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?
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1749 posts, RR: 31 Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4016 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
Planeboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4012 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"...
Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5472 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3992 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.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3940 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?
Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3864 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.
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3844 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.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3796 times:
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?
Screener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3764 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.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3742 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.
Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3732 times:
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.."
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...
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3722 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?
Screener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3714 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?
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.
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3709 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.