Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About Screeners  
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5059 posts, RR: 15
Posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10319 times:

Just curious, when you screen a pic do you just "eyeball" it or do you use some kind of standards measurement on it? For example, do you look at the histogram to determine the level of brightness before marking a photo reject for brightness? Or, do you draw a horizontal selection area on it to determine if the ground, buildings, and/or plane is perfectly level? Do you search the database for that reg. # and check to see if there's lots of other shots of it? How long do you spend on average with one photo before deciding if its good or not?

While some rejects are blatantly obvious there are so many more that I really have to "study" to figure out how you rejected it and then I see it. So I wondered if you apply some kind of tool or just plain old looking at it.

bruce


Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10045 times:

i've often wondered this myself...great topic bruce....so just how do you screeners do it?






"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10027 times:

I remember hearing that, of course they know (don't know whether its a search or a function for the screeners) how many photos of the aircraft on the database there is. I think its just visual screening, and they look at everything and weigh up for positives and the negatives.

I think each photo is about 50 seconds... of course longer for the more borderline ones.

Just my 2c, I might be totally wrong!


User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9974 times:

Right,

Well, I thought it might be useful to give you a bit of inside knowledge on how screening works [or at least on how it is supposed to work!  Big grin].

1) we log in to the screening page and we specify how many photos we want to screen in a batch - from 10-200.
2) We indicate also whether we want to screen the standard queue or the High quality queue.
3) For extracting hot items, we can restrict the returned pictures to a specific photographer, registration, airline or location. We use this when a guy sends a mail to screeners@airliners.net about a hot new item.
4) Once we submit the login page we get back a page of entries, each representing one shot, which looks like the following picture:

5) For each shot we check the photographer's name and email to see whether they're a photographer we have to treat in a special way - examples here are guys who are known for always uploading other people's work without permission or guys where Johan has requested, for whatever reason, that we pass their stuff straight to him.
6) Top Right shows the location of the shot and the date as entered in the upload screen. Again we check this to make sure it conforms to the standards. Example - if the plane is on final for LHR then 'Over London' is no good as a location, the correct location is London Heathrow(LHR/EGLL).
7) The middle block contains the airline and aircraft data. Again we're looking for no mistakes here - it's surprisingly common not to change the 'Other' field on the upload form and to get a strange hybrid airline name. If full info isn't specified here then I start to ask myself why it isn't specified and investigate further.
8) The comment, registration and category [in this case, it's 'OTHER'] fields are under here. We read the comment, which might help to explain why info is missing or the location is odd, and check that the registration looks sensible. No G series regos for Malev aircraft for example.
8.5) The size of the shot is also shown on the bottom left so we can decide whether the shot meets the minimum size criteria.
9) We open the large version of the picture by clicking the thumbnail. This produces a full size version of the large photo in a new window. This is where we assess the shot for conformance to standards.
10) Generally the Mk 1 eyeball is the best tool for the job and we just look to see whether it looks like an a.net picture. Remember that we already know when / where it was shot and have read any comments so we may be making allowances for the shot on this basis.
11) Back in the main form we click the reg number link and this does a database search on the registration so we can see how many shots are in the dB. This is where we start thinking about Common shots and raising the standards or lowering the standards for rare shots, especially new registrations or colourschemes.
12) If the shot is borderline then we might have a look at big versions of some of the shots already in the dB and see if the shot is an improvement or vice versa.
13) Having made a decision we come down to the check boxes.
14) Each check box represents one of the rejection reason paragraphs that you see in the e-mail. We can tick any number of these. Any tick in a red box rejects the shot with all the reasons selected on the form. If we want to include a personal message to the photographer then we check the 'Personal' checkbox and write a message in the 'Message' field. This is what you see as a personal message from the screener.
15) If the shot is borderline then we have the choice of two yellow check boxes - Leave for Johan, which leaves it for the boss to decide - photos with copyright issues or totally unique shots often fall into this category - or we can tick Second Opinion to effectively 'pass' on the shot and leave it for the other screeners. In both these cases, we can put a message in the message field which will be visible to Johan or the other screeners.
16) If the shot is good enough for inclusion then we check one of the green boxes - either High Quality which puts the shot in the HQ queue where it waits for two other screeners to mark it as HQ or we can use the Priority - Instant Add box to add it instantly to the database, bypassing the HQ queue. We only really use this for the hot new items I talked about earlier.
17) A message in the message field for a shot marked as HQ will be visible to the other screeners when they screen the HQ queue. Commonly we use this if we have reservations about a shot or we want to help the other screeners understand why we nominated it as HQ in the first place.
18) Finally we repeat this as many times as there are pictures in the batch and then submit the form. This processes the results and sends out the rejection / acceptance e-mails.

