Dreamliner84 From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4160 times:
HI to all,
I'd like to receive a clarification by the airliners net screeeners about a rejection to my shot... I don't believe in that!!!!
About 10 days ago a screener rejected me a shot a an A 332 of AP (first registration in A.net database only for "info" reason, in your regulation form in the "reason of rejection" section you wrote that if you reject a shot only for info reason you invite us to reupload the same version of the shot and surely in the next screening process it'll be accepted.
However I made what you requested but the same shot that (10 days ago) respect your standards and was rejected only for "info" reason my shot yesterday was rejected (for 2 reasons???????) for "grainy" and "level" reasons after my second upload of the same file!!!!
I only correct the registration and re-uploaded it in your database!! Nothing else...
Now, I'm very disappointed about this situation because I don't believe in that... 14 days ago you told me to correct only the info (the registration was wrong because i wrote EI.DIR instead of EI-DIR) but I correct it and now you rejected it for other reasons... (the same version of the shot!!!!!).
If my shot was grainy and unlevel why didn't you tell me it before?! Why didn't you tell me that in the first rejection of it and you refused it only for "info" reason making me sure to be a perfect shot from a tecnichal point of view??
I tried to put my shot in the appeal queue to be reviewed by a head screeener telling him the reason of my appeal to have the shot accepted... but after some hours yesterday evening he refused my appeal.
I want you to know that before my first upload (and before the first rejection) a screener, Eric Fortin suggested me to make a CCW rotation to have the shot accepted sending me an exemplification version of my shot I had in queue modified by him from his point of view... How is it possibile that it happened this thing???
Sincerely if a screener suggests me something to do I believe in that and I follow his advice because I believe that it's the right way to have a shot accepted.
The screener should know more things than the uploaders and should have more experience... Sincerely I believe that Eric is a good screener but for me this situation is very absurd, and I'd try to understand more...
I downloaded the two rejected versions of the shot on my computer, if you want I could send them to you by e-mail... you can see the date of the 2 shots and make a comparison between them... and notice that they're perfectly identical!!!
I don't want to be polemical but I want to receive some clarifications possibily by the screeeners directly in this topic answering me... and the opinion of the ohter members of the forum...
Dreamliner84 From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4135 times:
I'll post you the two pictures in this thread as soon as I'll be at home... no problem. I'm not on my computer now...
I can't link you the rejection shots in this case because I made the appeal two times (for the first rejection first and after for the second one...) so in my personal rejections list page the two shots aren't visible in the "large version" but I've downloaded it before the appealing rejections on my computer, so that's no problem for viewing them... I'll post them here...
But imagine that the same picture that was rejected only for "info" reason before and rejected for other two reasons after... what would you think about that in this situation?? If the first version would be accepted with the correct registration the problem doen't exist in my opinion... but surely I'll upload the two shots in the next hours in this topic.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3139 posts, RR: 30 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4096 times:
I sympathise. This is a long-standing issue - when shots are rejected, the rejection notice does not normally include all possible reasons that would justify rejection, but only the first (most obvious) one seen by the screener.
When shots are resubmitted on appeal, they are re-screened and other defects may come to light.
It is an unsatisfactory situation, I agree.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Dreamliner84 From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 3): the rejection notice does not normally include all possible reasons that would justify rejection, but only the first (most obvious) one seen by the screener.
It's not correct in my opinion, It's important for the photographer to know all the the rejection reasons in the first one before making some changes, not after.
Quoting Viv (Reply 3): When shots are resubmitted on appeal, they are re-screened and other defects may come to light.
I'm not referring to the appeal screening results in particular... I'm referring to the second upload I made, completely separated from the first one Do you understand now??
In the second upload my shot was rejected for other two reasons and the absurd is that in the Airliners.net regulation form in the "rejection section" the screeners advice you to reupload the same version of the shot you uploaded firstly to be accepted in case of only "info" rejection. What should I've done?? I had to modify it for the second upload without running the risk to have my shot rejected for other reasons?? I prefered to follow the advice of the screeners... it's seems to me the right way.
I only follow the regulation and anything else!!
