Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Normally Wouldn't Do This...  
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

But I this really irked me:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1228327/L/

I know its from 1997 and film, but after looking through other photos of that year and even of this very plane, it is amazing this one was allowed into the DB. The plane looks horrible and the only thing that actually looks good is the runway marker. The horizontal stabilizer is also cut off. I do not care about most things, but when a photo like this is accepted and surely others that look just like it are rejected, somethings wrong. I know you can not do as much to film/slide scan, but there has to be a line for "common" photos.

I am not trying to single anyone out, but after seeing some recent photos accepted into the DB with obvious problems,and then seeing recent posts where a wing is a LITTLE over sharpened, you can see a some noise or some white lettering is a little blown out getting rejected even though they are a more unique photo, I felt compelled to say something.

I know that older film photos aren't screened as hard as recent years photos due to the obvious noise or scanning quality issues, but when the plane is obviously blurry or its a bad scan it should be rejected just as a digital photo may be blurry or badly edited.

It also seems like there is a group of uploaders that seem to have there photos all allowed into the DB in huge groups even though it has been said publicly that 1 or 2 of the photos should not be in the DB. When a newbie uploads one photo that has a small issue and is rejected yet sees other photos just like theirs already in the DB it really makes it hard to keep trying.

I know I am going to get some responses saying I should have emailed the screener's, but I knew I would not get any where as I also keep seeing posts by people, even respected users saying how it doesn't do much.

Yes I have had rejections, and don't really care... but when 3 are rejected in a row from the same day that I edited just like my other accepted ones that look just like them, that seems really off to me.

I understand and agree with wanting to keep the picture quality up on A.net and not wanting it to become just another gallery/forum, but when all the photos start to look the same because you can't be a little creative with an angle or because of a small quality issue that may discourage someone from uploading again because of how long the Q is, it really makes people loose interest.

Here are some ideas I have:

1.Reduce amount of photos allowed in the Q for everybody so there will be less photos to screen, thus making the Q smaller. When some one has 15+ photos waiting to be screened, the really adds to the time in screening.
2.Allow a bit more lee-way on digital photos. I don't think most people would care if a wing is 1% over sharpened. Or if a prop plane shot has a tiny bit of blur.
3.Have respected members of the community or screener's who don't mind the extra work look over the most recent photos for photos that obviously should not have made it. This way there would be some accountability.

I am sure I have more, but thats enough to get started.

I also have one more thing to "rant" about  Wink

I think the upload/photo search menus should be re-done. It is so annoying to scroll for 5 minutes to find the exact airport or a certain airline. When you are selecting a plane on the upload page it is a lot easier having the 3 step selection. It means less scrolling and is easier to find what you are looking for.

I know I am going to get a lot of flak for this, but I am willing to take it.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

Ryan

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I know its from 1997 and film,

Yes. Film photos taken before the digital camera era are the only visual documents of aviation of those times, so they I believe they have some special consideration, specially if they were taken before 1990. It wouldn´t be the same if you took a picture with a film/slide nowadays and tried to get it accepted.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
but when the plane is obviously blurry or its a bad scan it should be rejected

 checkmark  True.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I know I am going to get some responses saying I should have emailed the screener's

Man don´t try to anticipate the answer if you know that´s the right way to do it. File a complaint to the screeners´ mail and wait for their feedback.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
2.Allow a bit more lee-way on digital photos. I don't think most people would care if a wing is 1% over sharpened. Or if a prop plane shot has a tiny bit of blur.

I agree with this in the case, for example, of some unfixable jaggies that appear after resizing (I´m thinking about your oversharpened-wing example). It´s a minor flaw compared to others that might appear: for instance, if a picture is OOF, then there´s nothing to argue about. Some blurriness might be tolerated on panning shots, but regular shots have to be as sharp as they can, IMO.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
3.Have respected members of the community or screener's who don't mind the extra work look over the most recent photos for photos that obviously should not have made it.

I believe that could be done by the users/photographer community by sending an e-mail to the screening team. There´s no need, I think, to put somebody to work on it. It could be a loss of time with the high amount of photos that get accepted every day.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I think the upload/photo search menus should be re-done. It is so annoying to scroll for 5 minutes to find the exact airport or a certain airline. When you are selecting a plane on the upload page it is a lot easier having the 3 step selection. It means less scrolling and is easier to find what you are looking for.

