Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Happened With Steve Morris And His Pictures?  
User currently offlineStefanovOgi From Bulgaria, joined Aug 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6440 times:

What happened with Steve Morris and his incredible pictures?

Few day ago I found out that some of the best civil aviation photographers and his pictures is not in a.net anymore.
Do you have any info about that?

Ogi

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8991 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6455 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting StefanovOgi (Thread starter):

Good question. Cannot find anything from him as well... He had the highest average views of his amazing pictures.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineLGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6418 times:

He requested to have his images removed from the database.


Live life from the window seat...
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week ago) and read 6375 times:

Steve got tired of rejections and made a decision it was not worth his time to have images here.
Big loss for the site and a sign of the discontent out there.
Losing the number 1 average hit holder and some of the most amazing images ever hosted on this site is a sign of the times.
Killing the geese which lay your golden eggs really isn't a smart way of business..any business..



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 3):
Killing the geese which lay your golden eggs really isn't a smart way of business..any business..

No doubt the absence of Steve and his photos is a great loss to the site, but let me just confirm what you seem to be implying Darren - screening should be based not on the quality of the images submitted, but rather on the number of average views one has? Is that what it would take to mollify the 'discontented' out there?


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6335 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 4):
screening should be based not on the quality of the images submitted, but rather on the number of average views one has

I'm not sure Darren is exactly saying that.

But it is far easier to get a nice ramp shot in the sunshine accepted here than a panning shot at dusk. Obviously it's far easier to get the ramp shot looking perfect for here, but the screening process currently scrutinises both in pretty much the same way. It's therefore easier for people who predominantly do sunny side-ons to get a better acceptance ratio than those who try and push the boundaries (and bear in mind that I'm part of that 'sunny side-on' club so there's no bias)

I personally don't think there's too much wrong with the current accpetance criteria, but rules should be a little less stringent when it comes to images which were obviously difficult and/or time-consuming to capture.

A side-on shot of a static Ryanair 738 at LGW may well be technically and photographically perfect but it won't attract as many views as a 380 landing before a stunning sunset - even if the 380 shot isn't quite perfect. Let's face it, many viewers here couldn't care less if one wingtip is slightly softer than the other or if there's a bit of noise under the belly. The Ryanair shots are ten-a-penny and don't generate the amount of views artistic shots do.

I can't begin to imagine how many potential 'top of the day' images are turned away each day simply because they suffer from one minor fault.

Many people predicted moves such as the one recently chosen by Steve Morris. One person - however influential - may not make a huge difference but if it sets a ball rolling.....

Karl

[Edited 2011-12-20 07:56:37]

User currently offlinelhrsimon From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6325 times:

So 2 major photographers have left A.Net in the past week. Mike and (sorry cannot remember the name) the Mexican photographer with +3000 in the DB).

This is indeed a worrying trend... One that needs to be resolved if the site is not to be effected. There certainly seems to be some frustration within the established photographers regarding the rejection levels of photos.. 



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4779 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Karl hit the nail on the head.

It's especially worrying that such established photographers are suddenly having trouble meeting acceptance criteria. A sign that they can't or refuse to change with the times? Or have the quality standards reached a point where they are alsmost unattainable? With hundreds of photos passing screening every day, good luck convincing the screeners that it's a problem with the acceptance criteria.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6302 times:

With all due respect to Ricardo Morales ('the Mexican photographer'), I think he just appeared to fall upon a bad few months rather than anything more serious as many of the rejected shots he posted were average situation and nothing ground-breaking. Many of their faults were easily fixed.

There are situations where the currently rules MUST apply - shots of static aircraft in the sun, taken at close quarters, for example. Such shots have no excuse for being grainy, blurry or overly soft. Then of course there are the 'difficult' shots - sunrise/sunset, backlit, dawn/dusk, night, moon, etc. These by their nature are going to have more faults.

We've all sat on a plane at night and watched the wingtips wobble slightly as people get on and move around, cargo doors are opened and closed and rampers go about their business. Even engine starts cause vibrations of the wings. This wobbling would I dare say look less dramatic from the outside at 50ft away, but it must have an effect none-the-less with the longer exposures required - even if it just causes the wingtip to look slightly soft.