Obviously a lot of the shots are really easy to screen, the really HQ ones and the absolutely atrocious ones take very little time to screen. The borderline cases can, by the time we've opened the database search and looked at a few shots and had a think, take an inordinate length of time. A few minutes is not uncommon.

Anyway, I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how the whole process works.


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5059 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9964 times:

Wow!! That's great....thanks kingwide!


Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlinePaulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10199 times:

Finally, some answers as to how the screening is done - all we need now are some updated pictures on the FAQ's to show the sort of things that are (or are not) acceptable.




English First, British Second, european Never!
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9915 times:

The answers were already there, but now we have at least a detailed report which doesn't leave questions!  Big thumbs up

Maybe this thread should be bookmarked somewhere, accesible from the upload page, whatever. Know what I mean?

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10626 times:

I got one question.

How many screeners are there taking part in airliners.net?

I remember there were 8 last year around this time.
There are also a huge number of photographers with over 100 shots at this site but I doubt that there is also huge number of screeners. Perhaps just a couple who have like over 500 or 1000 photos.
12 or 16 I guess?

Bo



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9894 times:

Thanks J, for the inside view.

Interesting indeed!

Vasco G.



User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9957 times:

More answers:

1 -I think we have 12 screeners on the books, though not all are always active - I would guess on any given day half are available for screening.

2 - Adding pictures to the FAQ - tricky, because as Jason indicates, there are no absolutes. Rarity, composition, location etc. can all be mitigating factors in what is considered acceptable.

3 - To go back to the original question, and picking up a on one of Jason's points, the mark I eyeball is the primary tool - what are we looking for?

a) focus - is the picture sharp? For example, in a full frame profile it should be possible to clearly read titles and registration. Some shots, esp. angles or head on do not necessarily require the whole aircraft in focus, but key parts of the image (typically the cockpit) must be sharp. A common problem me see is an aircraft on approach with the centre section pin sharp but the nose a little blurry. I blame AF for this ... if you have the plane nicely filling the frame, the AF is probably locked on to the centre of the aircraft, not the nose. In low light with shallow depth of field, the nose and tail may be blurred. Photographers need to allow for this.

b) jaggies - often a result of oversharpening. In most cases this I think is due to someone trying to get a slightly soft original up to scratch. This is usually a mistake, and often makes the pic even worse - watch out for wing trailing edges in particular. Some leeway is given since certain areas (eg. thin cheatlines at an angle) are impossible to record even with the best DSLR without jaggies. But if, for example, fuselage titles are looking jagged, this will almost certainly be rejected.

c) exposure/contrast - no, we don't do a levels check ... we're not trying to catch you out! In general what is required is a smooth tonal range from black to white. Shots in which highlight detail is burned out (overexposure) or no shadow detail is available (underexposure) are likely reject candidates. Signs of excessive post processing adjustment - very noisy shadow areas, abrupt changes in tone where we should have smooth tone - will also get dumped.
I think the most common error is pics which have good highlight and shadow detail, but still look dark - this is due to low gamma (apparent brightness of midtones) most scans require a little boost to the midtones to display well on a monitor.

Contrast - usually the problem is lack of contrast, down to shooting in dull weather. This is an area that can be addressed by i) more care in initial exposure and ii) subtle manipulation in post processing - the curves function available in most editors can boost contrast a little without undesirable side effects.

d) Angle - personally I don't measure the shot - if it looks right, that's fine by me even if it is technically a degree or so out of line. However if the shot appears to be angled, I will check verticals before rejecting tyo make sure its not just an optical illusion.

