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, 13 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9648 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, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9642 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, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9613 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, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9612 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 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9594 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 onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9536 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, 12462 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9487 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, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9427 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 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9418 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, 1340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9411 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, 1038 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9389 times:

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


?
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9319 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 Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9268 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, 5049 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9229 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, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9209 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 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9096 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 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9077 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 onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8984 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 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8980 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, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8959 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 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8957 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 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8925 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 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8197 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: 26
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8142 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, 5049 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7529 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
User currently offlinevir380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7541 times:

Quoting F27 (Reply 22):
Still going to be a mates club

???

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.

cheers


User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 of rubbish on the photopages.

The talk is about number of rules which do not complete the goals of the site (rules for rules but not for benefits) and need to be revised. If you'll look carefuly you'll find most of rules regarding the quality will stay the same with minor exceptions. If it with high quality of staff will return old and bring new photogs - there will not be losses in this point - just winners.

SA7700, let me disaree with you a bit. With all respect to forums and its participants - Anet was started as photography website. Nowadays discussion part of the site is self satisfied and its just great. However it is not mean that photography lost its importance. And it also doesn't mean that photogs would be happy to replace photos by talks. It is a bit the same if you'd suggest artists to write books with argument: 'It is also interesting thing'.   I not sure it will work. So it is better to give the floor for everebody - forums for those who likes to talk, DB for photographers. And everybody will be happy  

Fyodor


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7578 times:

Quoting ac190 (Reply 18):
if it means that it will be a bit easier to get pictures accepted then I won't complain

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 to be applied a little better.

I've never actually had a problem with the majority of my rejections. The problem came when I saw something in the database that obviously suffered from a much worse case of the same flaw. There's a big difference.

Something had to change because there's been a lot of stubbornness on both sides lately. Photographers fighting with screeners and seemingly unable to settle on any beneficial solution. No-one wanted to listen. The result of this never-ending squabble is the change we're witnessing now. Screeners answerable to someone is certainly a welcome notion, however it remains to be seen just how much overriding of decisions made under the current system there's going to be. Allowing a broader cross-section of images sounds like a great idea but if it's going to be to the detriment of the quality built up here over the years then it could just be another nail.......

Frankly there have been some terrible images added lately and I sincerely hope that isn't a sign of what's to come. A.net can still function exactly as it has by simply revising its current stance on things like motives and grain, rather than totally relaxing the rules. If the motive works and the image is attractive, who cares if it doesn't tick every box of the traditional criteria set? If there's a touch of grain but the photo still has the 'wow!' factor, why boot it for something few people are going to care about? On the other hand if an image is blurry, lacks contrast, has an unnatural cast or is in any other way imperfect due to poor technique - in other words suffers from a flaw considered ugly in all branches of photography - then there should still be sufficient ground to give it the boot.

I'm going to wait and see what happens over the coming weeks before I form a solid opinion. This new system should make it slightly easier to get a GOOD photo accepted - not make it easier to get ANY photo accepted.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 970 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7463 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting Bruce (Reply 24):
Darren, re-read the original post. They will be looking at some rejections:

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 what was accepted and rejected in order to calibrate our consistency. If an image that was rejected is one that, given the new criteria should have been accepted, that is a learning for the team. If the photographer appeals then it would be accepted, but we do not intend to go emailing photographers asking them to reupload in this case.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27):
This new system should make it slightly easier to get a GOOD photo accepted - not make it easier to get ANY photo accepted.

This is exactly the way I look at this revision to the criteria.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27):
Frankly there have been some terrible images added lately

Karl - would you mind emailing the head screeners with some examples? It would be helpful to see where your "calibration" is at regarding this.

Peter



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7456 times:

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 schemes, airports that I can't visit, different types of aircraft that I don't often look for personally such as military and small-scale general aviation... Really, I'm not looking for every image to be amazing to look at and interesting in terms of motive- and with some photographers exceeding 10,000 photos in the database, that's not a reasonable thing to expect. Complain about high-sun June photos aesthetically sure, but from a spotting point of view, sometimes you don't get any other choice.

The point is, I don't see unfair acceptance as nearly the problem that unfair rejection is, if you accept my use of the two terms. I've squeaked in a couple of images that were probably reasonable to reject, and this may sound selfish, but I'm not nearly as broken up about that as I am about many more images that get turned down repeatedly despite correcting every rejection reason that comes up. I don't get upset because images worse than mine for a flaw get accepted- I get upset because either I can't find the flaw in question, or because that flaw appeared out of nowhere after previous rejections and revisions to the image.

So to sum up, I don't see the worries some are expressing about image quality as becoming a problem anytime soon. A crisp, well lit image with maybe a bit more grain is not going to ruin everything we've been trying to do here. There is a very long way to go downwards in terms of quality before I would express any alarm about standards being too low, simply because they're so damn high now.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7412 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27):
I've never actually had a problem with the majority of my rejections.

Oh Karl, you make me laugh sometimes.  
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27):
Something had to change because there's been a lot of stubbornness on both sides lately. Photographers fighting with screeners and seemingly unable to settle on any beneficial solution. No-one wanted to listen.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I thought things were relatively quiet lately, which is why when I awoke to this thread yesterday, I was shocked to learn that this had been going behind the scenes.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7361 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 29):
A crisp, well lit image with maybe a bit more grain is not going to ruin everything we've been trying to do here

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 issue, unless it's the size of basketballs.

As I said, any revised system should make it easier to get a GOOD image accepted. And each image should be judged on its merits - if a winglet is ever-so-slightly blurry in a night panning shot, there's not a lot the photographer could have done, so let it drop. Constraints imposed by nature or the very rules of photography should not be grounds for rejection in my opinion.

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 11):
I hope to give many of those shots a chance on this site now!

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-want-to-use shots added to the DB.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 30):
Perhaps I've missed it, but I thought things were relatively quiet lately, which is why when I awoke to this thread yesterday, I was shocked to learn that this had been going behind the scenes.

Probably depends on who you ask, as always.   Can't keep everyone happy, but I think we're doing what we can to make the site and the database better overall.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5494 posts, RR: 51
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7148 times:

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

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 you can I think the other 99% who visit this site normally wouldn't see minor flaws. We're just the 1% who are pixel peepers.


User currently offlineacontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6859 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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 better. I think we need to give the screening team credit for looking into ways of increasing screening consistency while carefully acknowledging that with today's various types of screens all around the world, issues like contrast are not so easy to nail down 100%. Nowhere did I read that the overall standard is going to be lowered.

As usual, let's give the team some time to adjust and see the results of these changes.

Btw, the screeners have always been accountable for, the headscreeners are on top of that   . Maybe one of the current screeners can elaborate a little about the internal appeal process and the quality control that has always been performed.

