Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Faces Pictured In Photos...I Am Confused.  
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4721 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair Bor



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Lepper



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Arnon Shimoni



http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=aa727boarding.jpg

The first 3 photo's I have linked ALL show a face or multiple faces in the photo, and they were recent uploads. I just got a rejection for low quality and for having a face in the photo. "There
are some exceptions though."
I can't see why this is low quality (ok, it was dusk out, so I had to brighten this photo somewhat), but you can hardly see her face. The first time I blurred out her face, and the screener said "not a good idea". I've seen the blurring out the face on here before, I just can't find it right now. To the exceptions rule...this was the final departure of the 727....there is 1 cabin shot of an AA 727 in the DB...and it's from the 70's! It's the inconsistancy that drives me nuts. I just don't get it anymore....what do you think?


37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1757 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

i'm with you dude..i've seen the consistency here turn for the worse...that's why out of the last 5 months i've had 2 pictures added...what was good enough for a.net from me is not good enough now...and i know i always have to keep pushing myself and my skills and all that, but i never thought i was bad enough to have a 95% rejection rate...in a way i am starting all over again...learning everything again...

anyway i'll try and get back to the topic...i think it SHOULD be added because it was the last flight of the 727 for AA...i mean...someone go and count the vast number of photos from Delta's final L-1011 flight (no offense Justin & others)....and look at how many interior pics there are...and it's only the 2nd photo of an AA 727 interior in the database...so i say who gives a flying flip if there's people in it....it's the LAST AA 727 flight...oh well...i guess i'm just another photog complaining about the standards or the new 'rules' now...guess i should shut my mouth...i just think it should've been added...it's a cool shot (although i'm not the biggest fan of interior shots)...i just don't see that there are any real big reasons why it shouldn't be added...i mean come on...it's only the first interior shot of an AA 727 since the 70s...and besides, AA has changed the interior since then, so it could be considered new...

just my two cents...make of it what you will, i still don't think that this pic should have gotten the boot

jonathan d.



"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

Inconsistency is the driving force of life. Don't let it drive ya nuts. That's all I have ta say 'bout things that are a little inconsistent... Oh yeah - one more thing - who is to preach in this realm? Lately the "gods" have been doing a good job - however - they have also been "lacking somewhat lately"...

User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

I'm not trying to say "this was the final 727 flight, this should be added no matter what". I think the quality is fine (scan most of my stuff the same way), I don't think half the womans face should be a big deal. NOW, I wonder if my terminal shot was the face excuse. But I think both got rejected for the same reason.

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=gateparty.jpg

And I see so many terminal shots too....this actually had a point to it.


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

I'm with Justin on this...This has historical significance, it should have been added, IMO.

B


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 763 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4292 times:

1 - people. I think the main problem is whether or not the individual is identifiable ... not really the case in the examples you showed, but is the case in the shot that got rejected. I can understand Johan's point of view on this - European countries are getting very "legislative" about personal information. Even if the use is legitimate and above board, if someone should choose to make a complaint, Johan will be tied up in paper work for days.

2 - Consistency. I think we have a choice. Either we can have consistency by using one person to screen and a queue of 10s of thousands of pics (or even higher standards!) Or we have a number of screeners working in different continents and timezones to a set of guidelines. In the latter case, there is bound to be some variations in standards - or do you really want 3 or 4 screeners to confer on every pic before rejection? Have you given ANY thought to the time involved in this?

Live with it. Appeal if necessary.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4288 times:

Dazed767,

I have read from Jonathon's post that this is the last AA 727 flight. Nothing was mentioned of this in your photo comments. Did whoever rejected these photos actually know of their significance?

Regards,
Craig.


User currently offlineFlpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2123 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4222 times:

I see some of only one lady's face. Otherwise, we see the backs of heads. There are plenty of other shots where we see full out faces!

Justin's remarks for the photos were indeed indicitve of the occasion, perhaps he needs to add "Series of photos from the last AA 727 flight" in order to be explicitly clear?

-Chris



Bonjour Chef!
User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4216 times:

yeah i'm getting a bit discouraged at uploading as well, the inconsistancy is frusterating. My last one was in the HQ queue and then got rejected for "adding text" (my name & year) so i took it out and made it really small, barely readable, and "appealed". It got rejected again for the same reason.

It's just irritating, oh well, if you dont want interesting pics here, hey that's not my problem, see how far it gets you.


chris


User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4204 times:

Chris,

Did you have a URL in the copyright text by any chance?


