Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Screening Criteria Changes  
User currently offlinescreeners From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 15 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9675 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

To the airliners.net photographer community:

Over the past several months there has been significant discussion both in the forum by the community and within the screening team regarding airliners.net screening criteria. While we have not completely settled on every nuance of what we should be doing differently, we have agreed to begin the process.

What will screeners be looking at differently in screening from now on? The following basis forms a starting point;

- Creative and exceptional shots
- Lighting around dawn and dusk to take into account local conditions more.
- Unusual shots or those composed that tell a story.
- If a shot, even the usual, has been seen by a couple of screeners and only a minor aspect of the image is in question, the next to see it accepts it.
- Contrast can be very subjective and we will show a little more leeway toward it
- Grain and noise in low light situations with subjects that are not static will receive more leeway
- Centering requirements will be relaxed somewhat, and more leeway will be exercised


Photography, being primarily subjective, means it will be difficult to implement hard and fast rules to govern acceptance and rejection. Over the coming weeks and months you may see some inconsistency as the screening team re-calibrates their screening towards the new guidance, and slowly begin adjusting the acceptance guide. We ask for your patience during this time period.

In order to assist the head screeners, a new Quality and Acceptance Criteria team, selected from the existing screening crew, is being established. This team will be tasked with reviewing a percentage of rejections and acceptances, checking for quality and the application of appropriate revised screening criteria.

On a regular basis, this team will provide feed back to the larger team, head screeners and the community manager on:

- images rejected that could or should have been added, along with rationale
- images that have been accepted that either
(a) exemplify our target images or
(b) perhaps should not have been accepted
- suggestions where current acceptance criteria could or should be revised
- drafting changes to the current acceptance criteria for upload to the site page(s)

Again we ask for your patience and support over this period. There will be some inconsistencies, and some mistakes will be made, but it is our belief that this will lead to a better overall experience for everyone.

The Airliners.net Screening Team

126 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9669 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Although I too get rejections all the time, I still hope A.net hold high standard for quality. Some more reasonable considerations are welcome, but hope won't get too loose. Thanks for the update.

User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 850 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9640 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 1):
Although I too get rejections all the time, I still hope A.net hold high standard for quality

My thoughts exactly.

Still, I welcome change, it shows a dynamic and flexible screening team. Well done all round.


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9639 times:

Thanks for the update. This is exactly the modernisation many of us have been seeking for quite some time and for me personally, fully endorse and support this step. I think it has been needed for some time. Like powwwiii, I hope things aren't relaxed too much and detract from the high standards that are expected, but hope some of the petiness and ultimately inconsistency reduces over time. One thing I think needs adding to the above list of changes is communication. Before screening criteria is changed and rejections are given for such changes, for example centre that changes over time subject to current preference, I think this needs discussing in the forum to publicise and discuss before implementation. Other than that, I think this is a change for the better and the future if the site is looking more promising.

Thanks,

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 offlineeskillawl From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9621 times:

Hopefully this will work out, without the quality of the photos changing to the worse. What I found most irritating is the motive rejection, that most hopefully will change a bit now. I definitly think that photos can be stunning without being able to reach the motive-criteria!

Will the rejection-reasons page be updated?

[Edited 2013-06-29 01:00:24]


Photo equipment: Canon EOS 60D | Canon 70-200 F4L USM | Canon 18-55 3:5-5:6 |
User currently offlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9563 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

These are good news and it was discussed for the long time.

Anet popularity was founded on creative and exceptional shots and priority to this issue seems very logic. It will increase number of good photos (therefore - views) and will help to return those photogs who had left the site.

So many thanks for the Team for the hard work they've done!

I guess it could be nice if we'll be able to suggest some further ideas to develop Anet.

From my prospective I'd talk on following:
Size - we have 4:3 to 3:2 size, however there are nice shots with 1:1 and 1:2 sizes and additional empty space just make shot worse. I'd suggest these limits: 1:1 to 2:1.
Center - I'd suggest be more flexible with the aircrfat position (it can be the idea of photographer or simply not realy important) and reject only in case of obvious mistake in centering.

Any implemented rule should has it sence. As less 'rules for rules' we'd have as better site will be.

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 5):
Size - we have 4:3 to 3:2 size, however there are nice shots with 1:1 and 1:2 sizes and additional empty space just make shot worse. I'd suggest these limits: 1:1 to 2:1.

