Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Time For Change  
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

Im used to rejection by now and it doesnt bother me...but

I had over 50 photos accepted by the screeners as HQ over the xmas period. Out of the ones submitted some went onto Johan. As I have had photo in the queue for quiate a while I had built up over 50 photos to be looked at by Johan.

All 56 rejected. Now, having over 50 accepted as HQ by screeners and from the same batches having over 60 rejected?

Something is wrong here. How can half be so good as to be accepted as HQ and the other half not even be good enough by screeners OR johan?

Also, how can the screeners pass over more than 50 photos to Johan and all be rejected? Thats a huge gap

Is it time for change? screeners can accept and reject all photos?

Your views?

LGW

78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3162 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Same for me, over the last weeks the screeners accepted about 25 photos via HQ (and a few rejected by them), but of the rest, about 40 out of 42 were rejected by Johan. So all I can do right now is shoot for HQ acceptance. And Johan only sees the "crap" from us, so his impression of our quality goes down even further...

Konstantin



Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

I know what you mean Ben, but I don't see it as a problem. Can you honestly say your rejected shots are as good as your HQ ones? Self appraisal.

Gerry/EDI


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

Hi!
Glad that someone started this thread. I had 45 out of 50 rejected by Johan when he came across my pictures.
I also think that the site could need some improvement for example:
1.) More screeners.

2.) The existing screeners being more restrictive with not HQ shots. Reads: Either its HQ or you reject it.

3.) A page for the photographers where they can put in some options. For example: "If you pictures are not accepted via HQ do you wish them to be seen by Johand or do you wish them to be rejected immediately!" O Johan O Reject
That wouldnt even have an impact on the existing screening pages. Because if the screeners decides its not HQ then the scripts would check the photogs. options and do the rest automatically.

Just my €-cent
Peter







-
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

hmmm, this is funny because...

I am sure some of the photos uploaded over the christmas period were not up to the standard of A.net, yet I hear about so many people who were previously regular uploaders to A.net having rejections, and sometimes alot.

Not to say that I have had the same problem of course  Big grin. Well, in the way that I think that the screeners and Johan have been extremely lenient on my photos Big grin.

Regards

Dan


User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

I do see it as a problem. If the screeners pass them on to Johan and he rejects most of them why don't the screeners reject them in the first place and save us all the waiting around. Does it mean that the screeners have a very different view on what is acceptable. If so it begs the question on the validity of the "HQ" acceptances.
My ratio is slightly better. I had 19 waiting and 5 were accepted, albeit only 2 without warnings. It would be interesting to find out what the ratio of accepted/rejected photos is across the piece.

Regards
DerekF



Whatever.......
User currently offlineFly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3162 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would mostly agree that the HQ shots were better than those rejected, but not in all cases.

Konstantin



Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Of the last batch waiting for Johan, 18 out of 19 were rejected. The 19th was accepted with warnings (dirty scan, it was in fact a clean scan of an extremely dirty aircraft...).
After that, 6 or so accepted as HQ with another 6 waiting for Johan still (well, it's been only about 2 weeks).
Acceptance by the screeners has gone up, and acceptance by Johan has gone down a lot. Either Johan has become a lot more critical of things like composition and colour ballance (rejecting things he does not like on non-technical grounds as poor quality is a well known phenomenon) or the screeners have taken to accepting everything Johan would accept leaving the rejections to him so they will look nice to us  Smile/happy/getting dizzy  Wink/being sarcastic



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

On my last batch of 27 photos I had 12 added as HQ, and 6 added by Johan, the screeners rejected 2 and Johan rejected 7.
Now that all the good stuff is getting added by the screeners we are going to see a higher percentage of rejects from Johan, but when almost all the borderline shots are rejected is seems like a waste of time that the screeners pass them on instead of rejecting them.

My 2 cents,

Staffan


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

Last week I had 36 out of 36 rejected by Johan, some to my agreement, some not.

Wietse/AMS



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Wietse,
i read what you write below and i say to myself: why does this guy upload shots that he would agree are rejections? doesnt make sense to me.

------------------------------------------------------
Last week I had 36 out of 36 rejected by Johan, some to my agreement, some not.

Wietse/AMS



User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Judging by the ratio of borderline cases rejected by Johan, it seems that the screeners are now working to a level consistant with what Johan deems acceptable. Are we are almost at the stage where the screeners do all the accepting and rejecting and Johan monitors the sitation on a quality control basis only?

This is a clear indication that screening process is progressing the way Johan wanted.

Craig.


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

I shouldn't have said agree....

I meant:
Some I can live with (them being rejected) I won't kill myself over them, they aren't my best shots. But some, I am very pleased about, I love the quality and they still get rejected! Those are the ones I don't agree with.