Cheers,
Andres



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6852 times:

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 myaviation.net. The truth is that there was inconsistency in the way the criteria were applied, plain and simple. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be all the threads that discussed it. I am one of those folks who stopped uploading due to this, mainly because I felt ignored when I was calling attention to it. I'll give it a shot again, and will have an open mind about it.

I welcome the willingness to open a dialogue about this as well as the intention to improve the process. Time will tell if it is just talk.

Thank you to the screening community for being open to change.


User currently offlinepowwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6815 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 35):
I don't know why several people need to say 'well I hope the standards of this site won't go downhill now'.

Because in the original post, it talked about more "leeway".

[Edited 2013-07-01 07:48:49]

[Edited 2013-07-01 07:49:29]

User currently offlineandrew50 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6766 times:

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37):
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 like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

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 past few months.


User currently offlinestevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6702 times:

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 36):
Because in the original post, it talked about more "leeway".

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 about will actually raise the quality of the images, not lower them (as in: more creative, eye-catching images will be able to make it in).

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37):
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 like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

There are always seasonal changes. During the summer time in the northern hemisphere uploads usually go down every year. Partly because heat haze is getting worse and some locations are impossible to photograph, and partly because people are on vacation or concentrate on outdoor activities, rather than editing photos inside.

People have been getting "frustrated" with the site's requirements as long as it existed. It's nothing new and certainly hasn't gotten worse. It's just the nature of any site that requires upload limitations that are not easy to meet.


User currently offlineeskillawl From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6644 times:

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37):

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 like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

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 left much earlier. I cant see the positive aspects of leaving Airliners for some low-quality site with even stranger rejection-reasons than Airliners. That is the reasons why I stopped uploading to other sites. No other site is qurrently keeping the same quality of the photos than this.



Photo equipment: Canon EOS 60D | Canon 70-200 F4L USM | Canon 18-55 3:5-5:6 |
User currently offlinegranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 discuss?

Thanks

Gary Watt - Granite
Airliners.net Head Screener
www.airliners.net
http://twitter.com/airliners_net


User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6399 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 already got some sweets from their archives   - we just need to wait while their queue will come.

Quoting eskillawl (Reply 40):
I dont think so.

But it is. Or - I hope - it was. Many advanced photogs (including high professianals) who made the image of this site years ago had left Anet because they had found system of screening as excessive and unfriendly. If they'd come back it would be benefit for everybody.

Talking about 'quality' it is always important to remember that quality of the photo is first of all how picture is done: contest and composition. Post processing of photo is also very important indeed but clearly after the picture itself. No doubts - Anet should keep the high bar for images but this bar has to be logic and always has clear sense - what is this rule applied for. There is an average level of quality estimations besides Anet viewers - let follow it. Majority of people come here not to train to infinity their skills in 3-4 features in Photoshop, but to look at pictures. Lets make them happy  

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently offlineilpavone2004 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6286 times:

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 been rejected in the past for distance. Now i see them accepted and i'm really happy with it.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 10:27:50]


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, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6255 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37):
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?

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 relatively consistent with what I remember from a couple years ago.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 44):
Really? Are we going to turn this into a public bash-fest?

Perhaps you should read a bit closer:

Quoting ilpavone2004 (Reply 43):
Now i see them accepted and i'm really happy with it.

 

With that said, A.net has accepted distant shots for years, provided the motive is sufficiently interesting:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bailey - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffwell


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Spencer Wilmot
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Greg Bajor



Heck, I had one accepted a few weeks ago.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6232 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 45):
Perhaps you should read a bit closer:

Dangit! You're quick. My original post was up for about 15 seconds before I edited it. LOL



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, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 46):

Dangit! You're quick. My original post was up for about 15 seconds before I edited it. LOL

Ha, sorry. It took me awhile to finish my reply (searching for the photos), so you probably edited it while I was doing that.



"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 48, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6206 times:

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 an interesting photo. There's quite a bit of visible grain there and I doubt it would have made it a few months ago - but like most I feel that grain (luminance noise) doesn't spoil such images.

Karl


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6204 times:

Quoting eskillawl (Reply 40):
I cant see the positive aspects of leaving Airliners for some low-quality site with even stranger rejection-reasons than Airliners. That is the reasons why I stopped uploading to other sites. No other site is qurrently keeping the same quality of the photos than this.

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 for examples. Further, there is a wonderful option of scrolling to the next photo should you find the quality of any shot to be sub-par.


User currently offlineNOTAXONROTAX From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6146 times:

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 about the type of shot.
The chemicals falling on the leaves............




Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlineSFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6140 times:

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 view on those).

Those of us who have an eye and ability to shoot unique creative shots will have easier time getting them accepted without worrying about grass covering more then X percent of main gear and those catering to spotters, sim and stats fans will enjoy uploading 3/4 views of aircraft on finals and not dread "contrast" or "re-upload in 1024 pix".

Everybody wins.
Thank you



318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 543 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6138 times:

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 staring at it wondering if it will be worth my time editing it being "off-centered". I see in the coming days that might not be the case. If all this can be implemented and still maintain the high quality standard... I'll be happy with it.

As for the contrast and dusk... Does that mean backlit stuff can stand a better chance?



Len90
User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 845 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6136 times:

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 50):
Would it be worth to re-upload a shot like this?

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 some random plant or tree that you had to shoot over. Now, if you have a shot where you have a more balanced view of the aircraft and the crops I think that would be very much telling a story as described by the screeners.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6135 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 50):
Would it be worth to re-upload a shot like this?

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; that's what the Feedback Forum is for.  
Quoting len90 (Reply 52):
As for the contrast and dusk... Does that mean backlit stuff can stand a better chance?

I don't think that's what the new guidelines are intended to focus on. Backlit shots, as always, will have to have a strong motivation for the backlighting. An airplane in shadow in front of a bright sky will still likely be rejected, while a good silhouette shot will still likely be accepted.

The new contrast guidelines are more to take into account the lowered ambient contrast that is typical of low-sun shots, where you may not have anything close to a true black.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6037 times:

Quoting len90 (Reply 52):

As for the contrast and dusk... Does that mean backlit stuff can stand a better chance?

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 still going to be a minimum standard required, just less petiness with certain criteria.

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 offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I hate that backlit photo is synonymous with bad photography on this website. Of course backlighting must be used effectively!! That holds true everywhere, but even when used effectively this site has had an issue with them. I, too, hope to see creative uses of backlighting accepted in the database.

People here need to specify that backlit isn't bad, it just isn't advisable for this site. Believe it or not there is a school of thought in photography that says one should always be shooting into the sun. Just saying...

[Edited 2013-07-03 00:45:43]


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, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5937 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 56):
Believe it or not there is a school of thought in photography that says one should always be shooting into the sun. Just saying...

