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 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6314 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, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6305 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 UK - England, joined Feb 2008, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6297 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, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6243 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, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6209 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 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6208 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 offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6172 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 11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6143 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, 4817 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6133 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 UK - England, joined Feb 2008, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6123 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 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6090 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, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6084 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, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6053 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, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5944 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 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5926 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, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5852 times:

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 11 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5853 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, 10037 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5810 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 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5765 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 offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5762 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, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5689 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, 10037 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5673 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, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5648 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 Ecuador, joined Mar 2011, 413 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airimage,

Good topic!
Completely agree with you!

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


Cheers.



For anybdoy that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
User currently offlineilpavone2004 From UK - England, joined Feb 2008, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5606 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


User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5616 times:

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, which is excellent when viewed as a non-aviation photo.

The fundamental question is whether, and to what extent, the acceptance criteria should be modified to enable shots like this to be accepted without a concomitant collective raising of eyebrows.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinemat1979 From France, joined Dec 2005, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5603 times:

Sometimes, pictures show little airplane or aiport, yet they show a little of the magic of flight.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthieu Labatut
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © matthieu labatut



User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5621 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 20):
What one screener will accept another will not. So be it.



The examples you quoted are very unlikely to have only been accepted by one screener. Whenever something comes along that 'pushes the boundaries' most of, if not all, the screeners and head-screeners will have their say.

Quoting mat1979 (Reply 26):
Sometimes, pictures show little airplane or aiport, yet they show a little of the magic of flight.

I would suggest they show more than just a little of the magic. IMHO, that's why they belong here.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinevposbic From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5613 times:

Quoting mat1979 (Reply 26):
Sometimes, pictures show little airplane or aiport, yet they show a little of the magic of flight.

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 how much people tend to enjoy these type of photos.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/9/3/2139390.jpg

[Edited 2012-10-16 05:22:00]

[Edited 2012-10-16 05:23:04]


-Vincent
User currently offlineacontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5574 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

One thing is to argue about acceptance criteria, another very different to drag a photographer's picture around that was rightfully accepted (according to the criteria set by the site). Sam's image is great, he is lucky enough to be able to travel a lot and use many rarer airlines/aircraft types to reach interesting places. However, the OP has clearly a particular agenda:

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
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.


I think it would be good to have any of the current screeners/headscreeners chipping in a putting the record straight, as I am completely sure that no such discrimination against newer members exists or has ever existed. It is natural for all of us to struggle at the beginning (we all did, believe it or not), since you have to go through a tough learning process until you better understand what screeners find acceptable and what not, and in the process you will certainly improve with both your photography and post-processing skills. That learning process actually is an ongoing one, since you will always have something in your workflow change that will make an adjustment necessary. I recently went through the third monitor change in a short time, and my acceptance ratio went to hell. So I will have to take again the long, tough and hard road to relearn to adjust what I see in my new monitor to what screeners do in order to have some pictures accepted.

Cheers,
Andres



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10037 posts, RR: 26
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting acontador (Reply 29):
So I will have to take again the long, tough and hard road to relearn to adjust what I see in my new monitor to what screeners do in order to have some pictures accepted.

  

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 ~70% to ~30% for a little while. And this was after having 300 or so photos accepted.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5511 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):

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 (yes, it was instantly deleted).

Would you like your photos to get this kind of negative attention?

We might not always like a photo that has been added, but we should still respect the work of our fellow photograhers, and the crew.

I love the fact that a photo like this can get in to the DB!

A crowd in front of an aircraft does not add any extra value, but a landmark, a natural wonder or such sure does.



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

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 towards each other than ever before. BUT if you upload your images here you should realise that they are subject to the world and his dog airing their critique. If someone doesn't like a photo of mine, they have the right to tell me publicly and link my image, should they so choose - that's what forums are all about. I have crap images here that perhaps shouldn't have been accepted but I ain't going to lose sleep over it!

I sometimes wonder how many of you actually still get out there and do it, without worrying what this site and its people will say or think. When did we become a site of whining individuals, whose bleeding hearts cry every time someone says something mildly 'offensive'? Deal with it. These hard times can throw much more worrying things our way.

