UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2280 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3465 times:
I have been reading over the rejection reason "Quality" after receiving several rejections for that issue. My most recent rejection has prompted me to start this discussion. I hope it sparks some debate and leads to some answers for this most ambiguous rejection reason.
My last rejection received a "Soft" rejection and a "Quality" rejection. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Quality" rejection reason help file:
"This may be the result of several perceived problems happening simultaneously, such as grain, blurriness, or unfavourable lighting."
and further down:
"We will often use this rejection reason when we feel there are a number of different flaws in the image which have the effect of reducing the overall quality of the image. This might include a number of factors, which in themselves may not be enough to warrant a rejection - such as slight over-sharpening, some contrast problem etc - but when seen together amount to a quality rejection" http://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#quality
My rejection was for "Soft". Not a combination of several known reasons, but Soft, with the added "catch-all", "Quality".
I'm beginning to wonder if the "Quality" rejection reason is being overused.
Why would a photo that is soft also receive a quality rejection? There was no explanation of the other quality issues and there were no other rejection reasons given.
Also from the "Quality" rejection reason help file:
"You will often get a quality rejection when we cannot pinpoint the exact problem with your image."
This doesn't make sense. If the screener cannot pinpoint the exact problem, then why would it receive a rejection without at least an attempt to explain it in a personal message? How is the photographer supposed to address the quality issue if the screener can't either.
Why would the screener not add a personal explanation as to the reasoning behind the "Quality" rejection reason, when only one other rejection reason was given? I think if the screener issues a "Quality" rejection and only one other reason is given, a personal explanation should be mandatory. There is no reason for a soft photo to also receive a quality rejection, without an explanation.
Alevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 832 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3428 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
How about you post the rejected photo?
Generally if a photo has a number of flaws, just as indicated in the rejection reason. I use if the photo is soft, and the photog probably should give up on it. We screen many photos a day. We do always try to identify all the reasons, but if the photo is a lost cause, why not just select quality and then you can read the rejection reasons as you have done, and understand there are lots of issues that screener (or screeners plural) have seen with the photo.
You can always post the photo here and get even more feedback.
Generally we don't reject with just "Quality" alone as the reason.
But let's see your example.
Edit - I took the liberty of looking at your stats for rejection types for your last 100 screened images. Can share for improving discussion if you like.
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2688 posts, RR: 35 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
Note: Quality can also be tagged if there is heat-haze that affects the quality or adds grain.
If you get quality by itself, then that picture is most likely a goner. But if you get, in your case, quality and soft, you might still be able to correct it. Unless you get more reasons than that, then it will be a goner.
Sorry Sir, I think that one is immediate motive rejection for the ladder blocking the wheel. That can't be fixed. If this one got quality, then I'm surprised - because it should have been motive - that's the most obvious problem.
Alevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 832 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
As I said, it is not very often you get Quality by itself. If you do, it is so bad we don't have the energy to click all the boxes. Seriously - you should see some uploads. When they are that bad, we could write a novel in the personal, and it still might not help. So, yes, on stuff like camera phone shots uploaded at 1600 wide, sometimes the screeners just select quality.
As I said, when I screen, I will select the rejection reasons (as many as I think apply) and if I think there is little chance it will ever achieve the quality to make the DB, I will select Quality. Not sure if Matt is basing his statement on his personal rejections or not.
So, for your last 100:
64 accepted (pretty good ratio I'd say)
Of the 36 rejected:
13 had quality as one of the reasons (none had quality as the only reason)
7 had personals
Of the 13 that had Quality:
10 had 2 or more reasons
5 had 3+ reasons
3 had personals
So about 1/3 of your rejections have Quality as one of the reasons. About 77% of those rejected for Quality had 2 or more other reasons.
For the photo in question, it looks heat hazed, and has the start of oversharpness and grain. I didn't screen it, but it would seem to me it is going to be hard to get it to work.
I'm sure there will be a few more opinions about this. Frankly, posting a questionable one like this in this forum, would probably get you way more feedback than one screener can provide in a short personal. Honestly, I see the guys try hard to provide good feedback and screening. I thought it would be a snap to be a screener, but it takes time and care and none of us want to reject incorrectly. Adding a meaningful, detailed personal to every photo just isn't reasonable.
Aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1704 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3307 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting UnattendedBag (Thread starter): Why would the screener not add a personal explanation as to the reasoning behind the "Quality" rejection reason, when only one other rejection reason was given? I think if the screener issues a "Quality" rejection and only one other reason is given, a personal explanation should be mandatory. There is no reason for a soft photo to also receive a quality rejection, without an explanation.
Its not compulsory for us to add a personal note,Its there to be used at our disgression,I personally think looking at your shot its rather soft & quality isnt that great so that explains the reasons & dont see the need for the screener to include a personal to be honest.
We can give Quality rejections alone & leave a personal as to why but giving a quality rejection plus another one like soft,blurry,oversharpened,Than that should be self explanatory as to whats the issue with it.
Quoting Cpd (Reply 5): Sorry Sir, I think that one is immediate motive rejection for the ladder blocking the wheel. That can't be fixed. If this one got quality, then I'm surprised - because it should have been motive - that's the most obvious problem.
I think in this instance Motiv issue can be overlooked as its in a not so common scene & not avoidable for the shot,Its also not that distracting aswell.
Although we try to give as much personal attention and be as consistent as we can, there will be instances of inconsistency, and times where photogs feel they should receive more personalized attention.
Screening does take time, and to get through a days uploads of roughly a thousand photos, it takes quite a few manhours of work.
For this particular image, it would seem you have a fair number of opinions about what issues there were with the first rejection, from the first screening, from the forum, and from the re-upload after seeing the first set of comments. Although the comments and screening has been somewhat inconsistent on exactly what the problems are, the feedback has been consistent that in there are problems that prevent it from being accepted.
In the end, screening photos is subjective, and no matter how hard we try, will never become a binary solution set.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3078 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 5): motive rejection for the ladder blocking the wheel
This seems to be both subjective and somewhat controversial. I noticed a couple of images of a very common aircraft in the database recently where traffic cones were blocking the undercarriage. Rather than publicly point them out I did the right thing and emailed the screeners. I was told that sometimes things get overlooked and it would be looked into. The images are still here and after probing further for an explanation (not to be funny but so I could know for sure how the rules worked) I am still none the wiser. A wall of silence.
One of the images the cone couldn't be helped (I guess) but the other could've been eliminated by walking 10 metres further along (I know because I photographed it on the same day at the same spot). If we don't know what the score is on this then we will see images needlessly taking up queue space.
Now onto the discussion.....
I rarely get quality rejections but I was lead to believe that they are given when a culmination of flaws affects the image. Each individual flaw I suppose can be fixed but together they make a bit of a task. I thought it was a 'don't bother uploading again - at the very least 'til it's completely re-worked' kind of thing.
I had one the other week - quality with a personal saying, "Poor quality sky - grainy". I just took the grain out and re-submitted. It was subsequently accpeted so I felt that originally a grainy rejection alone would have sufficed.
In fact I've managed to remedy most of my few quality rejections without too much effort. What it means exactly I have no real idea.