So why did anyone rejected me the shot for "grainy and level" in my first upload also with "info" reason?? (I repeat... before its first screening I made a CCW rotation like Eric told me to do, he screened it before the other screeners only because I put it in the priority screening queue before because of its first registration in the database... This is an absurd situation...) The rejection for "level" in particular was the last thing I expected sincerely.
This second unexpected rejection affected also to my acceptance ratio, and I couldn't do anything to avoid it because I preferred to follow the regulation about "info rejections" without correcting the image but only uploading it writing the right registration.
Before this double rejection I had more than 80% of accepatance ratio but now for this episode It felt to 60%. I'm very disappointed about that!!
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3893 times:
Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 4): I'm not referring to the appeal screening results in particular... I'm referring to the second upload I made, completely separated from the first one Do you understand now??
When pictures are re-uploaded after a rejection, they are screened again and undergo the normal screening process, which means they have to pass three screeners. If one of them finds a flaw, it gets rejected. The screener who rejected your shot for info, probably only looked at this very obvious mistake and rejected it before getting a chance to discover the other flaws. After re-uploading at least one screener found the others. Do you understand now??
And maybe you should've posted a link to the photo in the meantime, to get some input on the subject.
I take it you don't have a lot of photos in the database yet, as one rejection normally can't hurt your acceptance ratio by more than 2%, and you say yours dropped more than 20% with those two rejections??
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3889 times:
It's a rejection, it happens, no need to whine like that about it. Appeal it if you think you are right, or fix it if you can and move on. You aren't the first to have this happen to, and surely not the last.
Get used to it....it's a one strike you're out situation.
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3887 times:
Quoting Deaphen (Reply 1): I think this thread is useless without the concerned picture, no one can help you unless you post the picture.
Yes and no.
One thing is the missing picutre.
Second thin is the rejection process: first you get the info rejection, and then you upload the same picture with the correct info, wait another 2 weeks (or however long it is now) and get another rejection for other things. That is obsolete. Why not mark all the rejection reasons at once then insted of wasting uploaders' and screeners' time ?
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
Dreamliner84 From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3849 times:
Quoting Codeshare (Reply 8): first you get the info rejection, and then you upload the same picture with the correct info, wait another 2 weeks (or however long it is now) and get another rejection for other things. That is obsolete. Why not mark all the rejection reasons at once then insted of wasting uploaders' and screeners' time ?
I agree with you... I think that wait so long to know that your shot doesn't respect the screeners standards after more than a week isn't very good in my opinion expecially if the the shot I'm referring to'd be the first registration shot in the database, It should be important for me to know all the wrong things of my shot imediately to correct it as soon as possibile and reupload the shot after few hours...
Quoting TransIsland (Reply 6): The screener who rejected your shot for info, probably only looked at this very obvious mistake and rejected it before getting a chance to discover the other flaws. After re-uploading at least one screener found the others. Do you understand now??
I didn't know about this method... I thought that the screener would have looked for all the flaws of my image and not to stop at the first one. I think that if you stops imediately you don't give to the photographer the opportunity to improve his shot... doing so I don't know if the shot respects your standards... Do you understand what I mean??
In this way my acceptance'd fell down for two times, the first one for the only "info" reason and the second for other reasons you didn't explain in the previous rejection (after more than one week...a very long wait for a shot that should be the first registration in the database, not very common...)
This isn't a very good situation for people that send you their shots in my opinion.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1408 posts, RR: 32 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3832 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
First let me say that I fully sympathize with you, I can totally understand your frustration and I see your post as a mean to express it and "let some steam off".
I had a look at what happened (unfortunately I cannot link to your rejected pictures, you will have to link to them), and I think I have more or less an idea what occurred.
A few data:
- Your first upload was screened and rejected for info on July 10th.
- Your second upload was screened and rejected for level and grainy on July 23rd.
- In the meantime, the first shot of this particular registration was accepted into the DB on July 21st.
- Today you have 6 pictures in the DB.
Now please allow me to explain a few things that hopefully will help you understanding our system and how it worked in your particular case:
- The info rejection means that part of the info you submitted is wrong or missing. Now, since your first upload was under a wrong registration (one that doesn't exist), then during screening we are going to see "0 pics in the DB", which in your case INCIDENTALLY was correct, but we have no way to check for it. Accordingly, there is no way we are going to accept a picture with the wrong registration, even if it would be the first one of that particular registration in the DB. Since this is such a big "no-go", the screener probably immediately just rejected your picture, and most probably didn't even have another look at it.