I'd like to see more flexibility on aspect ratio - if a shot looks right, does it matter if it isn't perfectly 3:2 or 4:3?

Given the proliferation of 16:9 displays and TVs, I'd also like to see 16:9 photos being accepted. It would seem to be an ideal format for a lot of plane shots.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 850 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9454 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 6):
Given the proliferation of 16:9 displays and TVs, I'd also like to see 16:9 photos being accepted. It would seem to be an ideal format for a lot of plane shots.

Or at least 16:10.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9445 times:

Overall this sounds like a positive thing, although this 'transitional' period has already seen much inconsistency with some very poor shots being added. Still, this has been satisfactorily explained and is likely expected when a system deviates from its normal routine.

I think we still need to be applying the fundamental A.net criteria, in order to retain the high quality we're so used to seeing here; a set of revisions, rather than a complete overhaul of the rules.

I think the most important thing for the majority of us is a revision to the way grain is viewed by the site, to bring it in line with how it's viewed in general photography. Lately I and others have noticed that grain is being far too tenaciously pursued, while other, more serious image flaws have been missed (or certainly not acknowledged). Hopefully this can be addressed.

I have to say though that the issue for photographers lately hasn't been the criteria itself, but rather the hap-hazard application and interpretation of it. Providing this 'relaxation' isn't to the detriment of quality I'm sure this will soon be a much better place to host our photos.

Finally - and I don't mean this as a snipe - it's good to know that the screeners are indeed answerable to someone, and are not simply allowed to control the entire site based on their own opinions and ideas. Everything needs regulation, even if it's only periodically. Let's hope this works out for everyone.

Karl


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9438 times:

I'm cautiously optimistic about these rule changes, hopefully it will allow for a more unified screening experience based on allowing some things like more subjectivity for contrast.

User currently offlinehotplane From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Less photos of common subjects taken in high sun would be appreciated!


?
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4811 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9346 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am excited and welcome the changes! I have struggled with finding the motivation to upload consistently because I didn't like being constrained (mostly) by criteria I found uninteresting to both shoot and process. There needed to be some significance in the subject to get my butt motivated to edit and upload a shot for anet while a large collection of traditionally non-anet material began collecting on my hard drive, some only seeing the light of day on Flickr. I hope to give many of those shots a chance on this site now!

  



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 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9295 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 11):
I am excited and welcome the changes! I have struggled with finding the motivation to upload consistently because I didn't like being constrained (mostly) by criteria I found uninteresting to both shoot and process. There needed to be some significance in the subject to get my butt motivated to edit and upload a shot for anet while a large collection of traditionally non-anet material began collecting on my hard drive, some only seeing the light of day on Flickr. I hope to give many of those shots a chance on this site now!

I totally agree with you.


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5055 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9256 times:

So what if the Quality and Acceptance Criteria Team reviews a photo that has been rejected, and they conclude that it should have been accepted given these new criteria, would they then accept it even if the photographer has not appealed it? or would they contact the photographer and ask that they upload it again?

Bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9236 times:

Quoting Bruce (Reply 13):
So what if the Quality and Acceptance Criteria Team reviews a photo that has been rejected, and they conclude that it should have been accepted given these new criteria, would they then accept it even if the photographer has not appealed it? or would they contact the photographer and ask that they upload it again?

I don't think we can expect the screening team to go through previous rejections. This should be up to the photographer to act on any rejection given and re-upload if they feel it can be improved. I don't see these changes resulting in a lowering of the current quality criteria. I don't think that is healthy for the site. I see these changes purely as a modernisation to reflect the limits in camera technology and being more realistic in what quality can be expected in certain circumstances. It's all about consistency and reducing some of the petiness, not relaxation of the quality required.

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 offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9123 times:

Quoting hotplane (Reply 10):
Less photos of common subjects taken in high sun would be appreciated!

Fully agree. It's essentially a quality issue, although there are FAR more of these images over at the 'other' site. Mid-day sun in June is just awful!

Karl


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9104 times:

About 9 years late wouldnt you say?
This looks like trying to bring back in the horse that bolted a long time ago..
Take a look in the forum what the top photographers where asking back in 2004..



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9011 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 16):
About 9 years late wouldnt you say?

I totally agree with you Darren, but better late than never.

Site is less but still popular and some people might come back.


