Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do The Screeners Have Their New Monitors?  
User currently offlineAC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 531 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Have the new monitors been deployed across the screening team yet? If so, I can't help but feel that there is an issue with the evaluation of photo sharpness since I recently had a bunch of 'soft' rejections. I say this because I have been using the same sharpening method for over a year without a single 'soft' rejection in that time, and all of a sudden I am getting 'soft' rejections.

Here's some examples, all rejected for soft:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._8407_ZM_CGTSN_092007_CYOW_752.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...483_AC_CFXCA_092007_CYOW_763_2.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...284_AC_CFITW_111207_CYUL_773_3.jpg

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3339 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Peter,

If you look closely at the Zoom one, you'll see that the camera focused on the terminal behind, so the aircraft itself is out of focus and thus appears very soft.
I think on the AC ones, they were also rejected for other reasons...but even so, they are slightly soft, lacking the very last 'kick' in sharpness.

Hope it helps, and keep'm coming  Smile !



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineAC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Thanks for your information.

On the Zoom shot it's impossible for the camera to have focused anywhere but on the plane since I have configured my camera to focus using the center point only. Unless it has somehow developed x-ray focusing without me knowing.

As for the other shots, again, I've done nothing to change my sharpening method so quite clearly what has been working for more than a year is no longer working. Based on this I can only conclude that the sharpening standard has been quietly elevated by the screeners.


User currently offlineShep2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Peter -

All the shots above look sharp enough to me. Having said that, I think I'll delete the few I have in the queue - because softness looks to be a confusing thing here lately...

[Edited 2007-11-27 06:43:22]

User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3314 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Peter,

If you don't agree with the screening, you can always use the appeal function. We try our best, but we are also human and thus can make mistakes. And please, when you post rejections, indicate all rejection reasons.
I really like the AC shots, so I hope you'll rework and reupload them!



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineAC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3310 times:



Quoting Shep2 (Reply 3):
Peter -

All the shots above look sharp enough to me.

They are sharp enough based on my experience on what has been the standard for more than a year. You're not seeing things.

As I said, the only explanation is that the sharpening standard has been quietly elevated. Sadly, no member of the crew is willing to confirm or refute this.

I'll adapt and add more sharpening in the future. Then I'll sit by unsurprised when the oversharpened rejections start to fly.


User currently offlineKMB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

AC888YOW This is most likely down to pixel density.

17" monitors are usually 1280x1024 so are 19" so with a larger area images on a 19" will look softer than they do on a 17"

Consequently with widescreen

20.5" standard is 1680x1050 so are 22" (Used by screeners I think) so again with a larger area images on a 22" will look softer than they do on a 20.5" screen.

Its all about pixel density or dot pitch.

Hope that helps.


User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3287 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



Quoting AC888YOW (Reply 5):
As I said, the only explanation is that the sharpening standard has been quietly elevated. Sadly, no member of the crew is willing to confirm or refute this.

Hi Peter

I don't think our sharpening criterion has been changed.

Zoom: The plane looks soft/blurry in parts, such as, nose and tailfin.
Air Canada B767: The major problem is that shot was underexposed.
Air Canada B777: The nose and tailfin are out of focus due to depth of field.

Hope this helps!

_Hongyin_


User currently offlineAC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3252 times:



Quoting KMB (Reply 6):
AC888YOW This is most likely down to pixel density.

17" monitors are usually 1280x1024 so are 19" so with a larger area images on a 19" will look softer than they do on a 17"

Consequently with widescreen

20.5" standard is 1680x1050 so are 22" (Used by screeners I think) so again with a larger area images on a 22" will look softer than they do on a 20.5" screen.

Its all about pixel density or dot pitch.

Hope that helps.

It does. I think this is exactly what's happening. So I'll adapt and add more sharpening in the future to compensate for this.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 4):
If you don't agree with the screening, you can always use the appeal function. We try our best, but we are also human and thus can make mistakes.

I don't agree with the screening, but don't mistake my questions as typical screener hate that is so often posted around here. All I asked was why a method that has worked for me for a long time is no longer working. I'm confident KMB's response is the reason.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 4):
I really like the AC shots, so I hope you'll rework and reupload them!

Maybe, but I don't think so. I know the work and attention to detail I put into my pictures and editing, so I firmly believe each and every picture I upload is good enough (unless I do something totally silly like level incorrectly or submit borders or something). This is why I have a fairly strict 'one strike you're out' (where 'you' is a.net) policy where I don't re-work or re-upload rejections. I've gone against it in the past for shots that are really important (or if I'm in an excessively good mood), but in most cases it's a matter of principle. Admittedly it's a bit of a stubbornness thing as well.

Quoting Bubbles (Reply 7):
Hope this helps!

_Hongyin_

Duly noted. Thanks Hongyin.


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...
Do The Screeners Make Mistakes? posted Tue Apr 16 2002 05:21:15 by Vez
Do The Posts Lead To A Motiv Rejection? posted Fri Sep 14 2007 15:25:15 by KLM772ER
Double Er Triple Question For The Screeners posted Fri Aug 17 2007 20:39:53 by Maiznblu_757
Help My Photo's In The Queue Have Disappeared posted Tue Aug 14 2007 11:28:48 by Garry
I Am The Proud Owner Of A New Nikon D80! posted Fri Jun 29 2007 10:41:05 by AussieAviator
Great Job By The Screeners! posted Fri Feb 23 2007 06:05:25 by Shep
How Did This One Slip Past The Screeners?! posted Wed Dec 20 2006 19:24:26 by Flyfisher1976
A Quick Opinion From The Screeners Please! posted Wed Nov 29 2006 17:51:47 by Lufthansi
Here Is A Winning Response Form The Screeners posted Fri Sep 22 2006 06:59:30 by Avsfan
Does The Plane Have To Show? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 22:00:14 by Sleekjet