screeners From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 12 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5126 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
To the airliners.net photographer community:
The screening team has been discussing the motive rejection reason over the last month and have decided to give a bit more leeway when it comes to minor obstructions, From now on we will look to accept images that may have a small portion of the landing gear or engine blocked by runway marker, light and airport signs as long as it is not too distracting from the overall image.Previously these types shots were regarded as an avoidable blockage and get rejected for motive but feel that is not always the case.
Below are a few examples of what is now acceptable.
Over the coming months Quality and Acceptance Criteria team will be reviewing more of our rejection reasons and whether any changes can be made, If changes are going to be made the screening team will discuss it and than inform the photographer community of these changes.
mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 814 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5024 times:
Quoting aussie18 (Reply 4): There has been no change in regards to static aircraft having cones blocking wheels, They are usually unavoidable and were acceptable and still are acceptable blockages.
Okay, good to know. For what it's worth, I find that section in the rejection guide to be a bit confusing. The mention of cones seems to be under the category of "museum type shots", which I always took to mean a permanently parked aircraft, not one temporarily parked at a gate or on a ramp...
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4998 times:
Personally I've always found the "motive" rejection bizarre. I suspect becuase it was a poor translation of the concept the founder Johann was trying to express. I think it would be easier for everyone if the "bad motive" was broken down into clearly understandable reasons, for instance in the case of cones, barriers etc. "obstructions" or "clutter" might be more readily understood.
In my many years at A.net (as contributor, screener and viewer) "bad motive" has always generated the most confusion, upset and argument. Perhaps now would be a good time to unpack this catch all and make it clear what you mean.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4981 times:
I must admit I'm not too keen on this relaxation. If the blockage was in any way avoidable, it shouldn't be tolerated unless the image depicts a very rare event or aircraft. That's just my opinion of course. I assume this move was set in motion by complaints and protests originating in the photographer community?
What's the current stance on grain? That's one of the issues heavily discussed; one which bothered an awful lot of people. I assume if we're seeing a relaxation such as the above the 'grainy' rejection will also be equally relaxed (within reason)?
If any changes are mainly down to general community reaction to the old criteria then I'm fine with that, irrespective of whether I agree or not. It at least shows someone has been listening. What I think is worrying a few people is the fact that there's the very real prospect of a general reduction in quality. I pointed out a few very dodgy recent acceptances to the heads and they told me they'd be discussed internally - which I assume means that they at least partly agree with my analyses.
As I said recently, I will reserve any real judgement until the new process is fully adopted. Any drastic change such as this will inevitably lead to initial errors until the system has had time to settle and adapt.
As can be seen, there are thin wires placed which runs at the length of the taxiway, so theoretically, this is UNAVOIDABLE, beyond our control.
I have had a couple of photos rejected for motive, and the examples above were apparently accepted by mistake, as explained by an ex-head screener, which to me, it means the wires aren't distracting the photo/subject.
So, is it now OK to upload similar photos as per example above?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4945 times:
Good to know. I suppose 'relaxation' was perhaps the wrong word to use as this suggests a lowering of the standards; in reality I think it just needs to be judged better, as you say.
I've always maintained that, of the numerous rejections reasons, 'grainy' is the least serious because it's the least noticeable and it's also not a true flaw (i.e. it's beyond the photographer's control and is a perfectly natural by-product of the photographic process).
I'm optimistic about these changes but one thing I will say.....
Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images. I may have complained over the years but those complaints have only ever been about the application of the rules rather than the rules themselves. I think most would agree that the old system was in theory very fair. It demanded the highest quality; trouble was it was too open to interpretation.
As I've said repeatedly lately, any new system should make it EASIER (NOT EASY) to get a GOOD photo accepted, not just A photo.
I think this is a move in the right direction as I often found the site a little anal when it come to minor blockages, especially if they were unavoidable. I hope avoidable, major blockages are still going to be rejected unless they add to the composition? We don't want to be taking too much of a backwards step here but an unavoidable cone or a little grass over the landing gear should not be rejected in my view.
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 13): My personal feeling is that we are way to strict with "grain" or "noise."
That's certainly another step in the right direction Royal. I certainly agree with Karl on this one that the site was becoming too obsessed with having no trace of noise when it was simply beyond what many cameras were cable of producing.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14): Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images
I fully agree here too. While we all welcome the review of the acceptance criteria, there are certainly acceptances that I feel have gone a little too far the other way in terms of quality. While it'll take time to strike the new balance, standards need to be maintained high, but applied more consistently and without the pettiness we'd become accustomed to.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14): any new system should make it EASIER (NOT EASY) to get a GOOD photo accepted, not just A photo.