One question comes to mind: do you not use the auto-complete function?

Cheers  Smile
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1881 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sorry i dont believe you should drag someones name through the mud here.
Take your own advise and send a message to the screeners regarding any complaints you have.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting Lanas (Reply 1):

Thanks for the level-headed reply Lanas  Smile

Yes, I do use the auto-complete function, but sometimes like with a new registration is takes a lot of time to just selecting the airport,let alone airline or airplane. To me it is very annoying.

Like I said, I would have sent this to the screeners, but I didn't just want their opinion and input. Like I alluded to, I have been seeing hints of frustration and was willing to be a bit of a scapegoat to get people to speak their minds to make the site BETTER. When I first found A.net it seemed friendly and had amazing photos, now it seems a little hostile and a lot of cookie-cutter photos.

One thing I forgot is to allow a few more mid-day ground photos. If there is some heat haze but the plane looks good except for the gear it should be allowed.

Regarding the film, I DO understand that the standards are not as harsh and thats FINE with me, but when there are blatant quality issues of a common plane it should be screened a bit more thoroughly.


User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):
Sorry i dont believe you should drag someones name through the mud here.
Take your own advise and send a message to the screeners regarding any complaints you have.
Cheers

As I said in my OP, I am not trying to drag someone through the mud. It just happened to be a perfect example to illustrate my point.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
but there has to be a line for "common" photos.

There are 20 pics of it in the DB and it's a NW DC-10. Hardly common and I would like to see it. I do believe they are not flying anymore and you would have to shoot it at a boneyard.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
The horizontal stabilizer is also cut off.

Barely, your reaching a bit.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
even though it has been said publicly that 1 or 2 of the photos should not be in the DB

Oh yea like that means anything.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I understand and agree with wanting to keep the picture quality up on A.net and not wanting it to become just another gallery/forum, but when all the photos start to look the same because you can't be a little creative with an angle or because of a small quality issue that may discourage someone from uploading again because of how long the Q is, it really makes people loose interest.

At last check there is many of your so called "creative" shots in the DB. As for people losing interest just because of a couple of rejections. Not much you can do, if you want to give up there is many other things to photograph or you can always try the other av-photo sites. Many to chose from.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
1.Reduce amount of photos allowed in the Q for everybody so there will be less photos to screen, thus making the Q smaller. When some one has 15+ photos waiting to be screened, the really adds to the time in screening.

What I can't quite understand is if someone uploads a pic with quality issues what difference does it make how long it get's screened?  confused 

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
2.Allow a bit more lee-way on digital photos. I don't think most people would care if a wing is 1% over sharpened. Or if a prop plane shot has a tiny bit of blur.

Maybe, but from my experience a good capture and subsequent edit gets in. No need to lower the standards because you want less quality photos to get in.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
3.Have respected members of the community or screener's who don't mind the extra work look over the most recent photos for photos that obviously should not have made it. This way there would be some accountability

Respected members of the community?

Just what we need the DB police.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
but I am willing to take it.

You could have been willing not to post this. It's been beaten into the ground for the 3 and a half years I have been here and is tired and old.


User currently offlineJetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2764 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Reply 3):
Yes, I do use the auto-complete function, but sometimes like with a new registration is takes a lot of time to just selecting the airport,let alone airline or airplane. To me it is very annoying

It is easier for me to hold in a certain letter searching for some specific airport/airline/aircraft:

For example if I were searching for a Piper, I would Hold the letter "P" down on my keyboard so the scroller automatically goes to the "P" section of the search scrollbar.

Same for Airlines:

United Airlines I would Hold "U" down until the U's come up.

Airports:

United States - Oklahoma

Simply hold down the U button until the United States come up etc...

-Matt



No info
User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I know I am going to get some responses saying I should have emailed the screener's, but I knew I would not get any where as I also keep seeing posts by people, even respected users saying how it doesn't do much.

You could just as easily e-mail the screeners and bring the subject up in the forum without "showcasing" a particular image. But since you're doing this for the greater good of aviation photographers, I suspect you already contacted the photographer and asked if they mind having their picture used as an example?

