LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2628 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?
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3162 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2279 times:
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...
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
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.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2228 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 . Well, in the way that I think that the screeners and Johan have been extremely lenient on my photos .
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2220 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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2210 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
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2192 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.
Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2172 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.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2160 times:
I shouldn't have said agree....
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...
PS. I don't upload if they aren't good enough even in my standards!
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2168 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.
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2134 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.
Screener5 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2074 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'.