As has been seen, a great many of the shots on A.net are borderline to some degree - I think photographers could help themselves considerably by paying attention to small details. While you may not feel comfortable using high powered graphic packages (and I would suggest many do more harm than good with ham fisted manipulations), some basics should always be addressed - is the shot level? Is the shot dirty - dust specks are easy to remove, its just a bit tedious. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by leaving easily repaired problems unfixed.

Similarly, take a little time getting the upload info correct - I think the various screeners take differing views on this - some will make minor corrections (eg. change categories) others won't - so by not taking care here you are again leaving yourself open to an unnecessary rejection.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10276 times:

a) focus - is the picture sharp? For example, in a full frame profile it should be possible to clearly read titles and registration. Some shots, esp. angles or head on do not necessarily require the whole aircraft in focus, but key parts of the image (typically the cockpit) must be sharp. A common problem me see is an aircraft on approach with the centre section pin sharp but the nose a little blurry. I blame AF for this ... if you have the plane nicely filling the frame, the AF is probably locked on to the centre of the aircraft, not the nose. In low light with shallow depth of field, the nose and tail may be blurred. Photographers need to allow for this.

If the aircraft is flying/driving straight passed that should be no problem. What is more likely is that the AF focusses on the wingroot or an engine, leaving the center fuselage within the DOF but the front and rear slightly outside.
Also mind that the screen and videocard used can make a lot of difference. Especially older screens can lead you to think something is blurred when it is not (this from personal experience).

b) jaggies - often a result of oversharpening. In most cases this I think is due to someone trying to get a slightly soft original up to scratch. This is usually a mistake, and often makes the pic even worse - watch out for wing trailing edges in particular. Some leeway is given since certain areas (eg. thin cheatlines at an angle) are impossible to record even with the best DSLR without jaggies. But if, for example, fuselage titles are looking jagged, this will almost certainly be rejected.
I've had people tell me things were oversharpened that on my screen looked just fine.
There should be no leeway for jagged cheatlines to help DSLR shooters. If you do that, there should also be leeway for scanner noise and grain to help non-digital shooters and that's not done...
Either is a compromise based on the technology used, either both are acceptable or none should be.
Jagged edges can be avoided by using selective sharpening only where needed, sorry digicam users if you don't have that option  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

using high powered graphic packages (and I would suggest many do more harm than good with ham fisted manipulations), some basics should always be addressed - is the shot level? Is the shot dirty - dust specks are easy to remove, its just a bit tedious. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by leaving easily repaired problems unfixed.
I've seen shots rejected for being dirty or bad exposure where the screener didn't check properly. In fact, the aircraft was dirty leading an otherwise white livery to look a streaked grey (which might be thought to be dirty or poorly exposed).
Also, very small dirtmarks (only a few pixels) might go unnoticed on my screen but show up on yours (I've had that myself, seeing a picture afterwards somewhere else and noticing things I hadn't seen on my own screen).

Last rant  Innocent : Maybe the screeners should use their comment option some more. I haven't had any comments from them in a long time... "underexposed or overexposed" doesn't tell me much, especially when it looks perfectly fine on my screen.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 10081 times:

One thing I'll add to Jason's commentary:

If a pic appears to me to be a bit marginal, as well as looking for/at other pictures of the same airplane, occasionally I will look at pictures already in the database that have been taken by the same photographer. Blunty, if a pic is marginal and there's no good reason for it being so, and the photographer has in the past demonstrated themselves to be capable of better results, then that may tip the balance.


Jwenting,
Maybe the screeners should use their comment option some more.

To be honest, its impossible to comment on every rejection - simply, there's too many pictures to screen and it would take too long to do this.

I make a special effort to comment in the following circumstances:

* If a newbie (someone I've not heard of before - believe me, we get to know the names of the regulars) has uploaded a number of pictures and they all have a particularly defect, I'll comment and try to make suggestions on how to improve things.

* If a picture is marginal and I think that there's an easy fix, I'll say what I think that fix is, and actually suggest that the photographer does that and then reuploads - if you can tell someone what you think can be done to fix a problem (rather than just tell them what's wrong), it probably avoids an unnecessary appeal and often the pic comes back fixed and gets accepted.