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
When a newbie uploads one photo that has a small issue and is rejected yet sees other photos just like theirs already in the DB it really makes it hard to keep trying.

And imagine how a newbie feels seeing an experienced photographer's work shredded on a public forum? That would also be enough to make them quit uploading for fear of having one of their shots used "as a beacon to others."
http://www.demotivators.com/mis24x30prin.html

B


User currently offlineDM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I know its from 1997 and film, but after looking through other photos of that year and even of this very plane, it is amazing this one was allowed into the DB. The plane looks horrible and the only thing that actually looks good is the runway marker. The horizontal stabilizer is also cut off.

Again, it was taken in 1997, four pixels or something like that of the stabilizer was cut off. I can understand if it was taken recently and you had said that, but 1997?

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
Yes I have had rejections, and don't really care... but when 3 are rejected in a row from the same day that I edited just like my other accepted ones that look just like them, that seems really off to me.

Different screeners see different things.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
2.Allow a bit more lee-way on digital photos. I don't think most people would care if a wing is 1% over sharpened. Or if a prop plane shot has a tiny bit of blur.

Sometimes its nice to have it like that because it makes you a better photography/editer and it makes you feel better when you get a shot excepted (at least i did)

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I think the upload/photo search menus should be re-done. It is so annoying to scroll for 5 minutes to find the exact airport or a certain airline. When you are selecting a plane on the upload page it is a lot easier having the 3 step selection. It means less scrolling and is easier to find what you are looking for.

There is the auto-complete, but i know what you mean when you have new registrations and airlines. But what would be a faster way to fill it in other than punch it in yourself?

DM


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
.....




-
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 6):

I do that, but it is still takes awhile or it sometimes jumps around.

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 7):

I am not trying to use this shot as "beacon to others" I could have chose a lot of others, but this one just happened at the right time. Plus as a photographer I would not mind, it would make me better and as a lot of people say on this site "pre-screen" my photos better.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 5):

I don't care if I am reaching, film or not, that should be a rejection in of itself.

I also like DC-10s and old photos, but when it is hard to make out details and just the whole picture in the general is a little hard to look at when there are more than 5 already of the same plane in DB, including other ground shots it won't hurt rejecting one. If it was the only one of that very plane, then sure I wouldn't mind.

if it has beaten into the ground for 3 years, maybe its a sign. It will never be perfect, but maybe things should change as change is usually good.

It would not be a "DB" police. It would be only for photos that a newbie would reject.'

Yes it does mean something when respected members question the validity of a photo in the DB.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
after seeing some recent photos accepted into the DB with obvious problems,and then seeing recent posts where a wing is a LITTLE over sharpened, you can see a some noise or some white lettering is a little blown out getting rejected even though they are a more unique photo, I felt compelled to say something.

It's not your website, you don't get a say in what goes in to it.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
It also seems like there is a group of uploaders that seem to have there photos all allowed into the DB in huge groups even though it has been said publicly that 1 or 2 of the photos should not be in the DB.

Agree completely.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
I know I am going to get some responses saying I should have emailed the screener's, but I knew I would not get any where as I also keep seeing posts by people, even respected users saying how it doesn't do much.

Agree completely, .....huge waste of time. If it's worth saying in your opinion, say it here. Most photographers here won't have their fragile egos crushed by someone saying their photo shouldn't have made it in.

Quoting RCoulter (Thread starter):
Here are some ideas I have:

1.Reduce amount of photos allowed in the Q for everybody so there will be less photos to screen, thus making the Q smaller. When some one has 15+ photos waiting to be screened, the really adds to the time in screening.
2.Allow a bit more lee-way on digital photos. I don't think most people would care if a wing is 1% over sharpened. Or if a prop plane shot has a tiny bit of blur.
3.Have respected members of the community or screener's who don't mind the extra work look over the most recent photos for photos that obviously should not have made it. This way there would be some accountability.

It's not your website, you don't get a say in what goes in to it. It's not broke, don't try to fix it.


User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 9):

Is this really a helpful reply? Maybe you should suggest that post for deletion.