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4196 times:

"I think the main problem is whether or not the individual is identifiable ... not really the case in the examples you showed, but is the case in the shot that got rejected."

The gentleman on the right in the 1st photo is showing just as much face as the lady in question in Justin’s photo. If that weren’t enough, in the 3rd example, the lady in red at the bottom right corner is directly facing the camera!

Again, Justin’s photo has historical significance. I believe this should have made it and exception.

B


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4199 times:

Whoops...I'm sorry...Make that the gentleman on the left on the 1st pic  Big grin

B


User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Did you have a URL in the copyright text by any chance?


nope, just my name and the year... i dont know how to link a rejected photo, if someone can tell me how i'll link you up to the pic.


c




User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4152 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Hamer



I think it is a bit inconsistent (I was told that faces could be seen, but for this type of shot it doesn't matter!).

Although I think if you hadn't used the flash it would've been better, because now the foreground is quite bright and the back is underexposed. Which Looks kinda musty.

Regards

Dan (afraid that someone might point the photo out first, afraid of a personal plug, but did it anyway Big grin).


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Chris:
2 things:
1.) Was that copyright somewhere in the middle of the photo in your first attempt, or was it somewhere on the bottom or top border?
2.) How can you change a photo and then appeal?????? I thing the only was to get a changed photo into the DB is to make a new upload?
Peter



-
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6555 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4110 times:

It was not the LAST AA 727 flight.


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineScreener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Chris, give me a break. You put "(C) Chris Weldy 2002" on the side of a BUILDING (Bank 1 Ballpark out in Phoenix). I could care less that you put your name on the image, but when it looks like you painted it there in giant letters on the building, that is absolutley uncalled for.

BTW-The reason you didn't get it added after the appeal was you cannot change the way the image works. Once you get the image onto the site, it cannot be edited by anyone.

In case anyone is wondering, here is the photo by Chris.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=APPEAL_USa321.jpg

Regards,

S3


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 763 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4094 times:

NonRevKing - yes on the 3rd pic you are correct, the lady is identifiable. Perhaps this was OK because its taken at a public display?

But more likely, the relevant screener simply didn't pic this up (just as I didn't).

I think the rules for uploading are pretty clear ... whether you agree with them or not. I think its unfair on Johan and against the spirit of the site to start jumping on screener errors and trying to use them to set a precedent.

In some ways I agree with what Chris says - though perhaps in a better spirit - if A.net don't want my pics, fine, I can take them elsewhere - but there's no need to get bitter about it.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

i said:

so i took it out and made it really small, barely readable, and "appealed". It got rejected again for the same reason.

my mistake i did say that wrong. The first time around (the version that S3 linked) it sat in the HQ queue for 3 days before being rejected, i appealed, it got rejected. So i changed the writing to about 1/4th the size in the right corner of the same building and uploaded again, in less than 24hrs it was rejected by a screener for "text etc.."

here was the 2nd upload of which i described...
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=USa321.jpg

Now, give ME a break, there is so much clutter going on in that picture that my name doesn't "stand out" like it would on a less "busy" picture. Personally i thought it was pretty clever and if anyone would like to get into a pissing contest then believe me i can find a myriad of pictures on this site with copyright text somewhere NOT in the corner of the picture that stand out a whole lot more.

But frankly, i dont really care, and never actually planned on mentioning it in the first place so i really dont want you people to think i'm "mean spirited" or whatever, right now i'm just defending myself.

Finally, I got no beef with Johan, i got no beef with the screeners, (not even you, S3!) and least of all i'm not bitter at all. I dont obsess over this stuff but if i see something i feel is not consistant then i have no qualms about pointing it out...

...and yeah, yeah, i know what some of you are thinking but probably wont say it, that picture isnt the best of quality in the first place. i know this better than anyone but it's still a neat shot, imho.

So let's all raise our beers and toast to me, for being such a cool guy...  Smokin cool

Cheers!

Chris


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

I respectfully disagree. I don't think the rules are clear on this. At the very least they are not applied evenly.

Regarding Chris' "copy write" mark. I like what he did with it. I think watermarks in the corner distract too much. My eyes go right to them when I view the large photo. I think what Chris did creatively served its purpose with out distracting from the picture.

So, now we have stumbled upon another issue that needs clarification. Are watermarks a no no now?

B


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4071 times:

NonRevKing - yes on the 3rd pic you are correct, the lady is identifiable. Perhaps this was OK because its taken at a public display?