Well, for one thing, portrait photography uses this technique(carefully). Some people use the Sun as a rim light and offset the backlighting with some diffused fill flash. Now, if only I could rent enough strobes to mimic this effect with a 777....   


User currently offlinewhisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 566 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5925 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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 queue length? 14 days waiting time is way too long already and with crew members being involved in the new Quality and Acceptance Criteria team I can't see how the queue will be brought down.

Stefan



Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 56):
I hate that backlit photo is synonymous with bad photography on this website.

It's not. It's just generally not accepted here, unless done well with proper motivation.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 56):
Of course backlighting must be used effectively!!

Of course, but we see a lot of backlit shots in the queue, and most of them aren't effective - the photog is just on the wrong side of the airplane.

I'm sure there are plenty of backlit shots in the database, because they were worth adding:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jet Visuals



As mentioned, there are tons of silhouette shots too.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineNOTAXONROTAX From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5894 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 54):
With that said, let's not turn this thread into a photo screening thread; that's what the Feedback Forum is for.

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 rules have become.

Noob question: you posted a link to the Feedback Forum...........where can I find this on the main page, please?
It´s not between other Forums and not in the Photographer´s corner, as far as I can see!

Thanks!


No Tax On Rotax



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlineeskillawl From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5878 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 49):
There is a site called flickr where the quality of many of those shots rivals what you see here

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.



Photo equipment: Canon EOS 60D | Canon 70-200 F4L USM | Canon 18-55 3:5-5:6 |
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5878 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 60):

No, I wasn´t trying to turn it into a "photo screening" thread, just wanted to get an idea of how artistic the new rules have become.

Not a problem, just didn't want a bunch of people to start posting photos here.

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 60):
Noob question: you posted a link to the Feedback Forum...........where can I find this on the main page, please?
It´s not between other Forums and not in the Photographer´s corner, as far as I can see!

Correct, it's not in those places. If you go to the Av Photo forum (the one this thread is in), the link is at the top, just above the thread index.



"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 63, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5818 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 60):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 62):

You can also find it in the drop down "Change Forum" at the top of any forum page.



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 offlineNOTAXONROTAX From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 62):
If you go to the Av Photo forum (the one this thread is in), the link is at the top, just above the thread index.
Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 63):
You can also find it in the drop down "Change Forum" at the top of any forum page.

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!
Still browsing through old rejected pictures of mine, but in all reality: I think I need to buck up my game!

No Tax On Rotax



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlineconnector4you From Canada, joined May 2001, 932 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

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 screening techniques as a step forward in that direction.

My concern though - and I don't know if this issue have ever been tackled on here - is that of screener's personal relationship to certain contributors or fellow crew members. Since the inception of this website and others, I heard many stories about it along airport fences. Friendship and/or national pride should not be a criteria for accepting low quality or repetitive, dull pictures. Diversity shots should be rather encouraged.

Wonder if Airliners.net have thought of adopting/implementing any internal policies on this regard?


User currently offlineTaca300C From Costa Rica, joined Oct 2001, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

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


User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1745 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5672 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 58):
If yes, how are you going to cope with the queue length? 14 days waiting time is way too long already and with crew members being involved in the new Quality and Acceptance Criteria team I can't see how the queue will be brought down.

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 amount of screening required, It may cause a bit more of a workload for them but it is in the best interests of the site and community.

Quoting connector4you (Reply 65):
My concern though - and I don't know if this issue have ever been tackled on here - is that of screener's personal relationship to certain contributors or fellow crew members. Since the inception of this website and others, I heard many stories about it along airport fences. Friendship and/or national pride should not be a criteria for accepting low quality or repetitive, dull pictures. Diversity shots should be rather encouraged.

There is no bias screening be done or none that I have ever heard of going on. We accept images from all over the world. Head screeners do screen the appeal queue so if there was a pattern with the same screener rejecting the same photographers photos every day or week than they would see a issue and deal with it accordingly if those images in questioned are overturned on appeal.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 970 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5668 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 67):
There is no bias screening be done or none that I have ever heard of going on.

My experience with screeners uploading is that their images are scrutinized more, not less than non-screener uploads.

Quoting connector4you (Reply 65):
repetitive, dull pictures

While you may find some images dull or repetitive, I am certain the photographer(s) who upload them do not. The screening team do not control what types of images photographers upload. If they meet the quality criteria, they will be accepted.

Part of this site's function is to act as a database, and there are many photographers out there who do an amazing job of documenting new registrations and airframes to the database every day. Other photographers go for the creative image. Some do both. While we hope to encourage more creative images to be submitted, we certainly do not want to dissuade those photographers who document registrations and frames.

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 58):
how are you going to cope with the queue length?

We have a team of volunteer screeners, as you know. We will do our best to reduce the queue, and maintain quality and consistency. From the responses in this thread, the priority as I see it from the uploaders is asking for quality and consistency with the new approach, not blowing through the queue. As we say building megaprojects, you can have fast, cheap, quality. Pick two.

Screeners (I hope) are allowed to take their summer vacations also. If anyone wants to volunteer to help the community out in a very meaningful way, feel free to contact the headscreeners to apply for a screening position.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5623 times:

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 weeks. It is good that screening inconsistency is being looked at even if the reasons for it in the first place are not.


Whatever.......
User currently offlinejohnkrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5620 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting connector4you (Reply 65):

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 image quality:D



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 offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5607 times:

Quoting alevik (Reply 68):
If anyone wants to volunteer to help the community out in a very meaningful way, feel free to contact the headscreeners to apply for a screening position.

If new screeners are required to increase numbers following recent resignations, maybe a new topic with details is in order? I would hope the selection process would be transparent and fair with clear minimum requirements that are adhered to? Some of us have already volunteered / expressed an interest for this role but amongst other things, was told (by yourself as representative of the screening team) that because I had a voice and an opinion on matters, that I wasn't suitable. Bearing in mind many of the issues we raised are now coming to light sparking changes, and I know things run deeper than are mentioned here, was told no thanks because it meant I wasn't a team player for having an opinion and wishing to discuss it. I hope things like this will also be relaxed as part of the selection process too?

Quoting derekf (Reply 69):
I've read the new proposals again and I suspect that the vast majority of us will see little difference.

I agree Derek, I don't think it will make much of a different and rightly so to the majority. It remains to be seen if the changes lead to an improvement in consistency with less petiness, but other than that, it shouldn't make a difference. For those that are thinking they'll be able to get more shots accepted due to reduced quality criteria, I think they've misunderstood the nature of the changes as it's not about that.

Quoting derekf (Reply 69):
It is good that screening inconsistency is being looked at even if the reasons for it in the first place are not.