I hope I made myself a bit clearer...

Wietse/AMS

PS. I don't upload if they aren't good enough even in my standards!



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

Craig, I agree with you. I feel that slowly but surley the screeners are taking over from Johan.

If not accepted by the screeners then very little chance now with Johan.

LGW


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

i hear you Wietse. This goes for everyone, not necessarily you but i think that if more people would be more selective with their uploads- meaning only upload their very best rather than just everyrhing and hoping that whatever makes it makes it- there would be alot less stress over rejections.

Joe


User currently offlineAviationIvi From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 777 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

"...if more people would be more selective with their uploads..."

good point, Joe, and it would also shorten the queue Big grin
But seriously: I don´t like it when people upload everything...  Sleepy

Regards,
Ivica



User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

This morning 15 out of 16 were rejected by Johan.
One accepted had warnings.
A majority amount of the 15 were all scanned and processed the same way I always done..
It works with the screeners no problem and I do sometimes get to the HQ list.
IN the future I will post one of those
"what do you guys think about these shots" Posts..
I was quite dissapointed because two of the 15 I put in like an essay about a special event at my airport some time ago. JMC.

I may as well upload other shots which I could not upload last night.

Bo



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

"...if more people would be more selective with their uploads..."

Well seeing that I uploaded 60 out of about 500+ on my computer I would say I was being kind-a selective

LGW


User currently offlineFredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2083 times:

Ehrm.. how do you manage to upload over 50 shots? I was like this when I used to upload just a couple of images. How many hours do you spend really, filling in all the information of each shot?

/Fredrik


User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2075 times:

Well I have had photos in the queue for over 1 month so I have had plenty of time to upload others!

But I must admit, without Stella and Amstel I would not be where I am today!  Nuts

LGW


User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

....had photos in the queue for over 1 month...

When it reaches that stage, you know they're going to get dumped!

Crickey..I've just noticed! I uploaded some 36 hours ago and they've still not been added HQ yet! I must be degenerating...

Gerry/EDI


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1338 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2054 times:

Interestingly some shots from yesterday at LHR have already been uploaded onto the database! LGW might have a point!

User currently offlineScreener5 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

My how the pendulum has swung in the other direction!

When this screening business started last year, initially it was WHO ARE THE SCREENERS, HANG THE SCREENERS, THE SCREENERS ARE INCOMPETANT, THE SCREENERS REJECT TOO MANY PICS, DUMP THE SCREENERS, etc. Now that we now know what is expected of us, those photogs with lower rejection rates and high HQ acceptance say "...the screeners are doing a good job."

When the queue started to climb, the screener rejection rates were high because it was assumed that we were here to weed-out the crap, and send the remainder to Johan for review. Well, the queue continued to climb and the HQ function was added. HQ was/is a good idea. It allows quick additions to the DB for those pics that would undoubtedly be added at some point in time. It was recently speculated that the screeners were scared to death to upload a HQ pic that Johan may not approve of. That's not the case at all. Screeners DO occasionally reject pics deemed HQ by other screeners. The situation is actually the opposite. There are some that I wouldn't dare to reject, because I know I would hear about it later. Then it's back to HANG THE SCREENERS again. We dont need that, nor do we need more screeners. We are handling the queue just fine, especially lately.

"...or the screeners have taken to accepting everything Johan would accept leaving the rejections to him so they will look nice to us" There might be some truth to this. Early on, we (the screeners) were getting hammered for rejections, and I think photogs wanted to see rejections from Johan himself, instead of us. Well guys, you got your wish.

"...but when almost all the borderline shots are rejected is seems like a waste of time that the screeners pass them on instead of rejecting them." There's a switch too! Now you want your rejections right away, instead of waiting? Does that mean that it would enable you to voice a complaint NOW instead of later? I remember a few months ago that one of my rejections was questioned here EIGHT-MINUTES after the rejection. How much fun is that for us? IT ISN'T! Nobody will be 100% satisfied with whatever technique is used, so we are searching for a happy medium and I think we are close.

The one thing that really amuses me are the posts that solicit opinions AFTER they have been uploaded. That just doesn't make sense to me. Why not question a picture BEFORE it is uploaded, instead of AFTER? Im not suggesting that this forum be cluttered with a gruntload of such posts, but dont be a bonehead by asking for comments after the fact, BEFORE it is even reviewed.

The Motiv issue is purely subjective. Face it, there ARE some pictures that are just unacceptable. However, I personally prefer a good scan of a bad picture, than a horrible scan of a good picture. You guys get plenty of top notch advice here from credible photogs, heed their advice and apply it.