Public display or not, it shows a face.


User currently offlineScreener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4066 times:

Still Chris..why put it on the building? I agree that the shot is nice, and having been to PHX myself a number of times, it's a nice sight. Now, why can't you put your watermarks like you do on a number of other photos? Blend them with the background?

Brian,

Watermarks are OK, as long as they don't meet any of the following:

1) URL's. That includes URL's in the photog name (eg. Joe Blow/www.xxx.com)

2) Cover a lot of the picture.

3) Distracting from the picture.

If you see images that have URL's on the picture, that was because none of us were aware that was a no-no until Johan pointed out that problem.

Distracting can be defined a number of ways, Chris' shot was very distracting, albeit creative. I personally think your eyes are a little screwy if you "go straight to the corner" When I first viewed Chris' pic, my eyes went straight to that part of the image.

S3


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

"Distracting can be defined a number of ways, Chris' shot was very distracting, albeit creative. I personally think your eyes are a little screwy if you "go straight to the corner" When I first viewed Chris' pic, my eyes went straight to that part of the image. "

One mans meat is another mans poison. I didn’t notice Chris' mark until he pointed it out to me. It looked natural to me. I just think a mark, no matter where is a distraction. That’s why I don’t put them on mine.

B


User currently offlineNikonF100 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4050 times:

I think you need your eyes checked Brian.

User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4028 times:

Hey, that's my opinion. I'm allowed to express that.

I don't like copy write marks, but I thought Chris found a creative way to put one on without distracting from the photo.

I think you should find something constructive to say or mind your own business, Rick.

B


25 Post contains images Wietse : You need new glasses, you need your eyes checked... How original and impressive! Absolutely the work of a master! How about using your mastermind to s
26 Post contains images Chris28_17 : I got bored and looked through some of Rick's (NikonF100) old posts and realized this guy really has nothing positive to say about anything. How sad,
27 Post contains images Screener3 : Chris, I'll just leave one final comment...when I saw both your shots, I had to think back to my last Phoenix trip (about a week before yours) and ask
28 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : Screener 3 that was a good one But i (unfortunately) doubt that the hooter girls would have passed. I have to try this one Peter
29 Post contains images Screener3 : I already have that pic of the FAs you uploaded a while ago Peter. It's on my computer S3
30 Post contains images Skymonster : Pictures get uploaded... Some pictures get rejected... The planet keeps on rotating... Life goes on... Andy
31 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : which one S3? The one that was accepted or the one which wasnt accepted here (showing the FA's main gear )? Peter
32 Post contains images EGFF : LOL....Chris, i actually think what you've done looks quite good, obviously others think not, nice try though and Justin, im totally behind you, the q
33 Usairways@clt : NikonF100/Rick T: Can I see some of your pictures? You seem overflowing with knowledge; please e-mail me and teach me everything you know. zach
34 Steinwayartist : Nobody in the world has a copyright on his/her face. It is as legal to photograph a person('s face) as it is to see him/her with your own eyes. It's y
35 Nikonf100 : Zach, One would think since you're in the 76-85 age range you would know many, many things, much more than what I know. Care to share what you want to
36 Wietse : Rick T, He didn't insist on knowing a lot himself, just the fact that you seem to be such a smartass without saying a constructive thing, EVER. I am r
37 704tangoalpha : I got bored and looked through some of Rick's (NikonF100) old posts and realized this guy really has nothing positive to say about anything. How sad,
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...
Little Dark Orbs In Photos... posted Sat Mar 20 2004 05:43:17 by Maiznblu_757
Jagged Lines In Photos posted Thu May 29 2003 13:05:48 by Airbus Lover
Oh I Am Confused.......Screeners Help posted Sat Feb 16 2002 19:36:37 by LGB Photos
What Did We Decide About People In Photos? posted Mon Oct 15 2001 06:47:18 by Chris28_17
People In Photos posted Tue Sep 25 2001 23:35:02 by Airplanenut
Confused On Number Of My Photos In Database posted Fri Feb 4 2005 03:28:33 by Dvmpaunch
Photos In Bad Weather posted Sat Oct 21 2006 20:39:52 by Kiwelumo
Am I SOL With The Fence In This Shot? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 07:11:18 by SEAchaz
Where In France To Take Stop For Photos? posted Tue Jun 13 2006 01:43:10 by Thowman
Including Photos In A Post posted Wed May 31 2006 19:59:23 by Krje1980