User currently offlineac190 From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9007 times:

I'm probably one of the small group of people that is a bit sad to see it change. Getting rejected over and over again was hard on the morale but when I got even one picture accepted at once it made me forget about the rejections.I always thought to myself that it should be hard to get pictures accepted to Airliners because they required the best. But after reading this sub-forum a lot I can see where people are coming from so if it means that it will be a bit easier to get pictures accepted then I won't complain.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4811 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ac190 (Reply 18):

Let's keep in mind here that anet will not be accepting everything. High standards will continue to be upheld.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinerpd14 From Indonesia, joined Mar 2011, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8984 times:

Hello all..
I'm as new comer here feel glad about this information that some criteria gives little more leeway.
for me, even some criteria changes, I think A.net will be still hold high standard for quality and no doubt about it.
some spotters ever told me that he feels little bit stress and try to find out "how to make consistency for acceptance photos in here?" and there is some people decide to stop upload by reason they though the pic will rejected definitely.

in my opinion, there is one more thing issue in criteria, about leveling personal. some pics rejected by reason need CCW or CW that less than 0,5 degrees, including in appeal section and still rejected even already give correct reason from the uploader, is it possible this issue could be considered by the screener?. I think all photographer understand how to make the object really horizon in level.

Anyway, I really appreciate for all of this criteria and glad to be one of part photographers in A.net. thank you  


User currently offlineac190 From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8952 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 19):

I know, I never wanted to come across sounding like they would accept everything. I guess change can be good.


User currently offlineF27 From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8224 times:

Still going to be a mates club that is why i have walked away from posting on Airliners.Some of us early photographers made airliners what it is today.

User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8169 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting F27 (Reply 22):
Still going to be a mates club that is why i have walked away from posting on Airliners

With all due respect, a.net is not just about photographs. The forums form an important part of the site. So even if you don't get photos accepted, it should not be a reason to entirely walk away from the site. We all love aviation in the end...  

Regards,

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5055 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7556 times:

Darren, re-read the original post. They will be looking at some rejections:

Quoting screeners (Thread starter):
This team will be tasked with reviewing a percentage of rejections and acceptances, checking for quality and the application of appropriate revised screening criteria.

That's why I asked if those mistakenly rejected pictures would be added.


Bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
25 vir380 : ??? What a very strange thing to post , i wonder who you are as youve hidden yourself ! Anyway , good things from the site. Very positive move i feel
26 Post contains images FYODOR : Ас190, folks, As I can read nobody have said all photos to be accepted. I quess Anet still looks for qualitive pictures and we should not be afraid
27 JakTrax : I don't think most of us want it easier to get acceptances. It should still be difficult to get images online here - the current criteria just needs
28 alevik : Bruce; We will not be going back and looking at rejections from days, weeks, months and years gone past. On a day to day basis the team will look at
29 Newark727 : I may be pretty far in the minority here, but I use airliners.net as a database, not a gallery. I browse looking for new registrations and paint schem
30 Post contains images Silver1SWA : Oh Karl, you make me laugh sometimes. Perhaps I've missed it, but I thought things were relatively quiet lately, which is why when I awoke to this th
31 JakTrax : Pretty much what I said above. If the supposed 'flaw' in an image isn't down to photographer incompetence, then accept it. Grain for me isn't an issu
32 Post contains images vikkyvik : Please do! Of course we all want to see them, but it'll also help get the word out if people start seeing some more "creative" or whatever-word-you-w
33 Post contains images Dazed767 : Tell that to the people submitting. Happy to hear this, it's been a long time coming. While it's still a good idea to try and upload the best quality
34 Post contains images acontador : Hi Guys, Just to remind everyone, in the past, whenever the screening team implemented changes to the screening procedure, it has been always for the
35 megatop412 : I don't know why several people need to say 'well I hope the standards of this site won't go downhill now'. It's not like it's going to become myaviat
36 powwwiii : Because in the original post, it talked about more "leeway".[Edited 2013-07-01 07:48:49][Edited 2013-07-01 07:49:29]
37 andrew50 : Maybe it's just my imagination, but have the uploads dropped in the past few months, and if so, could this possibly be a reason for this change? Seems
38 southwest9 : Probably the only people that can say for sure are the screeners. I don't think anyone else can really count all the photos uploaded to the DB in the
39 stevemchey : The only times the word "leeway" was used was for very specific cases, not generally all uploads. In a way, the leeway the screeners are talking abou
40 eskillawl : I dont think so. The rejection-reasons has been the same for as long as I have been active in here, and if that is true the photographers would have
41 Post contains links granite : Karl I would also like to see some of these 'terrible images' that have recently been added. Can you mail the Head Screeners with the links so we can
42 Post contains images FYODOR : I think its already works. Site is going to be more interesting. Nice staff and I guess it has to be even more soon as I sure - after the notice guys
43 Post contains links ilpavone2004 : Is it me or things are really changing in here? http://www.airliners.net/photo/Everg...Boeing-747-230B%28SF%29/2280237/M/ Shots like this would have b
44 Silver1SWA : The shot above is exactly the kind of shot the screeners are talking about at the top of this thread! It deserves to be here.[Edited 2013-07-02 10:27:
45 Post contains images vikkyvik : I can't say I've been keeping an eye on upload statistics, but we seem to see anywhere from 700-1200 uploads per day these days. That seems to be rel
46 Silver1SWA : Dangit! You're quick. My original post was up for about 15 seconds before I edited it. LOL
47 vikkyvik : Ha, sorry. It took me awhile to finish my reply (searching for the photos), so you probably edited it while I was doing that.
48 JakTrax : The shot posted above by ilpavone2004 is a good example of common sense prevailing and traditional A.net rules being relaxed in order to accommodate a
49 megatop412 : There is a site called flickr where the quality of many of those shots rivals what you see here. Please see the 'Buffalino Photography' stream there
50 Post contains images NOTAXONROTAX : Would it be worth to re-upload a shot like this? I am not referring to the actual quality of this shot, I can improve that..............no, rather abo
51 SFO2SVO : Change we needed - and change happened. It will be great to see more creative shots in the DB - as well as good sideshots (I do agree with Newark727's
52 len90 : I personally like the relaxing on contrast and centering. I actually took a cool shot the other day of a plane being towed into the gate. I sat there
53 mjgbtv : I see what you are getting at, but personally I don't think the connection between the leaves and the aircraft is clear enough; those could just be s
54 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : I'd say no. Motive doesn't work for me, plus the airplane looks blurry. With that said, let's not turn this thread into a photo screening thread; tha
55 dazbo5 : I hope not. Unless that's the desired effect and it works for that particular shot, there's no excuse for backlit photos. As mentioned above, there's
56 Silver1SWA : I hate that backlit photo is synonymous with bad photography on this website. Of course backlighting must be used effectively!! That holds true everyw
57 Post contains images megatop412 : Well, for one thing, portrait photography uses this technique(carefully). Some people use the Sun as a rim light and offset the backlighting with som
58 whisperjet : Interesting developments. Do you expect an increased amount of uploads as a consequence of the changes? If yes, how are you going to cope with the que
59 Post contains links and images vikkyvik : It's not. It's just generally not accepted here, unless done well with proper motivation. Of course, but we see a lot of backlit shots in the queue,