- When you receive a rejection for ANY reason, you as the uploader have to make sure the new upload meets all our standards. How are we screeners supposed to know if you just uploaded exactly the same edit, or changed something? We don't, and thus we have to screen your picture all over again as it was the first time you uploaded it.
- When you upload a picture of a registration that is not present in the DB, we tend to be more lenient during screening as it is deemed to be a "rare" picture. Unfortunately for you, before your second upload was actually screened, we accepted the first shot of this particular registration into the DB. Accordingly, when your picture came up for screening, we applied basically the same standard as for any other picture during screening, and it was (correctly) rejected for level and grainy.
- Here is the relevant part of the FAQ for info:
Quote: If this reason was the only one given in the rejection email, please re-upload the photos and pay high attention to supplying the correct info.
Please have a close look at the wording. It says "please re-upload", it doesn't say "please re-upload exactly same edit". In other words, what you read is an encouragement to upload again your picture and not simply forget about it, it doesn't say you have to re-upload your very same edit with no changes.
Having said that, I can see how this can be misunderstood and I think we should change that wording to make it clearer.
- Since you have uploaded so few pictures, one or two rejection will have a huge impact on your acceptance ratio. But this works both ways, as a few acceptances will increase it again very quickly! In any case, for you this is a temporary problem that will tend to smooth out once you get closer to 50 uploads.
Finally, I agree that ideally on each rejection the screener hopefully should include all rejection reasons to help the uploader improving his picture for a re-upload. But as you may have seen in other threads, not everybody seems to be happy with that...However, we cannot be blamed for the possible flaws your pictures might have - we are only here to point them out. The responsibility for the info and quality of an uploaded picture lays with the photographer, so please use all possible means to achieve that, like reading and understanding our upload guidelines, using the Photography forum to ask your fellow photographers for advice (see pre-screen thread), and also have a look at other guidelines that are available on the web.
Hope it helps .
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Dreamliner84 From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3791 times:
Thank you Andrés... a lot of things are more clear now... I'm very frustrated for the things that happened, Fabio Ferioli (the photographer that uploaded the first shot in the database is a friend of mine). I knew before that he had got his shot in queue, for this reason I tried to put my shot in the appeal queue after its first rejection for "info" because I was sure that probably you could have accepted his shot like the first in the database (I want to underline that his shot is excellent, and deserves to be the first registration uploaded in the database ).
Quoting Acontador (Reply 11): the screener probably immediately just rejected your picture, and most probably didn't even have another look at it.
Doing that from a point of view is a quicker way to invite the photographer to upload the shot imediately and correct any errors but from the other "side of the coin" like we say in Italy the photographer thinks that his shot respects your standards and that the info reason is the only one thing that needs a correction...
As soon as I arrive at home I'll send here the link of my shot so you could advice me how to rotate it in this topic (however Eric Fortin in his priority screening told me to rotate it in CCW giving me an exemplification shot modified by him, i appreciate his help and I made what he requested uploading my shot with the same rotation adviced by him... but one of the reasons of rejection was that at the end).
What do you think about that??
In the "comment to screeners" space in the two times I uploaded the shot I suggested them not to be deceived by the lamp-post located on the right of the frame and some houses in the background that seemed to be tilt, that position could deceive you, the shot was taken from a terrace located in front of the runway but you look not to the east but to the north-east... you aren't perpendicular to the rwy when you shoot... the effect of the perspective could deceive people who see the shot...
I'll post directly one of the two shots (identical) here in the next hours to receive some advice from you...
Dreamliner84 From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3618 times:
I'm sorry for having posted my shot so late... here is it:
The same version was inictally rejected for "info" reason and after for "grainy" and "level".
I rotatd it like Eric told me to do, nothing else... but what have I do in your opinion?? For the grain I could use a program of noise reduction but without exaggerating...
So... what about the level rejection?? You surely notice that the house on the tilts ti the left, but other buildings, for example in the middle of the frame are right... so what should I do in these cases?? It's very difficult to obtain better results from this position?? You're not perfecly perpendicular to the runway like I told you in the last post...