And for the record, I think the shot belongs here. At one time we strived to change the site from merely a database into something that truly represented the spirit of aviation photography. The image in question isn't perfect but it does just that.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4817 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting acontador (Reply 29):
I think it would be good to have any of the current screeners/headscreeners chipping in a putting the record straight, as I am completely sure that no such discrimination against newer members exists or has ever existed. It is natural for all of us to struggle at the beginning (we all did, believe it or not), since you have to go through a tough learning process until you better understand what screeners find acceptable and what not, and in the process you will certainly improve with both your photography and post-processing skills. That learning process actually is an ongoing one, since you will always have something in your workflow change that will make an adjustment necessary. I recently went through the third monitor change in a short time, and my acceptance ratio went to hell. So I will have to take again the long, tough and hard road to relearn to adjust what I see in my new monitor to what screeners do in order to have some pictures accepted.

   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 case to be made under some circumstances. In this case I don't see an issue, however.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
I sometimes wonder how many of you actually still get out there and do it, without worrying what this site and its people will say or think. When did we become a site of whining individuals, whose bleeding hearts cry every time someone says something mildly 'offensive'? Deal with it. These hard times can throw much more worrying things our way.

Hmm...interesting...

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
And for the record, I think the shot belongs here. At one time we strived to change the site from merely a database into something that truly represented the spirit of aviation photography. The image in question isn't perfect but it does just that.

  !!!! 100%, spot on.

We asked for changes. We got changes. And now we still complain. We are in danger of losing credibility with behavior like this. That's if we haven't already...



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10037 posts, RR: 26
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
I sometimes wonder how many of you actually still get out there and do it, without worrying what this site and its people will say or think.

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 somewhere else, to sell prints, or just for the pleasure of it. And it's certainly possible to shoot for multiple reasons.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
When did we become a site of whining individuals, whose bleeding hearts cry every time someone says something mildly 'offensive'? Deal with it.

You got that right. I've read countless threads here and in the Feedback forum where people seemingly get so upset over something a screener or another photographer says, which was clearly meant innocuously or constructively.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 33):
We asked for changes. We got changes. And now we still complain. We are in danger of losing credibility with behavior like this. That's if we haven't already...

Problem there is that I'm sure not everyone wanted the changes that were made. So now one group that was upset is happy, and another group that was happy is upset.

Personally, I was happy, and I'm still happy. I'm not uploading much lately, but that's mainly because I just haven't felt like putting the time into editing for here. That's my problem, not the site's.

I really have never been able to understand why people get so worked up over all this!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
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 somewhere else, to sell prints, or just for the pleasure of it. And it's certainly possible to shoot for multiple reasons.

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 so much fun, and much of that fun was in the sharing of images. However with the advance of sites such as this I now see a lot of resentment and negativity. I may not be the most experienced photographer here but I've put in enough years to know when something is in danger of becoming detrimental to the hobby.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
Problem there is that I'm sure not everyone wanted the changes that were made. So now one group that was upset is happy, and another group that was happy is upset.

Only the 'purists' would not have advocated the change. If you don't like what you see, don't bother opening it. If I shop for a new car no-one forces me to test drive the many I've no interest in; but ultimately everyone benefits from a greater range of car models on offer. Some people will never be satisfied.

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10037 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 35):
If you don't like what you see, don't bother opening it.

I fully agree, but look at this thread, for example. Someone didn't like what they saw.... 
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 35):
This hobby used to be so much fun, and much of that fun was in the sharing of images. However with the advance of sites such as this I now see a lot of resentment and negativity. I may not be the most experienced photographer here but I've put in enough years to know when something is in danger of becoming detrimental to the hobby.

I'll have to disagree there. I started about 2.5 years ago now, much influenced by what I saw on here. And I'd be lying if I said A.net wasn't a fairly sizable influence on my photography in the last couple years. It's certainly not the only one, and maybe not even the main one anymore, but ultimately, I loved looking at others' images here, and I wanted to contribute. And I've had a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

It's not A.net's fault if it becomes detrimental. It's up to each individual photographer as to how he/she incorporates this website into their work (or doesn't). Not much different than shooting stock photography, or what-have-you.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4817 posts, RR: 25
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I see they removed the lock on this thread. Interesting...

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
Problem there is that I'm sure not everyone wanted the changes that were made. So now one group that was upset is happy, and another group that was happy is upset.