Again, I have to agree and although I'm bite my tongue here a little, I hope the community has aired it's views enough in order for DM to know the contributors are what make this site and need to be listened too and communicated with. I know that is beginning to happen and changes are afoot, hopefully for the better, but it needs a strong screening team to back that up who can make their own decisions.

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 onlineairkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3979 posts, RR: 55
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 69):
If anyone wants to volunteer to help the community out in a very meaningful way, feel free to contact the headscreeners to apply for a screening position.

Just out of interest, what are the criteria for a screening position?


User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 970 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5469 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 71):
Some of us have already volunteered / expressed an interest for this role but amongst other things, was told (by yourself as representative of the screening team) that because I had a voice and an opinion on matters, that I wasn't suitable. Bearing in mind many of the issues we raised are now coming to light sparking changes, and I know things run deeper than are mentioned here, was told no thanks because it meant I wasn't a team player for having an opinion and wishing to discuss it.

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 facts here in the public forum, or by private email.

In the past we have posted threads asking for new screeners and had poor response. What better place than in a thread where members are voicing their dissatisfaction with how things are in the screening world than to look for motivated volunteers? My own personal experience is that I sure thought I knew everything about screening and how all my perceived ills with the process could be cured - until I tried screening.

From a previous thread, this was the criteria for new screeners:

In an effort to reduce the size of the queue, we would like to announce we are actively seeking new screeners. We are looking for people that can meet most, if not all of the following criteria:

1. First and foremost, be able to commit the necessary time. We look for screeners to be able screen somewhere around 1000-2000 images a month. On average, that means something in the region of 2-4 hours a week of your time. The screening can be spread out, and doesn't need to be done every day, as many have work or other schedules that make that difficult. We understand, and can accommodate people with varying schedules.

2. Have at least 250 images already accepted here. We may make exceptions for lower numbers if all of the other criteria are met or exceeded, so please still apply if this is the only one you don't meet.

3. Have a relatively high acceptance ratio over the past year or so. There is no exact number we are looking for, but it should at least be over 50%, and preferably higher.

4. Have no recent warnings or bans issued for violating the upload rules.

5. Be a good team player, a good listener and learner, and be willing to help others. Getting along well with the other members of the team is very important, as we are all volunteers, it is important to maintain a good working atmosphere.

6. Be able to communicate well in English, in both writing and reading. As we are a multi-national crew, all communication is done in English. Any other languages you may speak would be considered an asset, so please let us know if you have ability in any other languages.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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. However this rule applied as universal (with minor exceptions) as for side shots, as for other kinds of photography.

I guess the double rule has to be applied for similar motives only. If photos describes the plane from different angles, various views of the cabin - what for should it be restricted? We can have same Easy Jet made by 4-5 different photogs in one day and at the same time rare shots of certain plane are restricted from one photog. Any winners?

I'd suggest to apply double rule just for the clearly similar motives or at least extend limits and borders for acceptance of 'double' shots.

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12462 posts, RR: 46
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 74):
If photos describes the plane from different angles, various views of the cabin - what for should it be restricted?

Personally, I feel there's already enough latitude within the double rule. How much more flexibility do you need?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley


And I still have an exterior shot to upload yet!



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 970 posts, RR: 8
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5396 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 74):
I'd mention double rule

Not sure if this addresses your concern, but the double rule was updated not that long ago providing some additional flexibility in some situations.

In order to receive this rejection, the other (similar) photos in the database must also have been taken by you, at the same day and at the same airport. Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxiing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Even though these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar. Please select the best shot from the sequence and upload only that one. Images taken from different sequences such as one during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.
In certain cases you can also get this rejection if there are photos in the database that are nearly identical to the one(s) rejected here, but taken on another date by you. Examples of this are photos of stored or preserved aircraft that have not moved since you took the other photos.
For air-to-ground airshow, boneyard, and airport overviews, we accept both a wide view and closer crops of each of the aircraft visible in the wider view. For closer crops of structures such as terminals or concourses, they will only be allowed if there is no overlap with the wider view (i.e. the same structure is not visible in both images).
For images of space vehicle launches, we accept two images if they are of different motives (i.e. taken from different angles or remote set ups.
For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives. So in other words the maximum number of accepted window views of the same registration on the same flight all taken by you would be 4.
For cabin shots, we accept one wide view, and one close up of the seat/row for a maximum of 2 images per cabin, per flight. If the flight should start and end on different dates, you will still be allowed only the 2 images per cabin.
We only accept multiple cockpit shots if:
They clearly show different parts of the cockpit.
When the outside view is showing a different airport.
When one is taken in daylight and one taken at night.
One is a wide view, and the other is a well-composed close up of a specific instrument, set of gauges, screens or HUD etc.
Note: This rejection might also occur if you have similar photos in the upload queue that are still awaiting final screening.
Note: Pick your best image! We will not delete photos later so you can upload a different shot.
Note: if you do not provide us with the full date day/month/year we reserve to reject the image if it looks very similar to others. In rare cases we even reject images taken on different days if they are nearly identical.
We reserve the right to add more than one image of special or unique events, even if those images might otherwise be considered double. It is at our discretion what constitutes a special event, but the belly landing of the LOT 767 is a good example.


On a given day, uploading one image for each sequence such as take-off, landing, approach, taxi gives many options, and as you indicate, avoids multiple images taken on one day of the same aircraft doing the same thing.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlinespencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5368 times:

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



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 approach for this rule from what is allowed to what is not allowed and to be considered as double. And apply it in clear cases staff is the same.

As about existing rules I'd say with the wide abilities for outside shots - interiors - cockpits, cabins - are quite limited with no clear reason. And good and attractive staff can not be presented.

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 75):
And I still have an exterior shot to upload yet!

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 bring you number of opposite examples when shots - rather different in my view - was recognised as double. I just see no winners in that. I put my argument in the post above.


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5060 times:

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 it won't. Oh well.........................



Whatever.......
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5052 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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 would like some help, drop me an email; clickhappy@airliners.net


User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 970 posts, RR: 8
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5038 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting derekf (Reply 80):
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 it won't. Oh well.........................

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 rejections on the feedback forum you could get feedback from your peers. If you like I can also do that for you, so that others can judge whether the accusation of a lack of latitude is warranted. Statements like yours without showing the images is quite one sided.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 the doubt' in what might have been considered borderline photos, in principle I must say I welcome change. That said, I shall be watching with great interest, because I would hate to see the reputation the site has for the highest quality photos threatened in any way. Some of the issues highlighted in the original thread starter are ones that have been the subject of heated debate for some time - like colour casts versus natural light hues; too harsh contrast decisions; and the dreaded grain (which for some reason had seemed to get rather out of hand of late). So I am pleased that these issues have been taken on board.