You have said this several times. I have to chip in.
I don't think Eric told you exactly how much degree you should rotate the image. Rotating the image too less or too much could also result in "level" rejection. There is nothing Eric could do.
When screening photos, we could only drop a short note to uploaders which direction the rotation should have been done. The re-upload photo may be still underdone, or even overdone. No big deal - fix it again, and upload it again. We simply can't open up Photoshop and measure how much degree is good for the photo to be level.
Hope you understand that the photo was rejected in appeal which means at least two screeners have the same opinion on it (one is the screener who rejected this shot, the other is our head screener). So, there must be some defects in your photo.
If you are purely seeking opinions on how to fix this level rejection, that's fine. But no need to mention Eric's name five times in this thread.
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3574 times:
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 15): Hope you understand that the photo was rejected in appeal which means at least two screeners have the same opinion on it (one is the screener who rejected this shot, the other is our head screener). So, there must be some defects in your photo.
I thought the appeal was always screened by head screeners only ?
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
The composition of this picture does cause me some questions as well. If we take a picture of a plane on the ground, at anything other than straight on nose/tail or on wingtip, we can end up with a composition like this - which is visually more interesting than the wing or nose angle to begin with.
So if I had a picture compused like this one I see a horizon which is fairly even, with houses, trees and whatnot but with a kind of visual average to it. It is THAT I would level to. In photoshop I would take the rectangle tool and draw the line over that area of the horizon, then use the freeform 'rotate image' mode to make the best match I could. Tthat would leave me with several STRONG non-horizontal, non-level lines in the image, most notably the fuselage itself, but also all the concrete edges and possibly even the distant airport fenceline.
In my opinion it is those that make the photo more interesting. Otherwise we could simply lift the airplanes out of the background and display them on white.
My question: I've uploaded such a composition with the horizon pixel-perfect LEVEL but design elements within being tilted one way or another - an unavoidable consequence of photographing irregular shapes on a curved planet with undulations, in a three-dimensional universe Had some rejected badlevel.
What, in general would you photographers and screeners say to use as a reference for level?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Needs about 0.5º CCW. I cannot be more accurate since I would need the original file as here the background verticals are rather small.
Regarding the quality, just add contrast to it, as the blacks are a rather light shade of grey. Again, I cannot tell you what to do without having a look at the original, as I don't know if the issues we see in your edit are from the original picture or from your editing workflow.
Dreamliner84 From Italy, joined Feb 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3401 times:
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 15): I don't think Eric told you exactly how much degree you should rotate the image. Rotating the image too less or too much could also result in "level" rejection. There is nothing Eric could do.
He's a very good advicer in my opinion, I think that the opinion of a screener is better than mine because surely he's got more experience than me with photos examination... he sent me a mail with the photo modified by him attached in... I uploaded it on Photoshop and after made a comparison between it and the shot of mine at 1024 pxl... after that I modified the big shot, saved before on my pc in TIFF format from the original (you've to consider that for every shot that I decide to modify to send it to A.net I'm used to keep 2-3 versions of it, one modified from the original not cutted, one cutted, rotated and centered and another one sharpened from the second one, every one saved in TIFF format not to lose information), not the one cutted but the one "not cutted" and rotated it in different "degrees versions"...
After that I made some tests and noticed that he'd done a CCW rotation of "X" degrees and I found the exact number... after that I superimposed it with the one given me by the screener and with a simple quick view program like ACDSee I noticed that the rotation was the same because there was no difference... doing so I hoped that there would be no problems with it...
I think that sending me his version was more accurated than giving me the exact numerical value of rotation... is it true?? Or am I wrong??
For me that's no problem, like I told before he's a good advicer, I've no doubt of his screener abilities and I always say thank you to him for the help he gave me in that situation however my shot was rejected at the end... no worries...
Quoting Acontador (Reply 19): Needs about 0.5º CCW. I cannot be more accurate since I would need the original file as here the background verticals are rather small.
I could try but I'm not sure of the final result, like you surely know you've to consider that the A 332 rear is higher than the nose of the aircraft normally, it was probably empty that day, infact it operated a crew training flight from FCO before beginning its scheduled flights from MXP to the USA.