These situations are an inevitability, however I get the feeling sometimes that A.net is asking us to dispense with factors created by Mother Nature. Sometimes I think it's important to put oneself into the shoes of the photographer. Is it possible that outside influences caused that part of the aircraft to be soft? If so, could anything have been done to avoid it?

More lenient screening in general? Definitely not, in my opinion. But perhaps for shots that should - by their nature - suffer from minor faults? I'd say so. Millions of perfect, sunny side-ons of Ryanair 737s aren't going to attract hits.....

Karl


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6286 times:

Hi all,

I think this is an important discussion to have. And we should have it in a civilized and constructive manner. So I have a BIG favor to ask from everyone:

Photogs: I'm also annoyed and frustrated with a lot of things about a.net. But let's please have this discussion in a constructive and civil manner (like the posts so far) instead of venting our frustration to the crew. Noone likes getting shouted at.

Mods / Screeners: As long as it remains civil, please, please, please don't automatically delete / lock this thread. Everyone here deserves to be able to share their opinion. After all, we have invested a lot of time and effort contributing to a.net, the same way you have invested a lot of time and effort running it.

Thank you,

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6276 times:

Unfortunately the current thread title isn't going to entice too many people to participate in this discussion. Perhaps it can be altered to better suit the content?

Karl


User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6276 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 3):
Steve got tired of rejections and made a decision it was not worth his time to have images here.

Well - if we are going to have this discussions, let's at least have some facts.

In 4.5 years, Steve uploaded 2 photos, both of which were valid rejections. Perhaps you can ask him for the images, so you can form your own opinion.

I have seen them both, one was marginal, might have been able to be saved, the other not even close.

It is unfortunate that Steve has taken down his images, but to blame it on our screening is absurd.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 11):
but to blame it on our screening is absurd

No-one as far as I can see is doing that. The screeners simply do the job they were assigned to do.

This thread now is less about one man's decision and more about the way the site deals with different types of images. It's all very well setting rules for ALL images when clearly there are certain types of shots only achievable by accepting minor faults.

It is okay too to knock back such images for these faults - but like I said, don't expect gazillions of Ryanair side-ons to attract the punters.

Karl


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
I'm not sure Darren is exactly saying that.

Ok, just wanted to be sure. If the debate is whether or not to lower screening standards, that's fine.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
A side-on shot of a static Ryanair 738 at LGW may well be technically and photographically perfect but it won't attract as many views as a 380 landing before a stunning sunset - even if the 380 shot isn't quite perfect. Let's face it, many viewers here couldn't care less if one wingtip is slightly softer than the other or if there's a bit of noise under the belly. The Ryanair shots are ten-a-penny and don't generate the amount of views artistic shots do.

Agreed, and that's basically how it works currently. Common shots have the strictest standards applied, while older, rarer, or more difficult (see many of the night panning shots recently accepted) have somewhat lower thresholds.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
I can't begin to imagine how many potential 'top of the day' images are turned away each day simply because they suffer from one minor fault.

Not many.

As Royal has stated, the rejections of Steve's images were quite valid, but it is his prerogative to pull his images if he feels overwhelmed by the two rejections he's received in the past 4+ years. If there is a desire for a debate for lower screening standards (even after it has been established more challenging shots do get some leeway), there should be nothing wrong with opinions being voiced.


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6218 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 12):
It is unfortunate that Steve has taken down his images, but to blame it on our screening is absurd.

If it wasn't the screening that caused him to remove his images, then what was it? Are there other reasons why someone with a lot of 'hits' would remove their pictures?


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6210 times:

Just to make something perfectly clear on my part - I AM NOT suggesting (nor do I wish) that screening standards be lowered for the majority of images. I feel the current evaluation system works pretty well for the majority of regular airliner shots we see here.

I am also gald that, behind the scenes, we have had a slight change implemented whereby the more 'difficult' (for want of a better word) shots to capture get more leniency. This hasn't been made public until now.

I think it's a case of looking at each image and making a quick summary about the circumstances of capture. Has the photographer done the best he/she can under the circumstances, and if so will the shot be valuable to the database? Some types of images are never going to be perfect due to certain circumstances/restrictions. It's just impossible sometimes to get a ground-breaking shot that satisfies every current piece of acceptance legislation.