Finally, is it really necessary for everybody to know everything that occurs during the screening process? I mean every minute detail? It seems like some sit at their PC biting their nails waiting for some sort of e-mail, whether it be an addition and/or rejection. There really IS life outside of AN, and sitting with a calculator cyphering your photo stats (or the stats of others) is counterproductive. Instead of 'worrying', go shoot more pictures! Yes AN is an addiction, but dont let it control your life.

My opinions expressed here may not be shared by all screeners, or even Johan for that matter. But, I felt that it was time for 'somebody' to say 'something'.

OK skeptics, FIRE AWAY!!!


User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

...hmm...maybe taking it a tad too seriously?
It's been quite lighthearted up 'till now...


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

S5 wrote:
Now you want your rejections right away, instead of waiting? Does that mean that it would enable you to voice a complaint NOW instead of later?

Speaking for myself of course: No i dont wanna complain NOW instead of later. I would like to know whats wrong and learn from it.

Peter



-
25 Staffan : S5, I agree to what Peter wrote, I don't want to complain about a reject, but if one of my photos isn't good enough to be added without doubts, I'd re
26 Screener5 : Staffan, I agree with you and Peter as well. However, early in the game the screeners were not 'trusted' by the rejectees, and still aren't under some
27 Lindy : We should call them Rejectors not Screeners.
28 Staffan : "If they are marginal, be prepared to wait awhile..." S5, that is exactly my point, in that situation I'd prefer a reject. Given a reason I could try
29 F27 : I bet there are more rejections than acceptances. I went to place a new rego on the database and it was rejected i would very much like to see the Rej
30 Post contains images Connector4you : I hear you people and I fully sympathize with your frustration. This is what I say… this site badly needs a spring cleanup of all the old crap photo
31 AUS_Spotter : Over a period of nearly 2 months I had time to upload 38 shots. Results: 6 rejected by screeners, 6 added HQ and 26 passed on to Johan. Of the 26 pass
32 Joe pries : Jason, please dont say that digital photos are the only photos good enough anymore- because myself and many others here use plain ole slide film with
33 BO__einG : I wonder how many of us are Print shooters. MEE! Oo Me! I work my way up in the uploads by scanning my negatives and working from there. I do realize
34 Post contains images Joe pries : Bo, the most famous print photographer in the US is Richard Silagi- you probably have seen his work. He can tell you about the abuse he gets from me a
35 AUS_Spotter : The only reason I made the digital comment is becuase 6 of the last 7 photos I had accepted were digital. I spend what I think to be a good amount of
36 Post contains links AUS_Spotter : Here are a couple photos that I can't understand why they were rejected for "low quality" http://www.coasterphotos.com/temp/Anet-rejected/UA-A320-Nxxx
37 Joe pries : Jason, im no screener but my own opinion- the night shot- a good chunk of the 320 is blocked- its not a clean shot. The other one- i dont know whats w
38 AUS_Spotter : Both of those photos (along with 16 others) were rejected by Johan for "low quality" under which it says: "If you think you have been able to improve
39 Aussie : Then again looking at the uploads of today/last nite - I do wonder how a few of them got pass the screeners / johan .... there are some serious shocke
40 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : Did I hear my name: --- No offense to Peter (are you listening?), but many of your fog-shots are very difficult to decide upon. You have a respected t
41 Paulc : It would be nice to see the 'low quality' rejection more fully explained and examples given. I recently had 49 picture uploaded over 3 months all wait
42 Aussie : Peter, no ... wasn't talking about u !!! Gruesse, Frank
43 PUnmuth@VIE : I was just using your words. I didnt assume they where pointed at me. Peter
44 Joe pries : Frank, im with you my friend- i still see some shots uploaded and i say to myself- wow, what were the screeners/johan thinking? this should definetely
45 Post contains images Sukhoi : this should definetely NOT be on here- it is cloudy Bugger no more shots from the UK then Cheers Paul
46 Joe pries : Paul, cloudy shots of common aircraft should be avoided in my opinion- i know there are more cloudy days than sunny in the UK but you know what- shoot
47 Post contains images KingWide : Joe, Not all of us can choose our shooting days. If I only shot on 'blue' weekends I'd only shoot about once a year! J
48 Fly-K : I've had "customers" (yes, really) that specifically wanted bad weather shots. I agree, just plain grey clouds doesn't make a good shot, but when ther
49 Joe pries : K, King, no doubt nice interesting bad wx shots are great and should be seen- but an approach shot of a BA 737 in pure clouds, one that is already upl
50 Post contains images Sukhoi : Joe, I do tend to agree with you, you just know somebody is going to pull up one of my BA 737 shots in crap weather now but for most of us the nice da
