Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Landmarks.net?  
User currently offlineairimage From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 122 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6296 times:

I gave up trying to upload to this site because I struggled to meet the standards that are required here and have my doubts about the screening process where newer, less established members are concerned.
There have been a number of instances where I have seen a shot accepted yet it has glaring quality issues and a quick click on the photographer reveals he/she has hundreds of photos on the database. Yet there are a lot of 'noobs' submitting photos in the feedback section who are getting rejections for the tiniest of flaws.

I know it has been stated by A.net screeners in the past that this sort of two tier screening does not happen but now this photo has appeared.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rotan...raer-EMB-145MP-(ERJ-145MP)/2171238

It's a great pic I'll admit, but it's a pic of a landmark with a little bit of Embraer wing in it. Would the likes of me and other members with less than a handful of photos on the DB have had the same success uploading it?
I was surprised to see it had been accepted until I saw the photographers name.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6287 times:

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
I know it has been stated by A.net screeners in the past that this sort of two tier screening does not happen but now this photo has appeared.

I don't think that's the case, I just think it's a steep learning curve to reach the required standard. It isn't easy and takes a while to get to know the accepted criteria. We've all bean their. Having said that, I must say the screening of late has been very inconsistent in my experience. When you try and discuss it openly on here, moderators remove posts and when you email screeners, you just get silent treatment so even established uploaders have their problems meeting the criteria, it's not just 'noobs' as you put it.

I don't personally see anything wrong in Sam's photo. It's good composition and well executed. I know what you mean about the shot concentrating on the architecture rather than the aviation, but part of the wing is still in shot and it's the view on approach so I can't see why shouldn't be acceptable here. There's enough aviation in the shot for me. I don't think the person uploading that photo would have made a difference, he photo speak for itself. It shouldn' do anyway.

Darren

PS how long before this thread is deleted?



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineilpavone2004 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

Totally agree with you, airimage. I'd be really curious to see what happens if i upload a photo of a famous photographer and he/she uploads a photo taken by me.
The photo you linked is for sure a nice photo but according to a.net standards shouldn't be there...


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11638 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6225 times:

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
It's a great pic I'll admit, but it's a pic of a landmark with a little bit of Embraer wing in it. Would the likes of me and other members with less than a handful of photos on the DB have had the same success uploading it?
I was surprised to see it had been accepted until I saw the photographers name.

There are thousands of other shots featuring an equally small piece of wing in the database of this and every other aircraft photography website, plenty of them uploaded by photographers with a few hundred or less pictures on the site. If the scenery adds something to the picture then so be it, whether it's a coral reef or a mosque, I'd rather see something like this than another side on Southwest 737.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinebaldwin8 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6191 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do see your point airimage. But when you try to accommodate so many people, the interests tend to widen. I saw the image on the opening page originally, but it was not interesting enough for me to want to have a more detailed view. Lucky guy was sitting in a seat with a clean window. My flight yesterday on an AirCanada Jazz Express flight only left me with a scratched frosted view of some great scenery.

It would be interesting to hear what experience levels are needed to become a screener and do they hold online meetings now and then to make sure they are all on the same page.

When I visit the airliners website, I do come to view airliners, not military, private jets or such. But we all know what they about opinions.....


User currently offlineairimage From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6190 times:

There was a guy the other day that posted a pic in the feedback forum of a pic he had rejected.
The pic had a crowd of people in the foreground and although they weren't in focus and the aircraft was, a screner had commented about how the viewers eye is drawn to the people in the forground rather than the aircraft.
I could see his point because the crowd was a distracting factor but never the less, the emphasis on viewpoint was the main factor of the rejection.

Now in this shot my eye is drawn to the landmark and not the wing.


User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3924 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6154 times:

Quoting airimage (Reply 5):
Now in this shot my eye is drawn to the landmark and not the wing.

Of course it is. The fact is that a.net accepts such photos, whether they are real aviation photos or not.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineSoaring1972 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6125 times:

I personaly like these kind of immages a lot!

And in my oppinion some rules of a.net are reducing the variety of aviation-photography sometimes a lot!


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree with the first half of the OP, but I disagree about the shot in question. I think with window views, the view outside is the main subject of interest. I'd rather see this than a shot consisting of the whole wing and blue sky and brown ground from 35,000 feet. YAWN...

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 1):
Having said that, I must say the screening of late has been very inconsistent in my experience. When you try and discuss it openly on here, moderators remove posts and when you email screeners, you just get silent treatment

So sad, but so spot on.

[Edited 2012-10-14 13:33:03]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineilpavone2004 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6105 times:

Quoting Soaring1972 (Reply 7):
And in my oppinion some rules of a.net are reducing the variety of aviation-photography sometimes a lot!

Ok but rules are rules for everybody and not only for the bad ones...