Actually I don't think that's it, really. What I see often is people complaining selectively about the changes, using shots like this as an example when things don't go their way with one of their own shots. I believe they are often comparing apples to oranges when in their mind, they see an apples to apples comparison. It would be like me trying to upload a crop that doesn't work and getting a distance and motive rejection with a personal note from screeners saying aircraft not prominent enough in the frame. Then I see a window shot with very little aircraft in the frame and think its the same thing when what's really wrong is my attempt at something different just simply did not work.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5354 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 21):
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?

You certainly can do both. In my experience though, while not mutually exclusive of each other(heck, often they inform one another), a photographer would do well to know which path he/she is on and the end they hope to achieve.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10037 posts, RR: 26
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5356 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 37):
I see they removed the lock on this thread. Interesting...

Take it as a positive sign (until someone complains about it, that is   ).

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 37):
Actually I don't think that's it, really.

Oh gotcha. Certainly plenty of that too. Like, say, comparing your rejection to accepted shots that are 30+ years old....

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 38):
In my experience though, while not mutually exclusive of each other(heck, often they inform one another), a photographer would do well to know which path he/she is on and the end they hope to achieve.

Sure, but again, not mutually exclusive.



"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 40, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5313 times:

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 provided they stay with the issue, which is: do regular posters get preferential treatment over 'occasionals'? It is my opinion they do, for what that is worth and our screeners, who we all know have a difficult task, should not get defensive about it but value the feedback.

User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 40):
do regular posters get preferential treatment over 'occasionals'? It is my opinion they do

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 the regular poster / uploader catagory and don't feel I get any different treatment when it comes to photo acceptance or rejection than anyone else. I get my fair share of rejections, some that I feel are harsh and don't agree with just like someone who may only have a few photos on the database. This is one area I feel the screening is good in that photos are screened on their merits, not on the person uploading them.

Darren



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 offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5224 times:

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 complaining, and maybe it's not at all true. In that case, let this serve as a reminder that we all tend to fabricate our own view of the truth.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinejohnmiller From South Africa, joined Mar 2006, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 41):
Can I ask on what basis you think that?

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 regular posters seem able to have multiple images accepted from the same shoot.

I don't get silly about it but accept that I am not a regular poster and leave it at that.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6431 posts, RR: 39
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5162 times:

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 43):

Read the rules and you might find answers there.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently onlineairkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3996 posts, RR: 55
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5149 times:

John, this sounds like a double issue. If you could link the photos here it can be easily solved.

User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5140 times:

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 of issues that i'm trying to get my head around with consistancy and raised an issue. While I can see why you might perceive an issue, I can assure you that newer uploaders aren't treated any different from more established uploaders, I haven't anyway. I think I remember seeing your thread and it was a straight forward double.

Darren



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 offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

We will get nowhere speculating whether or not some photographers are granted more uploading leeway than others.

The real issue is whether photos of landscapes taken from aircraft, but that include little or nothing of the aircraft itself, should be accepted.

Do we need a new category "Photos from aircraft"?



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently onlinedendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1668 posts, RR: 62
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5143 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 43):
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 regular posters seem able to have multiple images accepted from the same shoot.

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 photographer and I can assure you that my acceptance rate (as a Head Screener) was recently quite low as I was having some issues. I have had some help but the only way I will be totally sure that I have resolved it will be when my next images go into screening in a few days time.

As to your comments about air to air Kas has probably highlighted the issue. The double rules still apply and as someone who has also done air to air, it can be very frustrating to only be allowed one shot per side in what is a tricky, undoubtedly expensive photographic situation. Only a fool would take one shot, you take plenty, and when a lot are good then it is not easy to be forced to only select one - I know, I have had to do it. With three aircraft in the air to photograph, on one session, I was able to do more but it takes some planning and understanding of our rules. I did not breach the rules, I worked within them, but I know them well.

As to the image that started this thread, the aviation interest is minimal but it is a great air to ground shot. If the wing was not in it, it would certainly have been rejected and the fact that it was by one of our most popular photographers would have been totally irrelevant. We walk a tightrope between being a database and having aircraft related images and whilst I most certainly lean towards the database aspect, I can still appreciate that as a great aviation related photo.