User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 11):

I do realize it is not my website, but I have worked on a few large sites and I enjoyed getting opnions so I could make the site better and more enjoyable.


User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):
Take your own advise and send a message to the screeners regarding any complaints you have.

Don't waist your time.
BTW, the pic is horrible.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Reply 13):
I do realize it is not my website, but I have worked on a few large sites and I enjoyed getting opnions so I could make the site better and more enjoyable.

Better and more enjoyable? Your suggestions to make things better and more enjoyable would be in your opinion only. Then post your 'suggestions' in Site Related when Johan asks for them.

You seem to think you can speak for the majority, not sure why.


User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 15):

How do you know I am not speaking for the majority? If you look above, on a FEW points, some people agree with me. Look in past posts, I believe I am speaking for people who may not have the confidence to say what has been hinted at.


User currently offlinePhxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1812 times:

Personally for a 1997 photo it doesnt look to bad. For sure not up to todays standards but a nice picture of an old classic.

User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1664 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

I will start by saying that this is very bad manners, to complain about an accepted image in open forum. Had you contacted us one of us would certainly have replied to you.
I had not seen this image until you drew my attention to it but had I have done so I would have added it without compunction. There are 22 images of it on the db, 11 showing it in this livery and mostly of worse quality. It was taken on film (which was a roll strip of acetate that went in the back of the camera). The internet was in its infancy and rules such as motive had not been thought out. The quality of this one is actually pretty good for the era and as we cannot turn the clock back, we would be foolish to not add it to the database. There are plenty of mine on the db that are far worse quality than this, accepted because of their age and rarity.
Taking photographs of aircraft today is child's play compared to today (as you have ably demonstrated). The hobby was nothing like as popular as today and people like Javier (and many others) should be saluted for having taken them at all, not castigated.
Ryan, you have picked one photograph and chosen to start a fight, one you will not win. Between us, we look at hundreds a day. We discuss dozens a day between ourselves but no one would have quibbled about that one !
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineShutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

With all respect Mick.

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 18):
I had not seen this image until you drew my attention

I thought that all screeners took part in the screening process?

Javier


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1664 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1716 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting Shutterbug (Reply 19):

I thought that all screeners took part in the screening process?

Yes, we do, but not every image. An image (generally) needs three, sometimes more, sometimes less, but not every screener for every image.

Mick


User currently offlineTom3 From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2004, 240 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1708 times:

Quoting Shutterbug (Reply 19):
I thought that all screeners took part in the screening process?

Not all screeners are screening the same pictures..

Tom



Tom Mousel - Lap
User currently offlineSpruit From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1694 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 18):
(which was a roll strip of acetate that went in the back of the camera)

 rotfl 

One day, you'll be saying that for real Mick!

Spru!



E=Mc2
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4119 posts, RR: 90
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

This thread is not going anywhere if you wish to question the photo please contact screeners@airliners.net

Thread Locked, Thank you.



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineShutterbug From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

Just out of curiosity.

Do you guys do it by region, I mean, pics from US, get US screeners; Europe, Europe screeners and so on. Or just whoever is on duty when pics are in the que gets to screen a particular shot. And do all screeners have large monitors (i.e 22inches +) or equipment wise you guys all differ.

Many Thanks.


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...
I Never Do This But ... Opinions For This One? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 06:59:28 by EZEIZA
Why Can't I Do This, With My 350D? posted Mon Apr 10 2006 21:39:34 by AirbusA346
How Do They Do This Kind Of Photography? posted Thu Jun 9 2005 12:08:46 by An225
How Does He Do This?!? posted Wed Apr 21 2004 20:18:54 by United4EverDEN
Why Do We All Do This? posted Sun Aug 31 2003 16:14:11 by Paulianer
Do You Do This Too? posted Tue Nov 13 2001 19:35:49 by EGGD
Am I Wrong For Wanting To Do This? posted Sun Apr 22 2001 01:03:16 by Dazed767
What To Do With This Shot? posted Wed Jun 6 2007 00:27:29 by Flamedude707
What Can I Do With This Photo? posted Sat May 12 2007 16:00:35 by AIRBUSRIDER
What To Do To Get This To A Net Standards? posted Tue Apr 24 2007 07:55:59 by Flamedude707