51 Screener4 : What's been happening since the HQ queue was introduced is that the screeners have been approaching the standards Johan uses to decide whether to acce
52 Aussie : Joe, I wasn't even talking about the cloudy ones only ... they might be sunny but the airplane is at the bottom of the pic and surrounded by very dark
53 Fly-K : Screener4, your last post really explains it all, why most photos get accepted by you guys, and why most of the rest is rejected by Johan. No more que
54 Post contains images Sukhoi : S4, If the HQ photographer idea gets off the ground I would be interested in being part of it. It would be much better to know relatively quickly the
55 AKE0404AR : Good to know that others have the same problems, even long time contributors. I for myself can share my story......I uploaded some 6 shots back around
56 Staffan : Vascos idea sounds good. With a limit of uploads, the photographers would be forced to select only their very best shots for upload, and a lot of bord
57 Tguse : Hi all, after heaving read this long threat I just want to add some points. For myself I don't know how many pics I have uploaded over the last 2 mont
58 Staffan : I don't think anything reaches Johan without first passing the screeners, perhaps I am wrong? Staffan
59 AUS_Spotter : I uploaded so many shots over a period of 2 months because previoiusly I had been only getting around 5% rejected. After getting nearly all rejected o
60 Screener4 : Do you remember Johan's idea of the screeners doing ALL the accepting and rejecting, and maybe if the user really doesn't agree, the pic could go to J
61 Post contains images Skymonster : S4 said: I quite like the idea that we could have "HQ photographers" - people who would rather get an instant rejection rather than having their photo
62 F27 : Then you would have certain English photographers whining again. The travel list used to be a very good idea before the Screeners came along. What is
63 KingWide : F27, Wrong. The 'certain photographers who made this site' are being treated identically to all the other photographers on the site. If your shots don
64 Screener2 : Bad weather shots are something I have come to dread coming across - often due to digital cameras. When you see a photo of a really nice plane, with s
65 Post contains images Sukhoi : "Certain photographers made this site in the beginning and are now being treated like leapers" Leaper ??? You have been keeping company with too many
66 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : How I like construvtive postings from anonymous persons Peter
67 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : BTW could someone please explain me (being a non english person ) the term leaper? THX
68 F27 : Yes i do wish to reamian annonymous it is my right to do so. It seems very much now that certain people who come from Engalnd can only have their shot
69 Post contains images Staffan : F27, I'm having no problems getting shots accepted here. I haven't been taking aviation photos for very long and I don't use an expensive camera eithe
70 Post contains images Sukhoi : "only they have to go out and buy a digital camera" Yeah damn Canon D30 users Granite is lucky he is a Scotsman AND they all take turns shooting at LH
71 Wietse : F27.... sigh.... How many times do we have to say it? The screeners and/or Johan only looks at the product they see. They don't keep in mind the kind
72 Post contains images AndyEastMids : F27, I started uploading to this site around 11 months ago and now have 650 pictures on the database including some very recently uploaded stuff. Most
73 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : My conclusion out of the last few messages is 1.) You dont neccesarily have to be english (i cant get any conclusion out of this "cetrain english guys
74 Post contains links C-GRYK : I think things definitely must change in terms of how uploads are added to the datebase. First off, I uploaded 4 images a month ago from a February 20
75 Staffan : The screeners are adding more and more photos to the database, leaving less for Johan to look at, so that is definitly changing. Also, you don't get s
76 Post contains images EDIpic :
77 Post contains images KingWide : F27> "It seems very much now that certain people who come from Engalnd can only have their shots uploaded by going the way this site wants shots only
78 Planeboy : Yo LGW - You gotta be kiddin' me... I admire your photos as of late - especially since you are using the same cam as me - the UZ - but why would you s
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...
Time For A Change? posted Thu May 22 2003 15:19:47 by EGBB
Time For Change posted Sun Jan 13 2002 11:17:34 by LGW
Time For A Check-up? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 04:47:01 by Notar520AC
Time For A Game. Guess The Rejections. posted Thu Aug 17 2006 16:08:53 by Fiveholer
For A Change! Acceptable Motive? posted Thu Jul 6 2006 22:04:42 by PipoA380
Finding Time For Photography posted Fri Aug 12 2005 17:58:29 by Waketurbulence
Time For A Laugh... posted Fri Oct 29 2004 11:21:12 by Kaddyuk
Average Time For Photo Processing? posted Fri Oct 8 2004 21:52:52 by Thom@s
Time For Watermarks? posted Fri Sep 10 2004 16:31:56 by 737heavy
Yeah.....time For A New Monitor? posted Mon Aug 2 2004 23:09:55 by Dazed767