A few photographers were heavily involved recently in a thread in the Feedback Forum about quality standards. Overall, that was a frustrating discussion, in part due to a refusal to move the thread to this Forum, where it would have received more 'airplay', but also because of the relative lack of open 'two way' communication between photographers and screening team (with a couple of notable exceptions). I am sure there is always more to these things than meets the eye, but one thing I have also always been very keen on is a very open communication culture - and for members to feel they can influence the way the site develops. It seems many have been put off continuing to contribute to the site due to the perception of overly harsh screening decisions - and hopefully they may be drawn back to the site. I also hope that another facet of the site's reputation - how it communicates with its contributors - is similarly enhanced so that open and honest conversation rule the roost here.

My best wishes to the screening team in their efforts to regulate the decision making in this revised environment.

Paul


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4731 times:

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 do I get? A couple of dodgy contrast reasons and a centring one. Perhaps the new criteria are not being fully applied yet.

I don't want to get into a debate about individual photos but are we really saying that this deserved a contrast rejection? It was done for soft as obviously.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0613_9vswr_d7000_dsc_6629-edit.jpg

This was done for centre (as well as soft obviously)

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...413_n18119_d7000_dsc_5947-edit.jpg

Judging from these, and that's all I can go by, the centre and contrast criteria are just as tight ( and as baffling) as ever.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 84):

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 soft?

I didn't see anything that says they will no longer reject for contrast and centering and will override all other flaws, like soft.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4687 times:

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 these issues. The fact they were also rejected for soft is irrelevant to this discussion. As far as I can see, the requirements for sharpness have not changed.

If they had been sharper, would or should they still have been rejected?

Anyway, it only proves what most of us suspected is that these new criteria will make little or no difference to most uploaders.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineDL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4666 times:

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 close to centered. Also, The SQ, while a bit more debatable, also appears to be flat. I do not see what the issue is. The new rule aplly when it is a close call. These are not, really. The new rules were intended (I assume) to allow photographers more leeway in situations and judgement calls that could go either way. I would say that even if they were sharper, yes, they would have been rejected, and justly so, imho.

My Respectful Opinion,

John



Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 88, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 86):

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. These changes are intended to make it easier to get unique photos accepted. A shot like yours should still be centered properly. It's like comparing a side-on ramp shot off-level by .5 degrees to a shot inflight where the shot is unlevel with the horizon for dramatic effect. One can be attributed to careless editing, the other a motivated decision made by the photographer.

[Edited 2013-07-07 16:01:55]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

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.


When are the screeners going to just archive it so people stop speculating?


Everything is spelled out about the rules (what they are and why they have them) and there is nothing new to add to this thread.


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting screeners (Thread starter):
- 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

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 to all photos. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the above.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 89):
Everything is spelled out about the rules (what they are and why they have them) and there is nothing new to add to this thread.

I'm sorry but I don't see what is wrong with using examples in order to define where the boundaries of these relaxed criteria are. It would appear that they are no different from previous boundaries and so will make little difference whatsoever to the vast of majority of uploaders.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 91, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 90):

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 line has to be drawn somewhere. I still think it's silly to be worked up over your shots since they would be rejected for soft anyway. Perhaps if they weren't soft, leeway would have been given regarding contrast and centering!

Perhaps a screener can clarify exactly what kind of leeway will be given. I felt these changes were supposed to make it easier for more "outside-the-box" stuff to have a chance.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 89):

I don't understand why discussion is such a bad thing. Why would they archive this? Is this discussion hurting anyone?

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:07:23]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4555 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 90):
It would appear that they are no different from previous boundaries and so will make little difference whatsoever to the vast of majority of uploaders.


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 have more tolerance now, the Unites 752 is a touch high in the frame. There's not been any change in the site preference with regards to centre as far as I'm aware, it still needs to be roughly centred. While the rules have been relaxed, there's still a minimum requirement and I think yours is a touch too hight. The SQ is more debatable. I think it could do with a touch more contrast personally. Given the local conditions, did you increase the midtones or use any shadow / highlight to bring some detail back from the shadows? I have to agree with John, it does look a little flat. Again, even with more tolerance, I think it's still a justified rejection for contrast. I think your main problem here is heat haze, it's a killer at this time of year.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 89):
Everything is spelled out about the rules (what they are and why they have them) and there is nothing new to add to this thread.

I agree, the new rules seem pretty clear to me but one of the other things we've been asking for is better communication. If examples are posted here for debate over the application of the new rules, that's got to be a positive thing? - so long as we also get screener input. Other than the likes of Dana and more recently Vikkyvik, screener input to discussion on these types of topics has been largely lacking historically.

Darren

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:10:57]


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 offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 93, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 90):

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 announced the changes.

I uploaded this photo for priority screening with a note to the screeners acknowledging that the shot is not centered by anet definitions and the crop is rather loose which left the possibility for a distance rejection. I also explained that if centering and distance were too far outside of anet preferences, that I had another more traditional, perfectly centered side-on shot I could upload instead. To my surprise, they quickly accepted the photo.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino



I tried similar shots of water salutes in the past and had them rejected for the two reasons I mentioned above. I was pleasantly surprised to see the screeners give some leeway for the shot above and it made perfect sense to me a few days later when they started this thread, why it was accepted.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4540 times:

So it would appear that although it says this:-

Quoting derekf (Reply 90):
Centering requirements will be relaxed somewhat, and more leeway will be exercised

But it still has to exactly in the middle.  

The Singapore 777 is taxying on a concrete apron in bright sunlight. How might that affect the overall lighting of the aircraft, especially the underside? That photo was only cropped and sharpened. Nothing else.

Anyway. I think I get it now. I though that maybe, just maybe, things might change a little so I might not get photos rejected for trivial reasons. Sadly I was wrong.

I shall cease and desist.



Whatever.......
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 95, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quote:
When are the screeners going to just archive it so people stop speculating?

Screeners don't archive threads.  

That said, I do think the Feedback Forum is a better place to ask questions about specific shots.

Quoting derekf (Reply 90):
I don't think the "relaxation" of the rules on centring and contrast have anything to do with "creative" shots.

They don't - those are more general guidelines.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 91):
I felt these changes were supposed to make it easier for more "outside-the-box" stuff to have a chance.

Some of the changes, that is indeed true. Others are geared toward consistent screening, and generally, looking to accept.

Quoting derekf (Reply 84):
Perhaps the new criteria are not being fully applied yet.

As with any change, it will take a bit of time for all of us to adjust and calibrate. We are certainly working towards it, but it simply doesn't happen overnight.

For what it's worth, Derek, your UA shot is on the higher end, but I think it's acceptable with regard to centering. I personally would have appealed it, were it not for the other issues.