User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 544 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6072 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
There have been a number of instances where I have seen a shot accepted yet it has glaring quality issues and a quick click on the photographer reveals he/she has hundreds of photos on the database. Yet there are a lot of 'noobs' submitting photos in the feedback section who are getting rejections for the tiniest of flaws.

Then explain to me why my acceptance ratio at this moment is only 60% (and has been down to 35% recently) when I have almost 3000 pictures in the db. We are all equals as far as the screeners are concerned.

I had to struggle for a good three years to get to the point where I was having any images accepted. One of my biggest lessons was to swallow my pride and be open to critiques.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6066 times:

The title of this thread is one of the best and most enjoyable that I've seen in a while. Landmarks.net is absolutely hilarious!

But seriously, I thought the exact same thing when I first viewed it. Sam is a brilliant photographer but this picture has nothing to do with aviation except for the fact that it was shot on an airplane. Would a picture of someone's brand new ipad laying on a aircrafts tray table with only a small corner of the table visable make it through screening? I think not.

The picture was incredible, there is nothing to disqualify it quality wise, but I'm at a loss of it's relationship to anything here EXCEPT maybe some airlines keep windows cleaner than others. His description clearly states the "Jackpot" of this picture is the building itself, and not the aircraft. This alone should disqualify the shot because, again, the building has nothing to do with aviation. Picture of a new terminal? Absolutely. Some random building? Nope.

Now, I did enjoy the shot, so why not explore the thought of making a new category? There have been some postings here about a number of shots taken out of windows but unless I'm missing something, the vast majority of them are of other airplanes or airports.

Seriously, a Landmarks category that shows things like this. Could open up a bunch of new shots.

[Edited 2012-10-14 14:19:41]


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineJoshu From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6035 times:

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 10):
Then explain to me why my acceptance ratio at this moment is only 60%

Well stated, I am at 40%. I have been uploading for just over a year with like 105 shots in the DB.

Instead of complaining, go back to the drawing board and figure what you need to fix. We all have done this multiple times over.


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5926 times:

I know exactly where the OP is coming from although to be fair I have over 1900 images on the db, been uploading for 12 yearts and have an accpetance ratio in single figures. Maybe you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The Abu Dhabi picture is a superb picture but it doesn't really belong here; not if is supposed to be an aircraft database. Well, that's what we keep being told anyway.

Next time try uploading a picture of a tray of drinks. That was accepted here a month or so back. Yes it was taken in an aeroplane but seriously?



Whatever.......
User currently offlinejohnmiller From South Africa, joined Mar 2006, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

I have to agree, nice image that it is, it's hardly a prime aviation pic. I also agree with consistency and some really puzzling acceptances like the shadow of the photographer in one picture. My specialization is air to air and the screeners appear to have no real expertise in this field. I've had rejections of pics that have been used on magazine covers or double page spreads. However, they do throw back ones where there are dust spots I've missed but have some funny ideas about composition.

User currently offlineyerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sam had everything at that very moment! He was on that flight, good sunlight, clear window, nice position of seat and most important thing in our hobby - desire to photo and desire to share. That is why he commented - JACKPOT!
Is it bad to be lucky?



With best regards from Almaty
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First off, I have to say that it is nice to read a debate like this - rarer these days than used to be the case.

For me, what is at the heart of airimage’s concern is the apparent internal inconsistency he sees with a shot like this. My own view is that this is a good example of a long-standing ‘dilemma’ for the site – is it a ‘database’ or a window for ‘aviation photography’? To a large extent things have evolved here such that it is some of both, but that inevitably leads to what some might interpret as inconsistencies. For one type of motive factors a, b and c apply, but with a different kind of motive those same factors may be reason for a rejection. As just one example that comes to mind, I recently had a photo (of which I was rather proud) rejected because it lacked detail in the shadows – i.e. there was too much contrast between the brightly lit aircraft and its black belly. However, one of those (often lovely) sunset shots with the silhouette of an aircraft will be fine, even though, by definition, all detail of the aircraft is, by definition, lost. This is because – again, in my opinion – in that latter kind of example the photo’s primary motive is as a landscape photograph, with an aviation connection (like the wing views). In my photo the sole subject was the aircraft itself.

Personally, I very much enjoy landscape photography, so often enjoy seeing images here which are basically landscape photographs, taken from the air. I also enjoy looking at those well executed silhouette sunset shots. Both have minimal (visible) detail of the aircraft in question. It is within the rules and, so long as other factors - such as quality - are met, they are accepted.

It is the fact that other rules – when the motives vary – appear to be inconsistent that causes the furrowing of brows. Once we move out of the landscape arena other rules then come into play, or are interpreted differently. Chopping an engine cowling in half will generally be a no-no when the subject is a plane on the ground, because it can be interpreted as clumsy framing; if it is the view out of a cabin window then it is fine. Some rules apply across the board, such as quality/exposure etc, but others are applied differently, depending on the subject. Now when the subjects/motives are similar, but the rules appear to be applied inconsistently – then that is another story.

