Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Appealing, Is It Even Useful?  
User currently offlineMx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 829 posts, RR: 13
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello, everybody out there.
I would like some clear explanation from the screeners, head if possible about the next following rejections.

This all 3 images were rejected by level (the Mexicana 319 had a badInfo rejection also in which its case I can’t complain…)



I found the 3 shots were perfectly aligned and decided to appeal.
A couple of hour later the images were re-rejected for the same reason.

I do have to accept this time it really frustrated me. Here are the 3 images showing clearly how they are perfectly leveled.



Is appealing really a good idea? For some reason I get the feeling HS don’t even read the comments you put when you appeal. If so, why were these shots re-rejected?

Now not only I’m loosing -12% rate of acceptance instead of getting +6% but actually will have to wait 10+ days in the queue to get them another try.

I’d really hope screeners have a time to clarify this situation.

Thanks in advance.

Juan APM

P.S. I’m still waiting for an answer on the e-mail I send you today, thanks

[Edited 2007-05-03 00:42:47]


All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3041 times:

Quoting Mx330 (Thread starter):
Is appealing really a good idea? For some reason I get the feeling HS don’t even read the comments you put when you appeal. If so, why were these shots re-rejected?

I think this is a good example of why comments should be standard practice for appealed shots. If somebody appeals a shot, they clearly don't see an obvious reason why it was rejected.

I myself submitted a shot a while ago that was rejected for motiv. Appealed and same thing. I even started a thread on it appealing to screeners in the title. Plenty of responses, but none from any screeners. After PM'ing Clickhappy, he posted, but he wasn't the one who screened it so his effort didn't help much. With no other responses from screeners, I gave up.

Anyway, I hope your case gets sorted out, and again, I think comments for appealed photos would be a good idea for the future.



Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 2999 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

If you appeal a shot, and dont explain why, it goes right back in the trash.

No comment = no appeal.

Your shots are unlevel. Sorry, but they are. I am too tired to draw lines. There is alsio some heat haze.

Royal


User currently offlineMx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 829 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2985 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I did explain all of them.
Can you tell me how are they unleveled? I can't seem to see it.

Thanks



All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineN405MX From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1378 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Quoting Mx330 (Thread starter):
Here are the 3 images showing clearly how they are perfectly leveled.

On the second one, I think it has to do that the plane is located on a "curve" or turn, maybe that´s why, got the same problem with an A320 in CUL, also rejected by "Level".

Just a posibility.

Saludos



Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

I'd be aligning the the A320 off the runway, not the ILS tower.

The 747 looks ok to me...

The one with the hangar in background does look weird not being level with the runway...


User currently offlineAMSA From Portugal, joined Apr 2006, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

At the first sight I thought they weren't unleveled, but looking carefully I realized that the Mexicana is a bit inclined to the left, needing a few of CW rotation.
On the Lufthansa the light posts on the left are inclined to the left also, as you can clearly see, so I think this one need a CW rotation too.
About the Avolar, I can't figure out the unlevel issue.

Just my 2cents!

Allen A.  wave 



Best regards from LIS, Allen Azevedo
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Quoting Mx330 (Thread starter):

Juan,
apart from heat haze that Royal mentions :

- First shot looks to be levelled to me...
- Second one I would give some CCW rotation (ILS antenna is clearly unlevelled).
- Third shot I would give abit of CW rotation (look at the light poles behind the back part of the 747 fuselage)

One suggestion I must give you : don't trust the lines you draw with PS or look alike softwares. Once you have decide the vertical (it must be vertical, not horizontal) reference trust your eyes...Probably screeners are more prone to judge by "feeling" rather than having a cristal-clear reference...
Would love to make their screen the PISA tower soon or late...

Ciao

PS
Oh, by the way : no, IMHO, appealing is unuseful. Would love to see the percentage of appealed shots that at the end went into the db...Probably very, very, very few.

[Edited 2007-05-03 14:52:02]


Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2907 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Would love to see the percentage of appealed shots that at the end went into the db...Probably very, very, very few.

As it should be. That means the screeners are doing a good job and the Head Screeners don't have to fix our mistake.


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
As it should be. That means the screeners are doing a good job and the Head Screeners don't have to fix our mistake.

Yes, Royal, for this reason I believe that appealing is a loss of time....

