupid screeners!!! Whats your problem!!!!" then they are all in there posting about what a thankless job they have volunteered for.
Maybe there could be a dedicated liaison/screener that was assigned to the forums and could help bridge the gap in understanding between the photogs and the screening process. (probably unrealistic, but just a suggestion)
As I see it now, just because you are getting shots accepted here doesn't mean you are a fabulous photog, but that you figured out how to conform to the box that has been set. Once those shooters are gone most of the new and soon to be great shooters won't be here because they have been turned off by the current process in place and moved elsewhere to practice and hone their skills.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5550 posts, RR: 47 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5442 times:
Damn you Tony!!!
Over the last few days I had become disillusioned with the threads in this forum, it seemed overcome with "will this make it". "is this a good motive" threads and no real discussion on photographic issues, while at SYD this morning I had been formulating a post saying as much.
What happens, I arrive home to find a meaningful discussion that has real depth and valid contributions from the community.. thread being started by a screener is a bonus.
OK to the topic, are standards too high for beginners? No.
Should quality standards be relaxed a touch? No.
Should more attention be given to photographic merit? Yes
Ok those are sometimes contradictory aims but Anet whilst always positioning itself as a database rather than a gallery has perhaps outgrown the database concept.
Should there be a seperate Artistic category? Very much doubt it
Photographic merit is more, often much more than an extra pixel in front of the nose or .1degree angle. It is certainly much more than a lucky shot that was intended to be a "safe side on" turning into an "artsy" shot just by pure luck.
Quoting Aussie18 (Reply 21): maybe wrong category ticked/not ticked by accident should be relaxed abit.
Not sure I agree with this, I think it is part of the photographers role to get it right, but I do feel there should be the ability to correct and amend info whilst still in the queue.
I won't quote Paul's post, he has said pretty much what I wanted to only much more eloquently.
His point about "screeners eye", I too get fewer rejections than I used to, I look at things how I think(may be completely wrong) a screener would and if I don't think it will succeed it doesn't get uploaded.. saves the "heartache" of a rejection message and keeps the queue short!!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
25 TedTAce: I have never gotten the impression this site was for that. Let me tell you I know I am shooting a ton of crap right now, a FEW of those shots make it
26 Ptrjong: While action shots are tough because of speeds and conditions at airports, it's really not difficult to go to roam around your local aerodrome or avia
27 Aussie18: Well sometimes we make a mistake by forgetting to tick a box or something similar and find out its rejected because of a simple error. Okay if some p
28 Eadster: That's where something great like being able to change details while pics are in the Q but thats another discussion...
29 MidEx216: or sometimes it's even considered bad motive, if there's nothing "special" about the tower...
30 Phxplanes: It sounds like maybe the standards should be lowered a little but not to the point where the shots arent even nice to look at. I think if the standard
31 Kukkudrill: I don't think the standards should be lowered ... provided that they can be applied fairly objectively. I'm not referring to motive, which is a minefi
32 Dendrobatid: An interesting discussion. I actually feel that there is very little wrong with the current standards though I accept that many would feel that I am b
33 D L X: Standards are fine (to the extent that we should have "standards"), with these caveats: "Quality" rejection should not be used for any shot that is cl
34 OD720: Dear all, I want to give my thoughts on the 2 questions raised by Tony here. First the new uploaders or photographers. I always thought that it's very
35 ChrisZRH: IMO the standards should not be lowered, but the generosity to some special shots should be increased For example, just to pick out three View Large V
36 Lasham: Hi Vatche Great to hear your helping out. We all need to help the new photographers at our local airports a bit more. I find the shots I'm seeing fro
37 LIPH: There was a discussion recently (one of the many that come up) about acceptance ratio and so on ("screeners should be divided into groups"). I pointed
38 PictureThis: I don't know. For me the editing was easier as I knew vaguely what needed to be achieved. Getting a good original photo was the difficult part. It va
39 EWS: Not just for the new photographs, also for us with many shots in the database. This is the reason many photographs, including myself have stopped upl
40 INNflight: Good thread Tony, dialogue is the way to go. Florian
41 Viv: Except that, speaking from my own recent experience, I feel that the line between "soft" and oversharpened" has become very fine indeed. Others may d
42 Glapira: Hello everybody! - Definitely... this sentence says exactly what I think about this topic. Once we reached a level of professionalism, quality and var
43 Psych: Very good to see a debate like this continuing. I have a particular suggestion on this topic: I would like to see something like a 'Help' section wher
44 Codeshare: The standards are high for a reason. Would it be fair to those who always provide high quality uploads, or those who work hard to get o good shot, or
45 D L X: I completely agree. It was mentioned earlier that part of the propblem may be that photos look sharper and more jagged on LCDs than they do on CRTs,
46 Lasham: Spot on as we do use our heads when it comes to very rare shots. Tony
47 Paulinbna: I did not read all the replies call me lazy I guess, so forgive me if this has been covered. I think what make a huge differance is if that the reject
48 AirMalta: Interesting thread Tony glad to see that one of team brought up this issue!! it is not a bad idea that everyone helps like many photogrpahers do..afte
49 OD720: Dear all. I want to go back to the idea of rare locations and new photographers. I think I would be right if I said that none of us here fit in the ca
50 LIPH: I started a thread some time ago regarding the need to have a sort of "School of Screening" : http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ation_photograph
51 Deaphen: Hi i am writing because i can really understand tony's message... i just got my first photo accepted after about 26 tries over the last 1.5 years. I
52 Linco22: Hi all, I've skipped past all responses, even Jeff's *coughs* and i'd say no. Problem doesn't lie with the level of quality required. That is fine, an
53 Diezel: I would say keep the rules as they are. They are fine imho. And to the screeners: look for a way to accept a picture rather than to reject a picture.
54 Lasham: Hi Deaphen Good to see you are trying to get shots on and can understand you trouble with the poor light at times in India. If you need help with a s
55 Dlednicer: I think one problem is that newbies want to compete with the big guys immediately. Hence, they shoot 777s and can't understand why they get rejected.
56 NASCARAirforce: I think that the standards should be high, but not ANAL like they can be on airliners.net. For example they rejected my picture for dust spots that co
57 Shep: NASCARAirforce said - "I think that the standards should be high, but not ANAL like they can be on airliners.net. For example they rejected my picture
58 NateDAL: I agree with the person that started this thread. I am not an aviation photographer, but am willing to take aviation pictures when in interesting plac
59 Dendrobatid: Shep is dead right in this respect. Like it or not NASCARAirforce, if the image was rejected for dirty, the dirt was visible on the uploaded image. W
60 Javibi: ...and for old old ones as well Is it? What does the crew think? What does Johan think? Do you know in which direction you want to take A.net? j