Spot on Karl, I wholeheartedly agree.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4796 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting ckw (Reply 8): I think it would be easier for everyone if the "bad motive" was broken down into clearly understandable reasons, for instance in the case of cones, barriers etc. "obstructions" or "clutter" might be more readily understood.
One thing that has been improved on these days is we give a lot of personals and usually motive rejections will receive a personal as to what the rejection for motive is "Unmotivated crop on stabilizer", Blocked nosegear"", Too much clutter" and so on.
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 15): I think this is a move in the right direction as I often found the site a little anal when it come to minor blockages, especially if they were unavoidable. I hope avoidable, major blockages are still going to be rejected unless they add to the composition? We don't want to be taking too much of a backwards step here but an unavoidable cone or a little grass over the landing gear should not be rejected in my view.
Major obstructions we still get rejected unless they are part of the composition.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14): Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images. I may have complained over the years but those complaints have only ever been about the application of the rules rather than the rules themselves. I think most would agree that the old system was in theory very fair. It demanded the highest quality; trouble was it was too open to interpretation.
We will continue to accept high quality images, Standards for the quality will not drop, Part of the reason for change was we felt that some nice shots were being rejected for a minor obstruction which were not too distracting.
Though, I just like to provide an example, just to make sure that we are on the right page.
Those 2 examples for me would be acceptable though the AirAsia A320 is borderline as the fence pole blocking the wheel makes its more noticeable, The Garuda 330 the fence blockage is not to noticeable. We will judge each image on its own as it comes down to how distracting the obstruction is from the overall image.
But as mentioned I have seen plenty of shots from here and it does look like a unavoidable obstruction.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9770 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4793 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14): Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images.
Karl, your point has been noted (several times ), and as has been explained, that's not the goal here.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14): Good to know. I suppose 'relaxation' was perhaps the wrong word to use as this suggests a lowering of the standards; in reality I think it just needs to be judged better, as you say.
I agree. I personally think we're generally too strict on noise, but I'm one opinion in the bunch. Anyway, we're doing a pretty good job of discussing things behind the scenes. It will take time, as we're all in different locations and primary contact is through email. But I will also note that there was a note on grain in the forum post about revised screening criteria:
Quote: - Grain and noise in low light situations with subjects that are not static will receive more leeway
Obviously that's for specific situations, but it's still a step in the right direction.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
I was not aware that this was reason for a motiv rejection. Is this new?
On the other hand, I was pleased to see that my shot of the Phantom, with all the JG71 crew on top, did get accepted while I was on holiday and somewhat later I noticed (on my mobile) that it even made it to Photographers' choice . I believe this was a first for me and I would like to thank all photographers for their votes. I am sure that this had more to do with this special event than with the quality of the shot (because conditions were really poor)...
acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4417 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting walter2222 (Reply 19): I was not aware that this was reason for a motiv rejection. Is this new?
From the rejection guide:
Close up cockpit shots with the only reason for the shot being showing pilots waving
Now, I did reject the picture, but you forgot to add the other rejection reason, double. Overall, since you already had a static shot same aircraft/day/side accepted that showed the complete side of the aircraft, including the cockpit, I felt that the rejected one was focused solely on the waiving pilots. In any case, if you do not agree please feel free to use the appeal function, that is the reason it exists .
Keep the nice pictures coming, and hope the weather is better and more cooperative!
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4370 times:
The waving pilots thing came in (if I recall correctly) because certain photographers at AMS and one or two other places used to fill the queue with them, and caption them accordingly (for hits). I think people just got tired of it.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1292 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4317 times:
Thanks for your feedback!
@ sulman: I agree with the situation at AMS, as you explained, but here it is a caption of the "Phinal moment": the pilot greet the phorographers and their friends/families because it is theire final moment in the Phantom, before it will be dismantled and scrapped. That was my motive for capturing it.
@ Andrés: This shot (the 38+48) was solely rejected for "waving pilot" (not "waiving" as I put it first ...). I had another one (the 37+22)rejected because I had already one in the database and for this one you mentioned double (but to me, as explained above, it is a clearly different motive...).
I know that weather conditions were not ideal, but this was an event which will never happen again. Hence I also thought that a shot during taxi and a shot taken at the ramp (the final death row) were also different enough to avoid the double rejection, but this is apparently not the case ;-((