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2880 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

You have a very negative outlook if you think it is a waste of time. What kind of team would we have if the head screeners overturned the decisions of the individual screeners?

Think about it.


User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Hola Juan

First of all, try to appeal when you´re 100% sure that your shot deserves to be accepted. I´d have posted the photos here before appealing.  duck 
Then, regarding the pics, I see they are all clearly unlevel. On the MX shot, the antenna behind the A320 that can be seen between the engines of the Jumbo is unlevel. That´s a vertical reference that is leaning to the right, so you must correct it.
On the Avolar shot, the hangar looks unlevel (vertical lines leaning to the left).
I find the LH shot level, and with no valid reference to look at. The light poles in the left are leaning to the left and the one in the right is leaning to the right. It´s a tricky one. I would have leveled by taking the right light pole as a reference.
Hope it helps.  bigthumbsup 

Cheers!  wave 
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 10):

Royal,
I just want to say that screeners are today very well trained. So there is usually no reason for appealing a shot...The screening process consists of 3 poeple looking at your shot right ? I believe it is more than enough...
I don't know, but maybe you could tell us really which is the percentage of appealed shots that are included in the database at the end...Don't think it is a a big number...Most of the time maybe for motive reasons...(if these ones are not left to Joan)

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2849 times:

I've had a few appeals accepted, but only on 'Double' rejections where I believe its just the first screener has seen two pics of the same aircraft, same day but opposite sides, and just thought they were the same view when initially screening them.

99.99% of other rejections are correct when you really look at your rejection reason. Most decent pictures with minor flaws seem to be rejected with a reason AND 'Personal' with advice anyway.

Just my  twocents 



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineN405MX From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1378 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

Quoting Lanas (Reply 11):
On the MX shot, the antenna behind the A320 that can be seen between the engines of the Jumbo is unlevel. That´s a vertical reference that is leaning to the right, so you must correct it.



Quoting Lanas (Reply 11):
On the Avolar shot, the hangar looks unlevel (vertical lines leaning to the left).

About the sugestions, I also want to know, because I had some level rejections, the problem is, what will be a good reference, instead of an antenna or something in first plain, will be something in second or even third ?

When the hangars are in the background I think it´s even harder to level the shot, or the plane that is in first plain, because the hangars not always have flat horizontal roofs, so if I want to take that as a reference, my plane will be completely out of level -I think-.

So what will be the sugestion for the reference to be taken ?

Saludos



Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

You should always take vertical lines as a reference, since horizontal lines in most of the cases are subject to perspective and might give you a wrong impression.

Quoting N405MX (Reply 14):
in first plain, will be something in second or even third

With "In first/second plain" I believe you mean "foreground" and "background", am I right? Big grin
I don´t think that the distance to the reference matters. If it is a control tower it will be very distant but a very valid vertical reference. An ILS antenna by the side of the aircraft will be very close to you and also work as a valid reference.
I hope I could answer your question.  Smile

Cheers!
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2795 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mx330 (Thread starter):
Now not only I’m loosing -12% rate of acceptance instead of getting +6%

Juan - some months ago I kicked up a fuss about this, as I believed that losing a further 2% when a shot was rejected at appeal was unfair. Equally, I felt it was appropriate that when an appeal was successful then the initial loss of 2% should be rectified.

In fairness to Johan, he listened to my comments and adjusted the system. Thus, even though 3 shots were rejected initially and then at appeal, you should still only lose the 6%.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 9):
Yes, Royal, for this reason I believe that appealing is a loss of time....

I don't think so... I've gotten one that was originally rejected for motive accepted through the appeal queue.



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineMidEx216 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

Whether or not they read the comments we put on, I don't know. But one of my pictures got rejected, (I can't remember the reasons) but I didn't see the justification, so I appealed, and it got in very quickly thereafter. So, it does work.


"Cue the Circus Music!"
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2766 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Eadster (Reply 5):
The one with the hangar in background does look weird not being level with the runway...

Martin, runways can be sloped, or they can appear that way if the direction of the camera is not perpendicular to the direction of the runway, especially if the photo is taken from an elevated position.

The only thing to rely upon in that shot would be the verticals on the hangar - the construction people do make damn sure they point straight down. Frankly, I don't see what else could be used for reference in this picture, that would be more reliable.