Your SQ shot is not far off with regard to contrast, but could certainly use a shot of it.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 96, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 certain photos discussions -the Feedback forum. As I understand the sense and role of this thread - it is to talk globally about how changes work and what else can be done.

Second - both photos are clearly soft. And it can be easely solved. As for the rest of reasons - again - it is a chance to appeal or to discuss it in proper place. If it will be principal and interesting case - be sure, people will join this discussion.

Let give this thread to be as it was called for.  

Regards,

Fyodor

[Edited 2013-07-08 01:08:13]

User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 4506 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 95):
That said, I do think the Feedback Forum is a better place to ask questions about specific shots.

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 be helpful to understand where the boundaries now lie and already it appears that a screener (thanks Vik) thinks that my shots would have been OK but non-screeners disagreed. That must be worth knowing surely?


I wish I hadn't bothered now.......



Whatever.......
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 98, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 4499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 97):
appears that a screener (thanks Vik) thinks that my shots would have been OK but non-screeners disagreed. That must be worth knowing surely?

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?! Leeway might have been given if not for the fact they are doomed by softness, which Vik has confirmed!

That's like getting a rejection for common and soft/overexposed/"insert reason" and getting worked up by the "common" part. It's silly.

[Edited 2013-07-08 01:54:41]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12462 posts, RR: 46
Reply 99, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 94):
Anyway. I think I get it now. I though that maybe, just maybe, things might change a little so I might not get photos rejected for trivial reasons. Sadly I was wrong.

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" cycle. It's entirely possible that the centre "issue" wouldn't have been one without the other problems.

In the past I've had rejections for say, a missed dust spot, and the screener's added a comment to the effect "could also be a touch higher in frame".



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4412 times:



Quoting derekf (Reply 86):
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 these issues. The fact they were also rejected for soft is irrelevant to this discussion. As far as I can see, the requirements for sharpness have not changed.

If they had been sharper, would or should they still have been rejected?

Anyway, it only proves what most of us suspected is that these new criteria will make little or no difference to most uploaders.
Quoting derekf (Reply 99):
Anyway. I think I get it now. I though that maybe, just maybe, things might change a little so I might not get photos rejected for trivial reasons. Sadly I was wrong.
Quoting derekfl (Reply 98):
appears that a screener (thanks Vik) thinks that my shots would have been OK but non-screeners disagreed. That must be worth knowing surely?

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 the same reasons as before.
If you don't understand why something got rejected, then that is one thing......
BUT
To sit here and essentially cry over the fact that some of your pictures got rejected is ridiculous.
No one (meaning screeners) is going to make the criteria easier for photos that simply aren't good enough to belong in the Airliners.net database.
Frankly, I think you need to get over the fact that the criteria here is very tough to meet and getting photos accepted here on EVERY upload is simply not going to happen.
It takes practice and rejections to know what you are doing wrong so take those rejections as tips on how to change your composition and editing.

[Edited 2013-07-08 08:06:02]

[Edited 2013-07-08 08:11:29]

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 101, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 97):
and already it appears that a screener (thanks Vik) thinks that my shots would have been OK but non-screeners disagreed.

No, I do not think your shots would have been OK. You should probably reread my reply:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 95):
For what it's worth, Derek, your UA shot is on the higher end, but I think it's acceptable with regard to centering. I personally would have appealed it, were it not for the other issues.
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 95):
Your SQ shot is not far off with regard to contrast, but could certainly use a shot of it.

I think that was pretty clear, but let me know if you have further questions.

Quoting derekf (Reply 97):
I wish I hadn't bothered now.......

That is up to you, of course. But seems like the general consensus is that the rejection reasons were valid, with the possible exception of centering on the UA. And like I already said, it will take some time for these screening changes to be fully applied. I can't really say it any better than was said in the opening post:

Quoting screeners (Thread starter):

Again we ask for your patience and support over this period.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4409 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 94):
But it still has to exactly in the middle

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 requirements as far as I'm aware is slightly lower than it used to be (as detailed on the other quality criteria thread we had) so I feel yours is a little too high. I think it's a good example for this topic and perfectly relevant to have here if this is an illustration of what is still be considered too high so adds to this discussion.

Quoting derekf (Reply 94):
The Singapore 777 is taxying on a concrete apron in bright sunlight. How might that affect the overall lighting of the aircraft, especially the underside? That photo was only cropped and sharpened. Nothing else.

Anyway. I think I get it now. I though that maybe, just maybe, things might change a little so I might not get photos rejected for trivial reasons. Sadly I was wrong.

As I mentioned above, I personally think it needs a touch more contrast so agree with the screeners on this one. While there is to be more leeway with contrast, I think your example goes slightly beyond the leeway and is a justified rejection in my opinion.

Less attention might have been given if they weren't as soft / heat hazed, but justified in my opinion.

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 onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 103, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4396 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 please? I even promise my support on centering case - I see no unbalance there - I see it in the first shot  

If you are not against - it would be very inetersting to discuss matters like
size - no arguments against my suggestion - does it mean all are happy with that and it can be implemented? double - I stepped up my point - it would be nice to hear any objections if there are any

News photo - there are not only shows and crashes are the subject of people's interest - could the priority screening rules also be revised?

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4383 times:

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):

 checkmark 

[Edited 2013-07-08 08:58:55]

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 105, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):
size - no arguments against my suggestion - does it mean all are happy with that and it can be implemented?

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 anything site-wise. But honestly, I don't think it's of particular importance to expand the size guidelines.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):
double - I stepped up my point - it would be nice to hear any objections if there are any

I'm not sure a change is needed here. You can already upload the same aircraft/same side/same date from different sequences - that is, a landing shot and a takeoff shot. You can also upload a shot of each side of the aircraft.

There's quite a bit of lenience with regard to cabin and window shots.

Basically, if we relaxed the rule, what's to stop me from uploading 4 shots of an A380 approaching LAX? I could easily have 4 significantly different angles, all of which I like. But I don't think we should go down that route.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 106, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):
Guys, could we all finally return to the subject or anybody else have his point on these two shots?

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 specifically, I think they are useful illustrations on the topic of centre and contrast.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):
it would be very inetersting to discuss matters like size

I don't see a problem with the current rules with regards to size.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):
double - I stepped up my point - it would be nice to hear any objections if there are any

For me, there's nothing more to add. I think the current double rules are about right.

Darrren



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 onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 107, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4293 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 105):
But honestly, I don't think it's of particular importance to expand the size guidelines.

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 the shot I first of all mean motive and composition. 1:1 size is not very often format however it is also widely used. And empty space on the photo is no less problem as bad centering. Let me give you an examples of such shots - do you think we need any space else?
http://album.foto.ru/photos/or/17506/3203244.jpg
http://album.foto.ru/photos/or/17506/3197195.jpg
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/fyodo.../45977679/85357/85357_original.jpg

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 106):
I don't see a problem with the current rules with regards to size.

