Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Database And Rejections  
User currently offlinechuck9941 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 200 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5701 times:

I've been thinking about this for a while now and thought it would be interesting to get the thoughts and opinions of my peers here on the site.
It has been said and confirmed numerous times that this site is first and foremost a database for aircraft and within that scope a creative landscape exists.
I've recently been going through a very rough patch of photo uploads resulting in quite a few number of rejections of which the majority seem to be rejected for grainy. Shooting with a D80 at ISO 100 I'm not quite sure how I'm receiving so many grainy rejections but that's here nor there.
A lot of the photos I have tried uploading have been on aircraft with N-numbers that have no representation within the site (database) Given this, and since the goal of the site is to grow the database wouldn't it be more beneficial to have these new entries represented in the database? Now I'm not saying that a very poor photo should be accepted but if it can make it through at least first screening that more benefit is given to it to have it represent and grow the database?
As the site continues to increase its standards for acceptance at which point does this perfection take away from improving the database by adding good but not quite perfect photo of an aircraft not yet represented? If it's a photo that already has a few or even hundreds of shots in the database then I can completely understand but shouldn't the database grow with new entries?
I'm not going to post examples of my rejected photos 1) because they have already been removed from photographer's corner and 2) because I don't want this to be an issue of how come my photos weren't accepted.

Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.
3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5697 times:

There is leeway for new or rare frames of course, but only up to a certain point. I took a quick look at some of the rejections you refer to, and quite simply the quality is just too poor - for your specific images it is not a case of just being borderline, for if they had been just borderline, they would likely have been accepted. Speaking from experience, I can assure you images of new frames (and rare ones) are judged more leniently than subjects that are much more common on the db.

As to why your specific images are lacking in quality, I cannot say; there are many ways you can get excessive noise in an image even if shooting at a low ISO. The images may no longer be shown on your rejection page, but they remain in the screening log, so I can easily link to them if you wish to discuss them further in the feedback forum.

User currently offlinechuck9941 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5490 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 1):
There is leeway for new or rare frames of course, but only up to a certain point.

I guess this is more or less the question. What if any is the measuring stick? Obviously if its an old frame or just out of digital age it will be different than that of the more modern captures and that each photo in itself is different.
But overall is it fair to say that quality weighs more heavily than providing representation of as many aircraft as possible in the database, at least for the first documented frame?

Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.
User currently offlinedendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1732 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We are a little more lenient with an aircraft new to the database and anything that has been scanned. I guess we take a slightly different approach to those images, asking the question, could or should it be better. Those with scans will tell you that they still get rejections where we think they should be better. It grieves me to do so at times but with a personal and explanation, they usually come back
If in our view it could not be better (for an old image) then they tend to be added, but it is a question of balance. If the airframe is, say a new Emirates A380 and the quality is poor we would reject as we can assume that we will soon have others.

It is a judgement call but we talk to each other and reach a concensus on contentious images. Some quite poor quality images are still accepted for very rare aircraft which speaks for itself I think. We mostly came to this site as aircraft enthusiasts and still are

Mick Bajcar

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Photo Pricing And Resizing Help posted Mon Dec 7 2009 22:22:08 by Chuck9941
Photo Database Down? posted Sat Sep 6 2008 17:15:25 by Flynavy
When To Charge For Photo Use And When Not To? posted Wed Jun 6 2007 20:30:38 by Calfo
Eurocontrol Photo Database Update To Photographers posted Thu Sep 7 2006 11:19:53 by FlyAUA
Photo Database Program - Macintosh posted Sun Dec 25 2005 04:23:22 by Daren3006
Photo Comments And Ratings Now In MyPhotos posted Thu Oct 20 2005 22:08:12 by Administrator
Photo Sales And First Class Membership! posted Wed Mar 30 2005 11:28:46 by Henks
Aviation Photo Database Software posted Sat Jan 1 2005 06:12:53 by Numloxx
Photo Database posted Wed Dec 1 2004 22:06:45 by Kaddyuk
Free Web-based Photo-database? posted Fri Nov 26 2004 10:06:35 by Mfz