Cheers,
Andrei


User currently offlineN405MX From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1378 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting Lanas (Reply 15):
With "In first/second plain" I believe you mean "foreground" and "background", am I right?

Right  biggrin  Meaning "Primer Plano, Segundo Plano, Fondo", etc.

Quoting Lanas (Reply 15):
I don´t think that the distance to the reference matters. If it is a control tower it will be very distant but a very valid vertical reference. An ILS antenna by the side of the aircraft will be very close to you and also work as a valid reference.
I hope I could answer your question.

Thank you so much, but also add:

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 19):
Martin, runways can be sloped, or they can appear that way if the direction of the camera is not perpendicular to the direction of the runway, especially if the photo is taken from an elevated position.



Quoting Chukcha (Reply 19):
The only thing to rely upon in that shot would be the verticals on the hangar - the construction people do make damn sure they point straight down. Frankly, I don't see what else could be used for reference in this picture, that would be more reliable.

That´s why I mean, the runway is not straig, for example in MTY we have a slope of 3°, taxiway B has a slope of 5.6°, so getting it leveled or aligned with another thing will be very difficult, also in MEX the mountains in the background make things kinda harder, for example this shot:

MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Logan Sanchez Ontiveros


I always got the "level" rejection -despite quality, oversharp, and some others in various uploads- what can I take as a valid reference to level the shot ? I tried with the subway in the background, then the subject -the terminal building-, then the hangars in the background, but always level  Sad

Saludos



Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Logan,

Quoting N405MX (Reply 20):
what can I take as a valid reference to level the shot ?

The yellow light poles and the columns on the construction site can be used as leveling references.
As Andrei says, vertical lines will always be vertical because 'the construction people do make damn sure they point straight down'. Big grin

Cheers!
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineN405MX From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1378 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2727 times:

Quoting Lanas (Reply 21):
The yellow light poles and the columns on the construction site can be used as leveling references.

The one in the upper of the left wing of the T7 looks leveled, but not the "grid" on the construction, does it has to do because of the perspective ?

Quoting Lanas (Reply 21):
As Andrei says, vertical lines will always be vertical because 'the construction people do make damn sure they point straight down'.

I agree, but I´ll try to post some pics of those darn things to show that sometimes in our airports that doesn´t apply at all.........

Thanks for the tip.

Saludos



Life is what happens when you have other plans.....
User currently offlineMx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 829 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks to all for your answers.
I will correct the pictures, though most agree LH is straight.

Just off the records, in a place like Mexico city, all posts are inclined differently...

Kudos

Juan APM



All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Quoting Mx330 (Thread starter):
Now not only I’m loosing -12% rate of acceptance instead of getting +6% but actually will have to wait 10+ days in the queue to get them another try.

Don't take it so seriously. The acceptance ratio should be hidden from some photographers and only accessible by the crew. All its done since being introduced is cause concern. It's taking the fun out of this hobby for some.

Just pretend its not there. Lower percentage does not mean you are bad at taking photos.


25 Post contains images Chukcha : Posts are not very reliable; when I wrote about 'verticals', I meant those in buildings. As for posts, I was editing a picture from an airshow yester
26 N405MX : Being an earthquake zone, it´s very dificult to get some poles or posts "straight", also for the record, MEX/MMMX is sinking, the airport sanked 40c
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...
Monopod, Is It Useful? posted Tue Jan 7 2003 09:36:22 by Lugonza_2001
Sometimes I Wonder If It's Even Worth It Anymore posted Tue Apr 24 2007 20:14:25 by Graphic
8 Photos; At Least 1 Of Them In... Is It Possible? posted Sun Apr 1 2007 17:27:23 by Varig767
JFK Terminal Photography - Is It Ok? posted Sun Mar 11 2007 23:41:43 by FlightShadow
VC-10 - Is It OK? posted Thu Feb 22 2007 17:50:00 by JakTrax
Last "Is It Good Enough?" Topic From Me For A Few. posted Sun Feb 18 2007 01:02:29 by Whappeh
Simple. Is It Acceptable? posted Mon Jan 29 2007 19:52:37 by BmiBaby737
...Is It Getting Silly Now...? posted Thu Dec 28 2006 15:36:03 by BmiBaby737
Critique Requested: Is It Soft Or Oversharp? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 21:30:40 by D L X
Is It Really Badcentered? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 23:47:20 by Dazed767