Paul


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):
Of course it is. The fact is that a.net accepts such photos, whether they are real aviation photos or not.

Pretty much.

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
Personally, I very much enjoy landscape photography, so often enjoy seeing images here which are basically landscape photographs, taken from the air. I also enjoy looking at those well executed silhouette sunset shots. Both have minimal (visible) detail of the aircraft in question.

Me too. I even have a photo album on here called "Landscapes". I'd be pretty sad if that type of photo was no longer accepted.

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
It is the fact that other rules – when the motives vary – appear to be inconsistent that causes the furrowing of brows. Once we move out of the landscape arena other rules then come into play, or are interpreted differently. Chopping an engine cowling in half will generally be a no-no when the subject is a plane on the ground, because it can be interpreted as clumsy framing; if it is the view out of a cabin window then it is fine. Some rules apply across the board, such as quality/exposure etc, but others are applied differently, depending on the subject. Now when the subjects/motives are similar, but the rules appear to be applied inconsistently – then that is another story.

This is why, as much as I can, I only worry about my own shots. At the end of the day, does it really matter to me what Sam Chui or whomever else had accepted or rejected? No.

There are other places I can display shots not accepted here, if I want to.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinejohnmiller From South Africa, joined Mar 2006, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5747 times:

Behind almost every decision in life there's an element of sentiment and partiality. The question was: how much nod did this picture get because of Sam's name? I have had images rejected because they are from the same air to air shoot (although different compositions) and yet more prolific photographers will have several from a single shoot accepted. I have slowed down with a.net because there is no consistency, even though I'm grateful that 53% of my images have been accepted.

User currently onlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3924 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5744 times:

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 18):
I have had images rejected because they are from the same air to air shoot (although different compositions) and yet more prolific photographers will have several from a single shoot accepted.

Technicalities. You can have one from each side.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5671 times:

There are two options one can take. One is to not upload here. The other is to, for lack of a better term, 'suck it up' and try to understand what the screeners are saying and try to adopt the feedback into your workflow. Eventually, the saying goes, you will find success.

After recently seeing two photos accepted that really had nothing to do with aircraft(a shot of turtles sunning themselves on a grass 'runway' with no aircraft in sight and a shot of what looked like a tropical paradise that was indoors, which I later found out was supposed to be the inside of a terminal, again with no aircraft in sight) I decided that there really is no point in trying to learn from the screening process here, because the inconsistency makes trying to understand what the Rules are an exercise in futility. What one screener will accept another will not. So be it.

That is not to say I'm above criticism, at all. I'm constantly beating myself up about missed opportunities, soft focusing, and blown exposures. The only way to improve is to know your weaknesses and always strive to improve upon them. I consider this to be a meeting place of the most knowledgeable folks in the aviation world where any question I ever had about an airline or aircraft can surely be answered. It covers breaking aviation news faster than some news networks. But it is no longer relevant as a marker of what constitutes quality aviation photography. So, as I've stated in the past, I take the first option and only upload to communities which are less sensitive to minutiae like 'motive'.

Honing your craft as a photographer is not necessarily the same thing as striving to meet acceptance criteria.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 20):
Honing your craft as a photographer is not necessarily the same thing as striving to meet acceptance criteria.

No it's not, but who's to say you can't do both?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJoshu From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5630 times:

The strict acceptance criteria here has improved my abilities as a photographer and editor. Don't get me wrong, I'll still curse when a photo is rejected but I'll get "back to the lab again, yo" and re-edit and re-upload.

User currently offlinenotaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

Airimage,

Good topic!
Completely agree with you!

This is an interesting discussion, and I truly hope this will continue in a civilized fashion.


Cheers.



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlineilpavone2004 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5588 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 20):
After recently seeing two photos accepted that really had nothing to do with aircraft(a shot of turtles sunning themselves on a grass 'runway' with no aircraft in sight and a shot of what looked like a tropical paradise that was indoors, which I later found out was supposed to be the inside of a terminal, again with no aircraft in sight) I decided that there really is no point in trying to learn from the screening process here, because the inconsistency makes trying to understand what the Rules are an exercise in futility. What one screener will accept another will not. So be it.