I don't think we do badly in hitting that balance....
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineairimage From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5129 times:

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 48):
Photos are judged on their merits not who the photographer is

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 only have 3 photos.
I probably only have 3 photos here because I don't have the time to go out photographing and only do it when I'm at an airport going on holiday, and even then I'm never in the best place to take photos so I basically just get what I can and most of those don't/won't cut it here.
I do like to stick up for the avid enthusiasts that do go out of their way to take pictures and struggle to get them on here because they are slightly soft on the leading edge of the stabiliser and grainy at ISO100 and also has questionable motive because ones eye is drawn to a a particular part of the photo and not the aircraft/airport in said photo.
This shot in question had none of those flaws (that I could see) apart from the eye point thing and is a great shot of a mosque or something and I'll admit that after reading through these replies, I've come to the conclusion that the photo is as acceptable as a wing shot on approach over any major city.
It's just not a city or place I'm familiar with.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

I personally think any perceived 'favouritism' is simply down to the pattern of recent screening inconsistencies - of which there have been plenty lately. I can be critical of the screening process but I seriously doubt that grudges and opinions cloud any judgements. As a safety net there exists the appeals function, which almost certainly eliminates that likelihood.

I'm sure we as photographers all appreciate that the process is never going to run 100% smoothly but it is a little more than annoying when you see an accepted image that clearly should have been given the boot. I have seen so many this past few days in which the quality issues are glaringly obvious (including one of my own, before anyone plays the 'bias card') but I'm not going to discuss them further, publicly or privately. I'm just going to put it down to experience and allow myself to get on with my own agenda here.

I suggest anyone moaning does likewise, before you end up resenting the hobby you so enjoy.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4817 posts, RR: 25
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting viv (Reply 47):
Do we need a new category "Photos from aircraft"?

Isn't there already a category for that, called wing/window view?



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinejohnmiller From South Africa, joined Mar 2006, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5029 times:

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 48):
I have been reading (and enjoying) this thread but what John said there is simply not true.

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 ill-judged calls. The pro-foto judging process is geared to remove these ambiguities but that is because there is a panel made up of far more folk than A.net has available per image. A pro-foto judging team will normally have one specialist per category who knows what they are talking about.

I take anything up to 1000 images in an air to air shoot and I'm only relating the reason given to me for rejecting the shot by the screener at the time. To expect you guys to be completely impartial is unrealistic and posters perhaps need to know this.


User currently offlineDubi From Slovenia, joined Mar 2006, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4846 times:

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 to compare with a photo you made and uploaded for screening - and you will see flaws much better.
Just uploading and waiting for a week to get a message from screener wont get you anywhere.
I am so good in this now that I am comparing only my photos - not from others.
It is not that hard - really.

[Edited 2012-10-19 02:05:13]

User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting Dubi (Reply 53):
It will be much much easier for a new uploaders, if they compare their photos with a similar photos (accepted ones).

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...



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4663 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

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 have kept this thread lively and interesting with oppposing views without crossing the line of acceptable behaviour, though I suspect the mods may have had to put in some work at times!  

It might be beneficial at this point to explain why the original photograph is perfectly acceptable as it stands, with or without the building in question.

From the Editors documentation on categorisation of photographs taken from on-board an aircraft:

"The only aviation subject of the photo is a part of the aircraft from which the photo was taken, and no substantial part of an airport or another aircraft is visible: the Category "Window_View" shall be selected, and the details for the aircraft from which the photo was taken shall be listed, and "In Flight" for the Location."

Aviation subject = wing = tick.

No substantial part of an airport or another aircraft visible = "Window_View" = tick.

Details of aircraft from which the photograph was taken = tick.

"In Flight" for the location = tick.

Sam's photo meets all the criteria for an acceptable Window View photograph and is correctly presented with all the right data in the right places. Those rules have been in place as long as I can remember and there are photographs which meet this criteria which show even less of the aircraft than this one.

The fact that a rather nice building is also perfectly presented in the view, is a compositional masterstroke. Result, many, many deserved views for a completely legal A.net photo. Well done Sam!

 
Quoting dlednicer (Reply 10):
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.

My ratio and number of photographs in the database is about that level too. Readers might also like to bear in mind I was also a Head Database Editor for two years and that never influenced the Screeners either. That is exactly how it should be.

On a more humourous note, you should also consider that both David and I also have the authority to delete any photograph in the database, including those of the Screeners. This potential blackmail tool does not seem to have improved our acceptance ratios!   If we can't get any influence over them with that, you can rest assured that nothing anyone else can do will affect their decisions either. Again, exactly as it should be.

I hope that helps illustrate that the Screeners are above both favouritism and intimidation.  

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
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