60 NOTAXONROTAX : Thanks for the honest feedback. No, I wasn´t trying to turn it into a "photo screening" thread, just wanted to get an idea of how artistic the new r
61 eskillawl : I too upload some photos to Flickr, but many aviation photograper's dont. Therefore I would miss many great photos if I only would use Flickr.
62 vikkyvik : Not a problem, just didn't want a bunch of people to start posting photos here. Correct, it's not in those places. If you go to the Av Photo forum (t
63 JohnKrist : You can also find it in the drop down "Change Forum" at the top of any forum page.
64 NOTAXONROTAX : My thanks is great, gents! Back to topic........I am curious to see if this new philosophy will have any influence at all on my acceptance rate! Stil
65 connector4you : It's on this website own interest to try and completely eliminate any form of bias out of the photo-screening process. I see this set of advanced scre
66 Taca300C : I like these new changes, I stopped uploading long time ago due to the difficulty of having photos accepted here. Maybe its time to start again. Mario
67 aussie18 : Hi Stefan, We are not expecting it to have any influence on the screening queue, The screeners involved in this crew will still be doing the normal a
68 alevik : My experience with screeners uploading is that their images are scrutinized more, not less than non-screener uploads. While you may find some images
69 derekf : I've read the new proposals again and I suspect that the vast majority of us will see little difference. The proof will be apparent in the next few we
70 johnkrist : My acceptance rate is below 50%, actually no where close to it. If anything it has gone down since becoming crew. Most likely due to sub standard ima
71 dazbo5 : If new screeners are required to increase numbers following recent resignations, maybe a new topic with details is in order? I would hope the selecti
72 airkas1 : Just out of interest, what are the criteria for a screening position?
73 alevik : I think you are misrepresenting the email discussion we had regarding this. If you like I would be open to a better balanced representation of the fa
74 FYODOR : As an addition to further possible changes. I'd mention double rule. Double is clearly called to protect site from tonns of similar boring staff. Howe
75 Post contains links and images scbriml : Personally, I feel there's already enough latitude within the double rule. How much more flexibility do you need? View Large View MediumPhoto © Stev
76 alevik : Not sure if this addresses your concern, but the double rule was updated not that long ago providing some additional flexibility in some situations.
77 spencer : I'm not so eager to add images or be part of the forums anymore. But this may just make me return to both! Thanks! Spence
78 FYODOR : Peter, I know about the new rules indeed. I mean generally that double rule is quite senseless and good for the very limited cases. My point to change
79 Post contains images FYODOR : Lucky you are Guys asked not to make this thread for discussion on certain photos so I'd just can say that double policy is quite various and I can b
80 derekf : Judging by my recent rejections nothing has changed in terms of latitude for contrast or centring. Maybe it will take a while to settle down, or maybe
81 clickhappy : Derek - most of your rejections are for soft, in fact some are so soft that they appear to be out of focus. To lay that at our feet is unfair. If you
82 alevik : Derek - I screened a number of your images the other day. As Royal said some were so soft they looked out of focus. Perhaps if you posted some of the
83 Psych : As someone who has argued for a long time now, both in the Forum and in private conversation, for the system to give the photographer more 'benefit of
84 Post contains links derekf : Whether the pictures were soft or "out of focus" is irrelevant. We were informed that there would be more leeway over centring and contrast and what d
85 Silver1SWA : So wait, let me get this straight. You feel, because of the new changes to the criteria, that your shots should not have been rejected despite being
86 derekf : No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that they should not have been rejected for centring or contrast if we really have a greater tolerance of t
87 DL747 : Hello, Not to be rude, but, perhaps the new rules would be applied if the image was close to being on center. The PMCO 75, however is no where near cl
88 Silver1SWA : I think, in the case of your second photo, the change to centering rules are intended for shots that don't fit the typical mold, like creative stuff.
89 southwest9 : This thread is starting to be filled with lots of speculation about specific photos regarding the new rules and it seems as if it has lost its purpose
90 derekf : I don't think the "relaxation" of the rules on centring and contrast have anything to do with "creative" shots. I thought that the rules were applied
91 Silver1SWA : I think you are expecting too much leeway with these changes. A judgement call still needs to be made, otherwise you're just accepting everything. A
92 dazbo5 : Hi Derek, I think I just about side with the screeners here and think they've applied the new rules justifiably. To be fair, even though the rules ha
93 Post contains links and images Silver1SWA : Derek, Here's an example from personal experience. Perhaps I interpret the new rules the way I do because this happened a couple days before they ann
94 Post contains images derekf : So it would appear that although it says this:- But it still has to exactly in the middle. The Singapore 777 is taxying on a concrete apron in bright
95 Post contains images vikkyvik : Screeners don't archive threads. That said, I do think the Feedback Forum is a better place to ask questions about specific shots. They don't - those
