Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 348 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 813 times:
Now, that's an interesting one. The picture was taken at near 90 degrees to the runway. If we are to assume that the runway is the levelest part of the background (and it seems to be the only reliable reference; another one to relate too could be the edge of the runway next to the fence, but we can't use it as we have no idea at what angle in relation to the shot direction it is sutuated), the far edge of the runway suggest a little of CW rotation; the near edge and the centerline - just a tad of CCW; the verticals (fence poles) inclined to the right in the right side of the shot and to the left in the left side. What to pick for reference?
When I used to receive 'level' rejections in the past, the screener used to drop a hint, like "needs CCW (or CW) rotation. Apparently, it is out of the window now.
ThierryD, if you read this... In another thread you wondered why I called appeal function "useless"? Here is a good illustration. When someone appeals, it usually means that this person is in a difficult situation, because he (or her) can not see the problem with their image. When the appeal result just reiterates what was in the rejection email without any further clarification, what is the use? Just a three-word long line in this particular case would be sufficient, like, "needs ... rotation."
The centered I can deal with - it does look a little low in the frame. However the 'level' has me baffled. I used the grid when I processed the photo, and the horizon in the background is absolutely, positively, 100% level. Just as with Oleg's photo in the thread starter, the normally desired items (runway, horizon, etc) are level. Yes, the CJ does sit slightly nose low when on the ground, and the descending paint stripe doesn't help. Should I make the plane look more level, or keep the horizon level? Do some of the screeners have astigmatism? Are they using a grid to check level? Or are they just 'eyeballing' it? I'd love to know, because as far as I can tell, that photo is level based on their stated desire for the horizon to be horizontal. Without advice, I have no clue which way to go with it if I reprocess it and submit it again.
I know the screeners do a huge job here. But if they want the best possible images to come in (so they don't have to do as much work in the screening process) a little help would be appreciated. Thanks.
David
[Edited 2008-07-16 23:18:59]
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 784 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 769 times:
I have looked at this for a while ...
Levelling by fence posts which is what the screeners here have appeared to have done is hardly reliable when you have a perfectly flat runway!
I also read in other threads this morning that concessions are made for rare shots from rare places. This aircraft does not appear to exist in the database and is from a quite rare airfield (looks like UUS, nice place, went there once and they would not let me in!). So to reject an shot that may need 0.1CW or 0.1CCW to me is ridiculous. Again the question should be asked, out of all the thousands of people who visit this site and would look at that image - how many would say "Oh look that's not level", I bet the answer would be none.
Jid
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
Macairmetro From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 2 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 751 times:
Tough call Oleg, but I gave it a 0.2 C.W. on my screen and it looks sweet! Give it a go and see what you think, but I would like to see it in the D.B.....What's another week or two in the queue!
FYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 324 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 732 times:
I just checked both. Oleg's point is the front border of the rwy is strictly correct. Graham seems checked it on rear border and his point is also correct. So in both cases picture could be as accepted as rejected depends on what screener like to do with it.
From my side I can just say that I do not understand such rejections - issue is so minor and unobvious and photo is rare and good.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1298 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 724 times:
quote=FYODOR,reply=8]From my side I can just say that I do not understand such rejections - issue is so minor and unobvious and photo is rare and good.[/quote]
Aren't these laws being enforced too strictly now? I understand the desire for quality images on this site but rejections such as this simply put decent photog's off uploading to A.net.
I know I've had some (seemingly) odd rejections lately and it's certainly put me off.
FYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 324 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 713 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9): this simply put decent photog's off uploading to A.net.
How can I comment on that? ALL my latest photos were rejected. ALL that I'd appealed was rejected as Chukcha described. Am I decent photographer? Now it seems not...
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 784 posts, RR: 23 Reply 11, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 713 times:
As quoted from a crew member in another thread
Quote: The screeners are certainly doing the right thing by accepting these kinds of photos. If anything, I would argue that lowering the importance of "technical perfection" in favor of unique and interesting content is something that isn't done often enough.
Does not seem to apply to this rare shot.
Hongyin I wonder what you base your tiny amount of CW rotation on? It might help us all unravel the mysteries of the a.net level for future use.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1298 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 709 times:
Quoting Jid (Reply 11): Hongyin I wonder what you base your tiny amount of CW rotation on? It might help us all unravel the mysteries of the a.net level for future use.
Been through this many times Jid, without success. Seems that, if A.net says it's unlevel, it's unlevel, no matter what the general populous or the protractor says.....
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 27 Reply 13, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 667 times:
I don't see the point in such fine tolerances; the site only makes trouble for itself. The current photog's choice is clearly not level - not that it matters anyway, but when you've got screeners being so anal about it it's a bit annoying.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1092 posts, RR: 46 Reply 14, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 635 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Jid (Reply 11): Hongyin I wonder what you base your tiny amount of CW rotation on? It might help us all unravel the mysteries of the a.net level for future use.
Hi Jid
I was not the screener who rejected this photo. But I see the fence poles are slightly leaning to left. After a tiny CW rotation, the photo will look level.
Whappeh From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1148 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 622 times:
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 14): But I see the fence poles are slightly leaning to left. After a tiny CW rotation, the photo will look level.
I've been wanting to ask this for a while, and this is the perfect situation: But how do you know the fence poles are not leaning to the left in person? Fences don't stay straight for long.
FYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 324 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 603 times:
Landscape is often quite hilly. For example in Vnukovo difference in highest and lowest point is 22 meters (or even more). Fences are quite uncertain measure to check the level.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1092 posts, RR: 46 Reply 17, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 594 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Whappeh (Reply 15): But how do you know the fence poles are not leaning to the left in person? Fences don't stay straight for long.
Again, this rejection was not made by me. And because Oleg asked for opinions, I provided my suggestions. You could disagree with the rejection and what I said.
And for Oleg, if you think the rejection isn't correct, the appeal link could be found in the original rejection email.
Whappeh From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1148 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 544 times:
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 17): Again, this rejection was not made by me. And because Oleg asked for opinions, I provided my suggestions. You could disagree with the rejection and what I said.
I'm not trying to badmouth your opinions, I'm just honestly confused as to why things that aren't always straight in the real world have to be assumed to be straight for here.
Sponsor Message: 
From Russia, joined Jan 2007, 3 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 348 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2002, 1386 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1298 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 784 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1092 posts, 