Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Acceptence Level Lowered A Little?  
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1348 times:

Hey!

I've noticed over the past couple of days that alot of lower quality photos have been added. Personally I think this is great, and i'm sure photographers would love it if it were made easier to get photos onto this website.

Or is it just me?

And, just a little nag... Photo sizing, since the new 1600x1200 size has been allowed, people seem to be uploading very odd sized photos. I use 1024x768 desktop, and I find that most people use this resolution (ok some use bigger). But i've seen some VERY odd sizing for photos, I can understand if it was 1280x1024 or whatever, but some I just don't understand... Also I feel that some of the larger photos are very poor quality, soft and grainy. Are there different rules for different sizes?

Don't understand... then again there is alot I don't understand  Laugh out loud

Regards

Dan

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTCAS From France, joined Sep 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1271 times:

It is the new screeners I think. I have seen photos off by 4 degrees or more!

User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

I don't think that is correct. The way I understand it is that the old screeners still have the final say over the new screeners. ie: the newscreeners don't upload anything, they just prescreen.

but if you have facts maybe you can provide them ?
would make an interesting change


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

TCAS, me too! What annoys me is when I see that, and then I have had some in the past rejected for not being level (even though they were, well..)

Dan  Smile


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

If the criteria were becoming more realistic that would be good, but I think there may be just more errors being made at the moment.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1191 times:

Glenn's right, the new screeners cannot actually add photos directly to the database [with the one exception of note/newsworthy shots]. The new screeners are not screening the HQ queue at the moment. They can only nominate a photo as HQ. The decision is still left to at least 2 of the old screeners as to whether it should be added to the db.

Effectively things have polarised so that the new screeners are doing the main queue and the old screeners are doing the HQ queue [mostly].

As far as the perceptual lowering of standards goes - I'm not sure I agree. I think the site's standards are the same as ever. What you're seeing is down to 2 factors -
1) the number of screeners has just doubled. Now the old group screened according to a set of standards they agreed over time. The group happened to be 'perceived' by the users to be very tight on camera angle. The new group of screeners is perhaps collectively less strict on angles but more strict on scan quality say. The net effect is that, if you were excited about camera angles then you think the standards have lowered, whereas if you were excited about low image quality then you think the standards are getting higher. The net result is that the standards are about the same but the 'balance' has shifted slightly. This is all just hypothetical but hopefully you see my point.

2) The appeal process has allowed a number of shots that don't meet the standards to get into the db because they're rare. Remember that rare doesn't necessarily mean that plane is physically rare, just that there are very few photos in the db [perhaps even none]. I've seen a number of accepted shots like that in the last few weeks and rightly so. If a guy shoots a shot which enriches the database then the standards should be justly lowered for that shot.


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlinePH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

Jason,

Thanks for your explanation. It solves a lot of questions marks I had in the past couple of days.
Are you sure this kind of posts should be made under your own username? Wink/being sarcastic

Martin Boschhuizen



Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

I was never one to hide from the public gaze anyway! Big grin


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1127 times:

I might add that the statements above are not definitive statements of fact [someone would need to do some analysis on the last few month's rejections for that] but are merely meant to illustrate the point that in such a subjective area like screening, adding 100% more screeners will inevitably lead to some differences in the standards whilst the equilibrium returns and things settle down again.

J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1119 times:

Uh, oh. We'd better get more strict then...  Acting devilish

S2


User currently offlineBlackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Be careful with huge (1600x1200) images. Some are not good enough for their size. Ask people to make them smaller for a better sharpness.

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1078 times:

I think it wasn't the best Idea to introduce the new screeners (partially) whilst also introducing the new size limits. Makes it more difficult..

User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

Dan,

Why more difficult?


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

Well, it seems there are different Criteria for larger photos (so it SEEMS..), larger photos that get added seem to be blurrier and grainier than their smaller counterparts...

Of course, I might be wrong again  Smile.

I think it would've been easier if the new screeners were introduced first, set a good standard and then introduced it.

Just my 2c!


User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1041 times:

Ahh. I see. What screen resolution are you viewing at? If you view the 1600 shots at 1024 than they look much worse than if you view them with a resolution of 1600 x. A bit like viewing a 1024 shot a VGA resolution - they look awful.


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1037 times:

Well, I guess so, but .... nvm  Smile.

I see what you meen though, I've had my screen at other resolutions and the photos look poor (esp 16bit colour Big grin).

Regards

Dan


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...
Help To Level A Shot posted Thu Jun 7 2007 15:07:49 by Jajo
Is This Level? posted Sun Jun 3 2007 21:51:55 by Yanqui67
Need Level Advice posted Fri Jun 1 2007 23:29:50 by Unattendedbag
A Little Explanation posted Thu May 31 2007 21:03:28 by Stu1978
Automatic Level Rejection? posted Sun May 27 2007 14:39:52 by Ptrjong
Now I'm Sure It's Level But....................... posted Sat May 26 2007 08:10:06 by Damien846
Having A Little Trouble With These 2! posted Sat May 26 2007 07:52:28 by Damien846
Level Discussion posted Sat May 19 2007 16:26:41 by ThierryD
Pls Help With Level posted Sat May 19 2007 14:22:01 by FYODOR
I'll Level With You! posted Fri May 18 2007 12:49:08 by Manc