+100


25 viv : I was also surprised to see this shot accepted, when viewed in the context of the existing acceptance criteria. That said, I enjoyed viewing the shot,
26 Post contains images mat1979 : Sometimes, pictures show little airplane or aiport, yet they show a little of the magic of flight.
27 scbriml : The examples you quoted are very unlikely to have only been accepted by one screener. Whenever something comes along that 'pushes the boundaries' mos
28 Post contains links and images vposbic : To my surprise, my 50th photo in the database is a landscape shot that is one of my most popular, and was featured in the Top 5. I guess it showed me
29 acontador : One thing is to argue about acceptance criteria, another very different to drag a photographer's picture around that was rightfully accepted (accordin
30 Post contains images vikkyvik : It happened to me when I upgraded cameras, and to a lesser extent, lenses. Had to refine my sharpening procedures. My acceptance rate dropped from ~7
31 JohnKrist : Hi I would suggest contacting the head screeners if you have an issue with an accepted shot, not post in forums or in the Photo Comments like you did
32 JakTrax : I've given up posting here as it's far too catty (this thread goes to show), with both sides (the team and photographers) showing more disrespect towa
33 Post contains images Silver1SWA : Well said. However there is some inconsistency with how not only the acceptance criteria, but how rules in general are applied. There is a legitmate
34 vikkyvik : That's wondering about something that, really, has no bearing. Why people shoot is a personal decision, whether it's to upload here, to upload somewh
35 JakTrax : You're right, but it's a sad state of affairs when all one's images are shot on the basis of whether they are acceptable here. This hobby used to be
36 Post contains images vikkyvik : I fully agree, but look at this thread, for example. Someone didn't like what they saw.... I'll have to disagree there. I started about 2.5 years ago
37 Silver1SWA : I see they removed the lock on this thread. Interesting... Actually I don't think that's it, really. What I see often is people complaining selectivel
38 megatop412 : You certainly can do both. In my experience though, while not mutually exclusive of each other(heck, often they inform one another), a photographer w
39 Post contains images vikkyvik : Take it as a positive sign (until someone complains about it, that is ). Oh gotcha. Certainly plenty of that too. Like, say, comparing your rejection
40 johnmiller : This has been a great thread with good points being made. It is just the right discussion for this forum. Posters should be allowed to have their say
41 dazbo5 : Can I ask on what basis you think that? I fail to see where that is the case personally. With over 5100 photos on the database, I suppose I fit in to
42 Post contains images ptrjong : Sometimes I even feel that there is less leeway for long-time uploaders in certain respects, when screeners feel that they 'can do better.' I'm not co
43 johnmiller : Hi Darren, Yes, as I pointed out in a previous post I have had images rejected because they are from the same air to air shoot and yet other more reg
44 NZ107 : Read the rules and you might find answers there.
45 airkas1 : John, this sounds like a double issue. If you could link the photos here it can be easily solved.
46 dazbo5 : Thanks for that John. I know what you mean about some of the double rules. I'm in discussion with the screeners about that at the moment with a couple
47 viv : We will get nowhere speculating whether or not some photographers are granted more uploading leeway than others. The real issue is whether photos of l
48 dendrobatid : I have been reading (and enjoying) this thread but what John said there is simply not true. Photos are judged on their merits not who the photographe
49 airimage : I'd just like to put to rest any idea that I have had a similar photo rejected. I haven't I haven't uploaded to this site since last year I think and
50 JakTrax : I personally think any perceived 'favouritism' is simply down to the pattern of recent screening inconsistencies - of which there have been plenty lat
51 Silver1SWA : Isn't there already a category for that, called wing/window view?
52 johnmiller : Mike. It's not a big issue for me, believe me. The standard of photography on this site is awesome and there's bound to be a few whoopsies and some i
53 Dubi : It will be much much easier for a new uploaders, if they compare their photos with a similar photos (accepted ones). Just open so many photos you wish
54 moose135 : And when you do, and post a thread saying "Why did this get accepted when mine didn't..." you get blasted for criticizing another photographer's work
55 Post contains images GPHOTO : Hello all, A very enjoyable thread to read, not seen a good debate like this in the photography forum for some time. Thanks to the vast majority who h
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...
Airliners.net Think My Prictures Are From 1990? posted Wed Sep 12 2012 08:18:14 by SVGspotter
Questions About Facebook/Airliners.net posted Sun Aug 5 2012 17:17:08 by unattendedbag
Myaviation.net & Not Being Allowed To Manage Photo posted Fri Aug 3 2012 05:56:23 by Angelis
2,000,000 Pictures On A.net posted Sat Jun 2 2012 20:27:46 by powwwiii
Facebook Page Stealing Photos From A.net Photogs posted Sat Mar 17 2012 13:53:24 by jeffreyklm
Ryan International Took Photos From A.net? posted Wed Mar 7 2012 03:51:19 by wilco737
Not Documented On A.net posted Mon Feb 27 2012 16:52:14 by 727LOVER
Nikon Coolpix S6200 good enough for a.net? posted Wed Feb 8 2012 15:32:38 by kann123air
Is This Flickr Account Stealing A.net Photos? posted Sun Jan 15 2012 08:44:53 by Newark727
Worse Contrast After Uploading To Airliners.net posted Wed Jan 11 2012 09:13:15 by czalesz