I'm far less likely to comment on a rejection if its a regular who's submitted the picture - I'll tend to assume they've seen enough over time to understand where the problem is.

There should be no leeway for jagged cheatlines to help DSLR shooters. If you do that, there should also be leeway for scanner noise and grain to help non-digital shooters and that's not done...

Jaggies... Colin didn't say we make allowances for jaggies for digital pictures - what he said was even using a digital its sometimes not possible to exclude all jaggies. The same is true of a scan anyway - on narrow cheat lines its not always possible to get rid of all of the jaggies. In terms of making allowances for digital shooters, we don't do that. We have no idea whether a picture was taken with a digital, and whilst often its possible to tell just from the look of the picture whether an image was digital or not, all images get treated alike.

Also, very small dirtmarks (only a few pixels) might go unnoticed on my screen but show up on yours (I've had that myself, seeing a picture afterwards somewhere else and noticing things I hadn't seen on my own screen).

True... With a 21" screen, its easier to see some of the things that folks using a 13" monitor miss. I think that this is one of the issues that often cause conflicts between screening and originating photographer.


Hope this helps,

Andy
(not screening this week due to being abroad!)


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9853 times:

Andy, your a Broad ?

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 723 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10211 times:

Many thanks for the insight into the screening process.

Whilst on the subject could I make a request. I've had a few photos rejected (along with countless others) because of missing info but am always perplexed at what info I missed out. Unfortunately, I am unable to return to the original upload to check and my memory is bad at the best of times so would it be possible to state why? All those rejected did not specifiy what info was missing. I know this may be time consuming but it would be much appreciated.

Thanks.



Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10324 times:

Ejazz:
Could you post the filenames of the ones rejected with badinfo here?
Peter



-
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9835 times:

Ejazz,

I'm not encouraging you to appeal your rejections, but I think that if you go to the appeal page, the details that you originally provided with the photograph are shown - you might just be able to figure it out from that.

Actually, the Info message doesn't just indicate missing information, it also indicates bad information - i.e. something that's obviously wrong. Whilst myself I am prepared to correct minor errors if I know what the correction should be, anything that involves a change of type or operator can be problematical, as the drop down lists don't appear on the screening page so any correction could be as wrong as the original - in such cases, I'm more inclinded to rejected badinfo.

But aside from that I agree - its difficult to tell what Info is wrong given the way the rejection messages are set up at the moment.

Andy


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9820 times:

Jwenting - Andy read my remark on jaggies correctly - I'm not making any allowances for technologies ... the point was that the presentation of an image at A.net resolutions will result in jaggies in some instances EVEN with the best equipment in the world. In the case of narrow cheatlines, there are simply not enough pixels to present a smooth transition, hence some allowance must be made.

My comment on focus was with particular reference to approaching aircraft, typically at an angle - the nose is closest to the photographer, in the top corner of the frame, the tail furthest away, bottom corner - if no compensation is made, most AF systems will lock on the middle of the image at point of exposure, so you either need to lock your AF on the nose or select a focus point which closely matches where the nose should be in the picture. The disparity in focus will be most pronounced with long lenses used wide open, much less so with moderate lenses at f8-f11 - but we do lose a lot of shots becuase of this.

I've seen shots rejected for being dirty or bad exposure where the screener didn't check properly once again, yes, screeners do make mistakes, that's why there is an appeal queue. This thread is attempting to explain the process, not justify screeners decisions.

On the monitor issue - well this should be considered an extension to the photographers equipment, and of an adequate standard for the job. These days that does not mean particularly expensive. I really doubt that a flaw visible on a 21in high quality monitor which is invisible on a reasonable quality 14 inch monitor would of itself be grounds for rejection.

On comments - I will add comments to rejections a) if there is an issue which can be rectified and would lead to acceptance b) the photographer has taken some time and effort with the submission ... some clearly don't spend anytime at all on preparing their uploads c) some issue out of the ordinary arises.

Otherwise writing comments takes a lot of time, and it can lead to protracted email correspondance. I think the standard messages are a good starting point, and if the problem is still unclear, then posting to this forum will get a wider, and probably more helpful, range of opinions.





Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineChazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10170 times:

I had a run-in with "badinfo" once as well, and was equally perplexed... The plane in question was in storage at the Smithsonian, and had enough historical significance that I was able to find out a fair amount about it on the web. I included all the information (type, reg, etc) but ended up getting a badinfo on it... I went back and looked over everything and couldn't see what I was missing... And would have LOVED a comment to point out my error... But I sure couldn't find it and ended up appealing to Johan, which is where it still sits, four weeks later.

The only thing I can think of: This plane was in a warehouse in a Maryland suburb of Washington, DC... I followed all the guidelines for indicating the plane's location, but perhaps I erred... Anyway, I appealed if for nothing else just to get some feedback about what I missed...

This thread has been very helpful though... Thanks for the insight!


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10073 times:

Thanks for the feedback  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
I've seen pronounced differences between even 17" and 19" screens. Especially scanner noise that on my old 17" is invisible can show up on my 19", don't want to think about what someone with a multi-thousand Euro 21" or larger will see.

As to museum aircraft, can someone once and for all set the standard?
There is a category for them, yet many people will upload them with the name of livery painted on them as the operator which IMO is incorrect.
An aircraft in the USAF museum should be termed "museumpiece" as operator and not "United States - Air Force" as it is no longer in service, IMO.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9792 times:

I really doubt that a flaw visible on a 21in high quality monitor which is invisible on a reasonable quality 14 inch monitor would of itself be grounds for rejection.

Colin, and others,

One thing that I think may be more noticable on larger screens is jpeg compression - that and the scanner noise in skies that Jwenting mentioned above. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a stickler for jpeg compression (or more accurately, lack of it!), and I've found that sometimes it appears quite obviously in pictures initially accepted by others - if I had to guess, jpeg compression is probably the cause of most rejections I make from the HQ queue.

Andy


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5059 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9823 times:

I had this one rejected for jagged:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N431CB.jpg

But because the paint lines are very close together I will never be able to make it smooth without degrading some other part of the image. Though I can probably fix the blury-ness. So, I shouldn't waste my time with a shot like this?

bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 745 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9923 times:

Bruce - I don't think that's jagged, it looks like moire effect to me (but we don't have a button for that). This is a problem that digicams are particularly prone to (big cheer from the film fans), and is to due to the sensor's ability to resolve fine line patterns (I believe its the pattern that's the problem - this is not a resolution issue). You can get a similar effect with scanning as well, but much less often.

There are I think plugins for PS which claim to reduce or eliminate moire.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineInvader From Netherlands, joined Feb 2000, 325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9903 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Jwenting,

For the museum aircraft standards, I started a new thread, which explains it all (I hope).

Peter Vercruijsse
Database Standardization Editor


User currently offlineRol From Germany, joined Feb 2000, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9709 times:

Thank you for the detailed explanation Kingwide, but sorry for my ignorance.

>Generally the Mk 1 eyeball is the best tool for the job

What please is a "Mk 1 eyeball"?

Regards
Roland


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9712 times:

Mk1 eyeball is a device you can buy at any local hardware store.  Wink/being sarcastic

Seriously though, it is just giving the pic a quick look and see if you think it is acceptable.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
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...
Question About Bangkok Suvarnabhumi International posted Sun Nov 19 2006 15:34:39 by Airimages
A Question About PS Jpeg Options posted Tue Nov 7 2006 10:02:25 by Stil
A Question About Doubles And Motive posted Sun Oct 15 2006 14:49:31 by Psych
Question About Phuket posted Sun Oct 15 2006 09:56:03 by Airimages
Question About Motiv. posted Wed Sep 13 2006 04:51:41 by COIAH756CA
Question About How To Avoid Jaggies posted Tue Aug 29 2006 13:24:58 by Coninpa
Screener Question About Catagory posted Thu Jun 22 2006 16:05:36 by AIRBUSRIDER
Question About Serial Numbers? posted Wed May 24 2006 01:31:56 by Walter2222
Question About Distance Rejection posted Fri May 19 2006 13:16:45 by Edoca
A Question For Screeners... posted Wed May 17 2006 11:57:41 by Chris78cpr