So the aircraft seems to be tilted to the right... Probably another CCW rotation more than now could cause the tilting of the house on the left, do you see it... now (in this conditions) it seems to be tilted to the left, with another 0,5 CCW rotation it could be more tilted in my opnion and i think that after the screener could reject to advice me a CW rotation (to the right because of a simple house tilted to the left, I don't want the problem to be repeated to the contrary).
If you look to the vertical elements in the middle of the shot you could notice that they are right... you've also to consider that I've done it with a 120mm lens, probably there's more border effect like aberration optics... do you understand?? Every lens could cause aberration effects, expecially if you use grandangular ones... There's no lens that doesn't cause aberration effects... The lens I used for that shot is a Konica Minolta 75-300 4.5-5.6, I've noticed that sometimes there could be these strange effects... it's difficult to delete this problem, you need to have some plug-in for PS or last versions of it like PS CS3 for aberration deleting process... I use the 5.5 one (very old) because I still have Win 98 uploaded on my personal computer.
I'm waiting for your answers then... thanks for all your opinions and advice!!
25 SlamClick: Okay, that is my point. Unless the horizon and the major "horizontal" lines in the composition are paralell this is not possible. It would be impossi
26 Dreamliner84: I completely agree with you... it's not possible that different parts in this shot (orizzontal and vertical I want to underline) could be leveled in
27 INNflight: Being a photographer, and being very against the nit-picky rules this (and also other!!!) sites use for screening, I'd say yes....it's acceptable. Be
28 TransIsland: Some people have answered saying it needs CW rotation. I on the other hand think it needs CCW rotation.
29 SlamClick: That is my assessment as well. The actual horizon, while not a straight line, appears to be quite level but the major "horizontal" lines in the compo
30 Dreamliner84: So what should be the right choice to apply?? Your different opinions about it are making me oubtful... I think that in a shot it's not only important
31 TransIsland: The house above the plane's registration, the red-white structure above the front door and the pole on the right edge of the photo all strike me as le
32 Dreamliner84: I repeat what I've done more clearly, probably you didn't understand what I've done exactly in my different upload processes: #1 I uploaded the first
33 TransIsland: #2 & 3# - not priority was correct. info was a correct rejection and I guess as far as CCW goes you may have not applied enough then. would be the fi
34 Dreamliner84: 332 = abbreviation of Airbus 330-200 version!!! I wanted to say: I never applied CW rotations to the versions of this shot I uploaded in queue on A.n
35 TransIsland: Allow me to quote from the rejection e-mail: "Don't worry, everyone has their photos rejected from time to time." (I understand that means screeners,
36 Dreamliner84: You're right... I agree with you... but not always the ideas of the screeners are right... the demonstraton is that a screener could have a differe
37 SlamClick: Well, I asked my question about whether the picture in reply #14 "looks" level, I asked three people and so far the other two have replied. Unfortuna
38 Acontador: My dear SlamClick, I would very much appreciate an apology now, considering that before you posted the above questions (in a demanding tone that I do
39 Alasdair1982: Why is this person a screener then? It just wastes peoples time and gets their hopes up of a successful uploads I don't see why providing a link to t
40 SlamClick: Well, the problem with your answer in reply #19 is twofold: 1. You posted the "0.5 CW" answer in response to a question from Dreamliner84 and not in r
41 TransIsland: This is getting silly. Moderators, please lock this thread.
42 Dreamliner84: You've noticed the same things I've noticed when I used the Photoshop grid to see if there were some tilted details to improve my image and to rotate
43 Dreamliner84: I think that this thread is one of the most interesting I've read in this forum, why do you want it to be closed?? I've also noticed that SlamClick i
44 TransIsland: Silly because SlamClick dug up some ancient images from days when criteria were less strict, and then starts using a road and sea wall as reference w
45 SlamClick: That actually is a violation of rules: (a) "choose your words wisely" Can we agree that a "wise" choice would be one that gets the intended result? O
46 TransIsland: And I shall repeat my statement. This is getting silly. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/silly Silly as in meaning no. 2, "absurd; ridiculous;