Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Personal Example Of Discrepancies Of Screeners...  
User currently offlineWhappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2246 times:

I am currently.... well, a little peeved. I'm just an amature spotter, and new to the hobby of spotting. I'm not the greatest, nor do I aspire to be. However, this website greatly helps me become better; and for that I'm sure all new spotters are appreciative as much as I am. Now on to my little rant/issue:

A while ago, I submitted this photo...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070102_N1283UPWMBIGOct.jpg

It got rejected for just being dirty. Now I did the invert trick, fixed the dirty, and uploaded THIS photo:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070207_N1283UPWMBIGUpload3.jpg

It was rejected for contrast and softness, two things not mentioned by the first screener.

I was a little confused, since it was not mentioned by the first screener, and I figured it would be a shoe in since I fixed the problem. I filled in the little "Note to Screener" stuff, informing them what I had fixed and what it was first rejected for. Now, I understand the reason for the standards, I'm all for them. They force me to strive to be a better shooter instead of someone who just shoots out of the window of an airplane anytime I take a trip (Which is how I got started in the hobby).

Taking it all in stride, I fixed what was rejected the second time and uploaded this photo, filling in the Note to the Screener area letting him know it was my 3rd upload of this photo, and what I had fixed and why it had been rejected.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20070215_N1283UPWMBIGUpload4.jpg

My issue isn't so much has to why it has been rejected, but why it has been rejected 3 times for 3 separate reasons. I'm aware all screener are different, and running different setups that would enable one to maybe see a photo to be too soft, or not enough contrast; but surely major things like level should have been pointed out at first? I'm not trying to criticize the screeners, you guys give a lot of your free time to help people like my self get started in this, but it is a rather annoying issue, especially since it adds to more and more rejections, and gets it hard to get back up to a 5 photo upload from the 2 I am at now. It makes the grand total of time I've been working on this photo extend nearly 3 months now, and all though if it ever gets on, I'm sure it'd be well worth it.

All in all, I guess the point of the thread was to get my questions answered about that, and to simply bring up the issue with a concrete example. Any pointers, or comments from the screeners would be appreciated.


-Travel now, journey infinitely.
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2072 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Well, Brendan I'm not a screener but given my experience of 100+ similar threads of the last months I'm pretty sure I can accurately answer your question.
The thing is that screeners often reject a photo for the most obvious reason, so if for instance you have a photo that is slightly soft, slightly unbalanced but obviously unlevel they may reject it for unlevel only.
So now you as an uploader correct the unlevel issue, upload again and then might have the photo rejected for soft and center.
And all that not taking into account that you might have introduced flaws in your 2nd edit that weren't there in the first (i.e. your 2nd edit here shows a clear overexposure that is less apparent on the 1st).

I know this procedure is rather frustrating by times but understandable; so if your correct a photo always reconsider your edit as a whole and look out for flaws that you might not have noticed before.

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Brendan, speaking for myself only I know when I screen a photo and it has a instant rejectable reason like dirty I won't continue screening for other issues unless those issues are really noticeable.

So, if I see numerous dust spots, it gets rejected for dirty. I will not check level (unless is grossly unlevel) or other details unless they are extremely apparent. It would just take up too much time on each photo. Sure, I do try to list every rejection reason possible if I can but it will not happen each time. Another example is borders. If I screen an image with a border and all else looks good at a quick glance, border is the only rejection, I will not screen it in detail. Most of the instant-rejectable reasons can easily be avoided with a quick pre-screening on your part prior to uploading. I know when I upload an image, I try to prescreen it as best I can before doing so. Sure, you'll miss things as I have myself but it's a good start to keeping your rejections down.

I'm not sure if that was the answer your were looking for....

Mike


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting Whappeh (Thread starter):
All in all, I guess the point of the thread was to get my questions answered about that,

...which could have been done quietly and on your own by simply performing a search of older threads....


User currently offlineWhappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 2):
So, if I see numerous dust spots, it gets rejected for dirty. I will not check level (unless is grossly unlevel) or other details unless they are extremely apparent. It would just take up too much time on each photo. Sure, I do try to list every rejection reason possible if I can but it will not happen each time. Another example is borders. If I screen an image with a border and all else looks good at a quick glance, border is the only rejection, I will not screen it in detail. Most of the instant-rejectable reasons can easily be avoided with a quick pre-screening on your part prior to uploading. I know when I upload an image, I try to prescreen it as best I can before doing so. Sure, you'll miss things as I have myself but it's a good start to keeping your rejections down.

No, that answers me fairly good. I appreciate it...

and JeffM: Unless you got a Pay-per KB Download internet service, if the worst thing that happens to you today is opening my thread, then I think you'll be alright.



-Travel now, journey infinitely.
User currently offlinePsyops From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Maybe it it just my eyes or my monitor, but your second upload does look different than the first with respect to contrast. Did you re-process from scratch and change something? Looks more washed out to me.

Pete


User currently offlineWhappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting Psyops (Reply 5):
Maybe it it just my eyes or my monitor, but your second upload does look different than the first with respect to contrast. Did you re-process from scratch and change something? Looks more washed out to me.

Not that I recall. I remember trying to keep it identical to the first due to the fact that the only problem with it was dirty.

Is the third one a bit washed out too, then? I hope to get the 4th try on the website.... lol



-Travel now, journey infinitely.
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

You happy now?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brendan Gallagher



User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I direct added it lol.

User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
I direct added it lol.

 Smile


User currently offlineWhappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Actually I'm more surprised (but yes, very happy).

Thanks Clickhapy. Were you the one that sent me the personal note as well?



-Travel now, journey infinitely.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

yes, I was.

filler
This takes up time as readers must sort through these messages which have no real value to the group at large.


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...
Pic Of IA/CD ATR42s posted Wed Feb 14 2007 08:59:51 by HAWK21M
ANY Chance Of Acceptance posted Wed Feb 14 2007 00:07:37 by LAXspotter
Average/Median Number Of Pics In The Queue? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 02:31:17 by Edoca
Did Anyone Else Receive One Of Those? posted Mon Feb 5 2007 10:36:37 by Beechcraft
Best Time Of Year To Visit ORD & SFO? posted Sun Feb 4 2007 18:40:56 by 727LOVER
KLM A332 Interior, Why No Shots Of PTVs In Y Yet? posted Sun Jan 28 2007 06:17:41 by LHboyatDTW
My First "Top Of The Last 24/48 Hours" posted Sat Jan 27 2007 12:43:16 by GertLOWG
When Are We Going To Get Pics Of NW's A330 In HNL? posted Sat Jan 27 2007 02:08:23 by NWA ARJ
A Couple Of Motiv Rejects For Your Attention. posted Mon Jan 22 2007 15:26:25 by Alibo5NGN
Attack Of The Clones? posted Sun Jan 21 2007 19:05:05 by TedTAce