96 Post contains images FYODOR : Derek, with my great respect to you let me bring my two cents to the discussion. First - I totally agree with Vik - there is a good proper place for c
97 derekf : I agree but we are discussing them in the context of the screening changes in this thread which is why I brought the subject up. I thought it might b
98 Silver1SWA : Did you miss my comment a few replies up (before Vik's) where I said perhaps if not for the softness issue, your shots might have been acceptable?! L
99 scbriml : Quite possibly not. Many screeners will list all the issues with a shot when rejecting it to avoid the "fix one issue/upload/reject for another" cycl
100 southwest9 : Sir, with all due respect This new criteria clearly does not mean that almost anything goes. There will continue to be pictures that are rejected for
101 vikkyvik : No, I do not think your shots would have been OK. You should probably reread my reply: I think that was pretty clear, but let me know if you have fur
102 dazbo5 : Not exactly middle, but I do feel yours is a little high in the frame and looks unbalanced. While a little leeway may be favourable, the current requ
103 Post contains images FYODOR : Guys, could we all finally return to the subject or anybody else have his point on these two shots? Derek, could you open the thread in Feedback forum
104 Post contains images southwest9 : [Edited 2013-07-08 08:58:55]
105 vikkyvik : It's an interesting proposition. Personally, I don't have a problem with the size limits being, say, 1:1 to 2:1, provided it doesn't screw up anythin
106 dazbo5 : For me, Derek's posts using his two shots as examples are part of the discussion on the new criteria. While it's also feedback on his photos specific
107 Post contains links and images FYODOR : I would not talk about importance but only if there is a goal to increase number of creative and good quality shots. Again, talking about quality of
108 dazbo5 : You did say you didn't want to discuss specific photos here, but I do think it's the best way to openly get collective opinion on things. It needs mo
109 aussie18 : Priority screening is not just air shows or crashes, It includes new types for airlines, new types of aircraft, special liveries etc so I can not see
110 Post contains links dendrobatid : There was a lot of discussion about centre in this thread Centring Issues (by Dendrobatid May 29 2007 in Aviation Photography) As a (Head) Screener I
111 Post contains images FYODOR : How nice it could be if every 'I don't want it' would be supported with the arguments There are a lot of news reasons besides rare cases you've counte
112 aussie18 : I suggest you read my statement again without quoting the small part you did. We give priority screening to pretty much all the newsworthy events, As
113 dazbo5 : The vast majority of photographers here are using DSLR or bridge style cameras (4/3). I therefore think it's right that the acceptance criteria is se
114 Post contains images FYODOR : Mark, I like you stright style of talking - it is very Russian - say directly what do you think. However I have to say that it can be not very correct
115 clickhappy : There will be no change to our allowed crop ration, which is between 3:2 and 4:3. Perhaps in the future, but right now it is not being discussed. If y
116 Post contains images stevemchey : Not to get too far off topic, but I am intrigued by this comment... Would you say this also applies to medium format (1:1 ratio) shots I take with my
117 Post contains images vikkyvik : I'd say go for it. What's the worst that will happen? Your photo gets rejected?
118 dazbo5 : No, of course it won't make the site 'worse', just that I don't think it's needed when most shoot 3:2 or 4:3 based cameras. Cameras are designed that
119 Post contains links and images dendrobatid : a while back now but :- View Large View MediumPhoto © Spencer Wilmot I can remember the discussion and it was added because it works so very well Mic
120 Post contains images FYODOR : Very good example, Mick. Thanks. Sure - it is the most popular and convinient size. And you can easely make 1:1 and 1:2 from 2:3 and 3:4. And it is no
121 angad84 : I must say I agree with Fyodor on the aspect ratios. Considering that there already are (according to Mick and Royal) a couple of non-standard aspect
122 dvincent : Aspect ratios are an artifact of the fact that this site grew from the slide collectors, who all shot 3:2 slides. Personally, if an image is high enou
123 angad84 : 100% agreed. In fact, 4:3 is close enough to square to not bother with a new ratio there. What I would kill to see is some 16:10 or 16:9 action. Chee
124 Post contains links olegchaplin : Interesting what will be the criteria? Before were only rejection - motive, distance, centered. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/m...ready/q1373234
125 dazbo5 : I quite like that shot, it's unusual and there must be a story behind it. There is a lot of dead space so I can see why it may have got distance prev
126 olegchaplin : Darren, certantly I put comment but if has not been the argument for the screeners and for the head after appeal. Uploaded it again when seen the top
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...
Screening Crew Changes posted Fri Nov 12 2010 07:26:10 by clickhappy
Announcing Head Screening Crew Changes posted Tue Sep 21 2010 15:05:26 by PanAm_DC10
Two Screening Crew Changes posted Sat Mar 13 2010 14:13:27 by PanAm_DC10
Completely Confounded By Screening Criteria. posted Mon Aug 26 2002 20:12:08 by ExitRow
Screening Crew New Changes posted Tue Mar 23 2010 18:37:54 by bubbles
Changes To Priority Screening posted Fri Sep 14 2007 19:24:22 by Clickhappy
Priority Screening - Paris Air Show 2013 posted Sun Jun 16 2013 14:44:04 by clickhappy
Screening Emails posted Sun Jun 9 2013 12:54:51 by qantas077
Flickr Changes posted Mon May 20 2013 20:38:24 by megatop412
Screening Process Question posted Tue May 7 2013 22:20:27 by Newark727