A good example was a couple of months ago when a dusk/night panning shot was presented in the feedback forum. The photographer pointed out at the time that the wingtips were a touch blurry, due to the wing-flex when the aircraft left the ground. Of course panning can only follow what's in the frame, and can't account for movement within that frame. So chances are on any similar shot you'd have the slightly blurry wingtips. In essence, this type of shot should either be accepted with this natural flaw, or not be represented full stop on the site. You can't have your cake and eat it. The photographer had done his best based on the laws of physics - and not even A.net can defy those!

Searching for perfection is fine, but searching where it simply doesn't (cannot?) exist is counter-productive.

Karl

[Edited 2011-12-20 10:46:44]

User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 14):
If it wasn't the screening that caused him to remove his images, then what was it? Are there other reasons why someone with a lot of 'hits' would remove their pictures?

I couldn't tell ya without being in Steve's head, and I certainly don't know him, but I know that two rejections certainly wouldn't cause me to pull my photos (not that pulling mine would have anywhere near the impact Steve's did).

I actually looked at a bunch of Steve's photos a couple months ago, and I noticed that there were one or two very distinct "cutoff points" or what-have-you:

1.) A few years ago, he appeared to just about completely stop uploading typical side-ons and such, and switched to almost exclusively shots showcasing light and atmospheric effects, like condensation, vortices, etc.

2.) I don't remember seeing many (if any) photos from past 2008 or 2009 or so (I may have the year wrong...obviously can't check now).

So that leads me to wonder 1.) what happened to stop him from uploading side-ons, and 2.) why pull his photos now, several years after he stopped uploading (for all intents and purposes)?

It's certainly a great loss for the site, but I have trouble reconciling this with some failing on the site's or screeners' part.

(with all that said, I hope I'm remembering the correct photographer!)

EDIT:

Karl - I think I remember reading somewhere that in panning shots, there are allowances made for wingtip/winglet blurriness, to an extent. Obviously this only addresses one specific "flaw", but just wanted to mention it!

[Edited 2011-12-20 10:57:36]


"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
I am also gald that, behind the scenes, we have had a slight change implemented whereby the more 'difficult' (for want of a better word) shots to capture get more leniency.

No change that I am aware of; it has been that way as long as I have been screening.


User currently offlinedendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6139 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting lhrsimon (Reply 6):
So 2 major photographers have left A.Net in the past week. Mike and (sorry cannot remember the name) the Mexican photographer with +3000 in the DB).

This is indeed a worrying trend... One that needs to be resolved if the site is not to be effected. There certainly seems to be some frustration within the established photographers regarding the rejection levels of photos..

Simon

Did you actually read the thread about Ricardo, the name you couldn't even remember ?

Ricardo implied at the start that he had left because of poor screening and that unfortunately left me to have to demonstrate that that was not the case (as agreed by several before I chose to lock the thread)

As to Steve Morris, I have the greatest respect for him. I discussed it with him and part of his request was that he should leave quietly and without fuss. The rest is (and will remain) between us.

Steve has unfortunately gone and for reasons that will remain between me and him....nothing to do with A.net

End of story !

Mick Bajcar


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...
What Happened With The Airlinecode Website? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 23:24:10 by Embraer145
What's Wrong With These And How Can I Fix Them? posted Wed Sep 3 2008 15:08:31 by UltimateDelta
Photo With Pilot And His Middle Finger posted Wed Jul 21 2004 13:58:17 by Airforum
Need Help With Eos 550d And 55-250 Lense posted Sun Nov 7 2010 02:06:59 by shgeat
Antonov-2-What Problem With Name? posted Sun May 30 2010 19:24:48 by ivandalavia
What's Up With Airliners Magazine? posted Sun Apr 25 2010 12:14:50 by NicolasRubio
What Happened? posted Mon Feb 22 2010 21:18:14 by flight
What's Up With The Queue? posted Wed Feb 3 2010 06:25:02 by SNATH
What's Up With Spotting At Paris (CDG) posted Mon Jul 6 2009 13:17:18 by 744flyer
What's Up With This One? posted Wed Feb 20 2008 10:10:42 by UltimateDelta