It is a bit strange statement of a question for me. We talk not about the problem but the ways of possible improvements. Changes in Anet policy, if I correctly understand the point is first of all to revise approach to rules, make them more flexable. From this prospective we should not unswer on the question 'What for we have to implement 1:1-1:2 sizes?' but opposite - 'Why should not we do it?'

I see the only trouble in possible programming works which could cost for the owner. Thats would be clear point. As we have here many benefits for free, we can't demand owner to change anything if DM will not see clear benefits. If you'd tell me other possible critic on my suggestion - just please do it as for the moment I don't see any more. But it doesn't mean there are no arguments against  
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 105):
There's quite a bit of lenience with regard to cabin and window shots.

For the long day trip with good weather or in rare cockpit at the same airport you can make a lot of good staff which is restrcted now. I not sure you can blame me I like similarities in my uploads. But sometime I'd prefer to have more flexibility for 'similarities'.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 105):
what's to stop me from uploading 4 shots of an A380 approaching LAX? I could easily have 4 significantly different angles, all of which I like.

And what will happened then? Again - lets come from opposite way. If you'll bring 4 very different pictures of the plane - will it be worse if you would bring 4 similar shots of the same aircompany same types? If you afraid of flow of such photos - I'd would not worry of that. The flow is well restricted by the limit of photos in the queue. And photog can decide himself - how to spend this limit. I not sure many people will prefer to send similar shots. Most of photogs have enough different photos and it coud be good idea to give people some trust in their decisions.

And it is especially correct about cockpit and window shots you've mentioned above. Normally it is the kind of popular photography so restrcting it you not prevent site from similar staff but reduce the number of interesing shots. We have an expression in Russian: 'to spill out the baby with the water'. For now they are more restricted than outside photos.

If you still worry on similar shots and think it is some kind of risk of the flow of boring staff - there are number of options to restrict it with other ways. Say it can be restriction for upload per day. Or just increase of qouta for window and cockpit shots as minor compromise.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 106):
Derek's posts using his two shots as examples are part of the discussion on the new criteria

Then lets talk about issue generally but not in terms 'I like it - I don't' regarding one example. Center is more flexible now as it was decleared. In my view it is very good. I'd apply center rule only in case of clear 'mistake' in composition (photo is far up or down from the center with the rest of space is empty). Fight for 2% of image 'balance weight' is waste of precious time of photographers and screeners in my view. As it was applied before in my eyes was like classic 'rule for rule'.

I'd say that first shot of Derek is very far from what we've learned 30 years ago in photoschool   Both planes are under the center and space above doesn't have any sense. But this centering is fine on Anet. And if people like it I'd never be against.  

But let me give you some more views on composition of the shot:
http://album.foto.ru/photos/or/17506/3197252.jpg
http://album.foto.ru/photos/or/17506/3197210.jpg
http://album.foto.ru/photos/or/17506/3196280.jpg
A bit far from Anet centering and distance, isn't it. May I ask you a question? Are these photos bad? Please - do not reply about Anet rules - I know it. But just your impression - does the photo you look at is worse than 'average' Anet photo? Just do you like it or not? And why? That is the question about sense of rules implementation.

In actual practice if there will not be unnessesary 'pettyfoggery' in implementation of center rule and screeners will be a bit more welcome for photogs tries to find inetersting centering - it would be good for everybody.

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 107):
Then lets talk about issue generally but not in terms 'I like it - I don't' regarding one example.
Quoting FYODOR (Reply 107):
May I ask you a question? Are these photos bad? Please - do not reply about Anet rules -

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 more contributors to join in though! I think everyone will accept that the normal 'rules' of photography don't always apply to this site. Rule of thirds for example. Personally, I think all your photos are fine, but it's not what the site wants here. Your photos work in one respect, but not others, in my opinion. The way this site wants photos, they don't work. It's not a right or wrong answer, it's just the adopted way this site wants photos presented. Personally, I think the centreing works about right here with enough flexibility for certain compositions. As long as they 'work' aesthetically, they'll generally be accepted here. There's plenty of off centre examples on the database but at some point, you need a basis for a standard or you'll just be accepting anything. As long as the photo looks balanced and aesthetically pleasing, which is very much subjective, hence a little more leeway is now being given, lets hope the site can progress.

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 offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1745 posts, RR: 9
Reply 109, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4249 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):
News photo - there are not only shows and crashes are the subject of people's interest - could the priority screening rules also be revised?

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 any need for rules to be changed here.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 103):
If you are not against - it would be very inetersting to discuss matters like
size - no arguments against my suggestion - does it mean all are happy with that and it can be implemented? double - I stepped up my point - it would be nice to hear any objections if there are any

There has been not much discussion regarding size changes and I personally feel there is no need to change or adjust the size limits accepted here, We have enough varied sizes for portrait and landscape images and I think most shots can be edited in this way to meet our criteria regarding sizes.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 100):
This new criteria clearly does not mean that almost anything goes. There will continue to be pictures that are rejected for the same reasons as before.

Well said, We are not relaxing the rules to accept every photo or not rejecting images for centering or contrast, We will still apply our rules when screening but want to relax it slightly. If an image is slightly off center and its the only issue we can find than we want to try and look to accept it and not just reject it for being a little off center.


Cheers Mark


User currently offlinedendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 110, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4208 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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 repeatedly made the point to the team that precision in centre was not needed - if they were about right, that was all they needed to be. It seems that that point is now being reinforced but on that basis the UA that Derek linked above should have been fine for centre (though it is very soft)

Mick Bajcar


User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 111, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How nice it could be if every 'I don't want it' would be supported with the arguments  
Quoting aussie18 (Reply 109):
so I can not see any need for rules to be changed here.

There are a lot of news reasons besides rare cases you've counted above. And this news are the subject of interest of avaition and regular media. Now they are looking on the other sites. And as I can see - attention of media to Anet now is much lower than it was years ago.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 108):
You did say you didn't want to discuss specific photos here,

I said thread may not be a place for discussion of two shots. Lets discuss approaches but not 'why I not accpeted'. We need examples indeed but as an addition to arguments.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 108):
the normal 'rules' of photography don't always apply to this site.

I specially asked not to tell it to me as I know it VERY good.   I just don't know why it is?

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 108):
this site wants photos

This site is amount of gigabytes of information and site can't want something. There are different people around the site: owners, photographers, screeners, viewers. It is hard to say who are the most important. You and me, as photogs, are also 'the site' from this prospective. And I want this photos. You might don't. It would be good if you or other critics would argue on that and we can discuss - would it better or worse for the site to have it. It is also good idea to leran from viewers what kind of photos they prefer. Partly we know it from the photo statistic.

[Edited 2013-07-09 03:06:32]

User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1745 posts, RR: 9
Reply 112, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4144 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 111):
How nice it could be if every 'I don't want it' would be supported with the arguments

I suggest you read my statement again without quoting the small part you did.

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 111):
There are a lot of news reasons besides rare cases you've counted above. And this news are the subject of interest of avaition and regular media. Now they are looking on the other sites. And as I can see - attention of media to Anet now is much lower than it was years ago.

We give priority screening to pretty much all the newsworthy events, As a priority screener crew member Idisagree with your statement that media do not look to A.net for information or pictures.A prime example is the Asiana 777 crash, The site experienced very high traffic as this event was unfolding and we had the first images online way before our main competition did. It was obvious where the media outlets were looking as well.

Another few examples are today we have some awesome shots Aeromexico B787 and Ukraine B739 which are newsworthy yet you go to our main competition site and they do not have any photos of this.

The Major Airshows every year we give priority screening so the Airliners.net community get to see the shots first which our main competition do not, You have to wait 2 weeks to see shots, I am not trying to turn this into a us verse them but show the point that when there are newsworthy events on we have our bases covered.


Cheers Mark


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4110 times:

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 111):
I just don't know why it is?

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 set to 3:2 or 4:3, or thereabouts. I don't see a need to deviate from this unless the standard format for cameras is changed or there are a higher percentage of photographers using medium format for example. While there are some circumstances where 3:2 or 4:3 might not work, I think the vast majority of circumstances it does. That's why I don't see a need for the current rules regarding size to change.

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 onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 114, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Mark,

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 112):

I suggest you read my statement again without quoting the small part you did.

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 to conclude what man did if you didn't know actually did he or not. I've read all you messages carefully as I always do in mails or discussions (sometimes even twice). I just afraid we have quite a different understanding of what arguments are.

As about proiority my point was that besides Major Events there are a lot different Simple Events in aviation, also potentially interesting for media and public and they has value being presented in time. Not a big case indeed.

Anyway, I was just trying to suggest some points to make site better. If you don't need it, I've mad a mistake and sorry for troubling you and spending your time.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 113):
The vast majority of photographers here are using DSLR

Trust me - I'm too.  
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 113):
I therefore think it's right that the acceptance criteria is set to 3:2 or 4:3, or thereabouts. I don't see a need to deviate from this unless the standard format for cameras is changed or there are a higher percentage of photographers using medium format for example.

So you mean 1:1 photography used only by owners of Hasselblad or Polaroid?   I thought the true crop while proceeding photo is one of most difficult parts of it.  
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 113):
That's why I don't see a need for the current rules regarding size to change.

May I ask you one very simple question for the very basic answer (just yes or no - nothing else is needed)? Do you mean the implementation of 1:1 size will make site worse?


User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 115, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4079 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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 you have some compelling reason to upload at a size ratio different than the above, we will of course consider such photos, on a case by case basis.

In the past Johan allowed a couple of images taken with a Widelux (side-by side 35mm) which produced an aspect ratio of something like 2:5:1). Sadly the photog self deleted and the images are gone.

I am sure that if someone uploaded something similar we would be willing to accept it, but only if that was the native format, not a crop of a "normal" photo.


User currently offlinestevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 115):
I am sure that if someone uploaded something similar we would be willing to accept it, but only if that was the native format, not a crop of a "normal" photo.

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 Rolleicord? Because I have never considered trying that but it might be a cool challenge.  


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9901 posts, RR: 26
Reply 117, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4047 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting stevemchey (Reply 116):
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 Rolleicord? Because I have never considered trying that but it might be a cool challenge.

I'd say go for it. What's the worst that will happen? Your photo gets rejected?  



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 118, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4042 times:

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 114):
Do you mean the implementation of 1:1 size will make site worse?

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 way for a reason. If the native format of the camera is different .......

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 115):
I am sure that if someone uploaded something similar we would be willing to accept it, but only if that was the native format, not a crop of a "normal" photo.

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 offlinedendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 119, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4041 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

a while back now but :-


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Spencer Wilmot



I can remember the discussion and it was added because it works so very well

Mick Bajcar


User currently onlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 120, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Very good example, Mick. Thanks.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 118):
most shoot 3:2 or 4:3 based cameras. Cameras are designed that way for a reason

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 not cancel other sizes. Please take into account that size of the film or matrix and the size of the photo are not similarities. If you have 3 litres pan you not must to make 3 litres of soup each time. You may have just 1 liter of soup.  


User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

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 ratio images in the DB, I assume it's not a coding issue to add more. And in my opinion allowing for a larger set of aspect ratios will only lead to better-looking pictures in the DB. Even 3:2 leaves a lot of dead space in side profile shots, for example.

However, I appreciate the difficulty and complexity that adding an aspect ratio "free for all" would bring to the screening process, so I guess there's little point pushing for it. I would venture to guess that a change to the screening interface might make adding new aspect ratios easier but then that brings it back to a coding issue.

Cheers


User currently offlinedvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 122, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 enough resolution, it shouldn't matter what aspect ratio it is. Square, panoramic, 3:2, or 5:4. If it works for the image, then so be it.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3845 times:

Quoting dvincent (Reply 122):
Personally, if an image is high enough resolution, it shouldn't matter what aspect ratio it is. Square, panoramic, 3:2, or 5:4. If it works for the image, then so be it.

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.

Cheers

[Edited 2013-07-10 10:02:15]

User currently onlineolegchaplin From Russia, joined Jan 2007, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

Quoting screeners (Thread starter):
Unusual shots or those composed that tell a story.

Interesting what will be the criteria? Before were only rejection - motive, distance, centered. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/m...ready/q1373234350.8539dsc_3479.jpg

Are there any changes going to be in the "color" area? Why do you add "yellow" reason for rejection when aircraft taken in the low sun colors? Some times aircraft looks like a golden and it's original color but we need to fixed color in photoshop...


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 125, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3687 times:

Quoting olegchaplin (Reply 124):
Interesting what will be the criteria? Before were only rejection - motive, distance, centered.

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 previously, but I can certainly understand the motive and centre (composition). Why not upload it and try again with an explanation of the shot in the comments field?

Quoting olegchaplin (Reply 124):
Are there any changes going to be in the "color" area? Why do you add "yellow" reason for rejection when aircraft taken in the low sun colors?

That's one of the areas we've asked to be relaxed and if you read the original post, is one of the areas where the rules are going to be relaxed to take this in to account.

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 onlineolegchaplin From Russia, joined Jan 2007, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3575 times:

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 125):
Why not upload it and try again with an explanation of the shot in the comments field?

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 topic and will be waiting how the new screener's approach for process will work.

Oleg


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