anyway, this was shot b4 my d30 went to canon 4 cleaning so therefore dirt maybe a problem - now, I can see 1 dust sport @ the top right of the middle. can I ask you lot - is that the ONLY spot you lot can see or are there more?
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
I personally didnt see the dust spot when editing it, if I had it would have been cloned out as suggested by the screener. I will clone it out and re-upload as long as it has a chance without dust???
Just wanted to see if other ppl could see any other dust
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1498 times:
I've had shots rejected for dirt where there was less than that.
Just goes to show what nitpicking is going on these days (maybe justifiably so, but I think sometimes they go too far).
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1744 posts, RR: 38 Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
LGW:
great shot...i personally can't see any dust...maybe i'm going blind then....i would try uploading it again, though...
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 58 Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1401 times:
my personal opinion- to reject that fine photo because of this "dirt" that is barely noticeable is going too far- and once again, taking a notch off of the fun of uploading here and i dont know that Johan wants photographers who are frustrated because an itty bitty little tiny imperfection that not one person except one screener cares about. Im really dissapointed that this is still going on (I thought this kind of stuff was going away) and I know other heavy contributors to the site are dissapointed too. This is about fun, not a job- we all have dayjobs to report to, this isn't one of them- this is a fun hobby, I hope that doesn't change.
LGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1388 times:
To be honest I don't see the dust spot. I agree with Joe on this and for this reason(among others), I have decided to post my photos elsewhere because the screeners seem to be too picky about very minor imperfections. On the other hand, I have noticed that they are excepting lesser quality photos so which way is the site going now? I lost the fun of uploading here because of the screeners and the people at the other site seem to enjoy my photos more.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 25 Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
The moment the fun goes out of spotting because I get no more shots on this site, I know I am spotting for the wrong reasons...
Getting recognition from your peers is nice, but ultimately (unless you're doing it as a job) the only one you have to please is yourself.
If shots are getting rejected for minute things like this (and they are, I've experienced it myself), something is wrong with the system. It's no longer about weeding out the bad but about something else (I don't know what that something else would be though).
Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
I noticed the bit that Peter ringed. It is from a less than perfect use of the clone tool, I think. What are the black bits under the aircraft nose up to the front gear? Are they all part of the aircraft, or do we have (perish the thought) a spec of dust?
Nice photo.
Craig.
EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1273 times:
That's a fine shot Ben.....
I wouldn't have noticed that spot until it was pointed out too...
If your shot was offered in a quiz:
1# Look at it for 10 seconds.
2# Take it away.
3# Ask the question, where the visual flaw?
The only people to get it right would be digital camera users who have a bugbear about that particular fault on a D30/D60.
The rest would say, what flaw?
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1271 times:
Guys,
I think maybe we shouldn't be getting excited about this. This rejection does appear harsh but you have to accept that you cannot expect to get EVERY shot you upload on the site. The screening job really is difficult [I know many of you think you can do it better but please believe me] and it's easy, especially when you're seeing hundreds of perfect pictures, to get so sensitive to spotting imperfections that perhaps the line is crossed and a mistake is made. I now find myself seeing images in magazines etc. with a "screener's eye" and spotting all of the image's imperfections.
Given that about 250 shots get added every day without complaint, the screeners must make at least 750 correct decisions [and that doesn't include all the rejections] for every 1 'mistake' that's highlighted in this forum. That's pretty good isn't it?
If only you would help yourselves by examining your images more carefully and comparing them to the recent uploads which define the standard, then this sort of thing would not happen at all. If you give the screeners no reasons to reject a shot then, believe me, they will not reject it for fun.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1262 times:
First let me say I didn't screen the shot - but I did notice the spot immediately - I think digital users get a bit sensitive to such things, if not obsessive!
Should it have been rejected? Tough call. I think if this had of been a slide with a patch of fungus of similar size, no one would question rejecting it (unless rare subject etc. etc.).
On the one hand, it must be said that this is a far more subtle flaw than a gaint black spot ( but as a digi user, when I see one of these on MY pics it FEELS like a giant black spot). On the other hand, once seen, it is so easy to correct that perhaps it is not unreasonable to expect the photographer to correct it.
Ultimately, the question a screener will ask is "does this unnecessarily distract from the picture". As has been seen in this thread, to some people its obvious others not. Since the fix is simple, why not just fix and resubmit? Afterall, improving the quality of the photograph is to the photographer's benefit surely?
DSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 9 Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
I have to agree with Joe, Stephen, and others that this is an example to EXTREME nitpicking from a screener. If you are going to reject Ben's photo (which is magnificent, BTW) for such a small, minuscule "imperfection", then every photo uploaded here should be rejected for the same reason. No photo is PERFECT and will always have flaws of some sort, whether its a dirt spec, under/oversharpening, under/overexposure, etc, etc...Is that the standard that you want to set? That bar seems pretty high on a site that is dominated by amateur photographers.
If you are going to have standards, at least be consistent.
Aric Thalman
Omaha, NE
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
I have to join the voices who say that they think the shot shouldnt have been rejected. I can't even see the dust spots so they obviously take nothing away from the shot.
However, having said that, the screeners are simply trying to do their job, obviously sometimes we think they've got it wrong. I think they've got it wrong every time they reject my shots . There is a reason why an appeal button has been added, to give everyone the opportunity to get a second opinion on their shots. If you think the shot was harsly rejected use the appeal button and get that 2nd opinion. Appeals go straight to the administrator of the site so he will have a look and if he agrees with you, your shot will be uploaded.
May I also add that the original poster asked for advice, he didn't ask for others to bag the screeners. I think those "I upload elsewhere comments" are counterproductive, everyone uploads somewhere else. There is at least 1 other site that accepts all my pictures (yay). Might I remind you that for every photographer that goes elsewhere there are most likely 10 new guys all trying to get their pictures online. Given the length of the queue and the number of newly uploaded pictures each day I don't think the site is suffering for it's higher standards!
Everyone gets rejections, even the screeners (and especially their wives!!!).
My advice to the original poster: use the appeal option.
EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
Jason, Colin...
When Johan was accepting pictures, before the screeners, it was normal to get a picture accepted sometimes 'with warnings', just acceptable, but with a smack to tell you to try that wee bit harder. Remember?
Has it really changed so much?
Any imperfection, bang, it's out?
Has a.net finally reached that stage now?
Maybe because I've learned the digital side of photography and kept up to date I haven't noticed it, but boy, it must be really, really hard for any new guys starting out here!
I haven't had much in the way of rejections lately (touch wood) but if I were to start 'pushing' some more 'artistic' or 'wacky' shots again rather than the basic 'side-on' stuff I've been sending you guys, is there still an 'accepted with warnings' or is it a plain rejection with the applicable reason now?
BTW, this is not a swipe at you boys who are doing a very good job, just wondering where a.net is on the 'quality' front for anyone new who want's to upload here.
It must be at it's pinnacle now. Right?
Regards...
Gerry/EDI
25 GKirk: I think If I started taking pics now, it would be impossible for me to upload to this site...
26 Ckw: Gerry - the screeners don't have the option to accept with warnings ... this is a privalege reserved for Johan I believe. Since, these days, comparati
27 Joe pries: Colin, i dont think there's one person here who denies the fact that the screeners do a hell of a job and we all appreciate it- I for one am absolutel
28 NonRevKing: In a BS rejection like this and others, it's not easy to say, "Just fix it and reupload it". Oh great, wait another 2-3 weeks for this to go thru the
30 PUnmuth@VIE: As i was the one i will take the time to go through all (well not all just the constructive ) posts: BA: LGW: In my message I wrote (I think so) "grea
31 LGW: wow! what a lot of responses - thanks for all your help and an interesting debate thrown in. Peter, I know about your comment - i was just asking poep
32 Ckw: LGW - thanks for fixing the shot. It was a great pic, now its a better pic. There are a lotta people who could take a lesson from your attitude to thi
33 Skymonster: OK guys, I’ll add a few comments. Please note I am NOT in any way pointing the finger at or singling out LGW in any of what follows: I think tha
34 LGW: Thanks Colin. Well, rejections are all part of the course. When I edited this shot I have to admit I did not see the spec so therfore I was suprised w
35 PUnmuth@VIE: Well done Ben! Congratulations. That's exactly what rejections (and personal messages) are good for. Most of the time it can be solved with very littl
36 Gerardo: The uploaded pic isn't bad, but I miss that tinly little black spot Nahhhh, seriously: In my opinion, the first rejection was more than border case. B
37 Rol: Hello LGW, >...anyway, this was shot b4 my d30 went to canon 4 cleaning...
38 Staffan: Is it 2 hard 4 u to understand? Staffan
39 Skymonster: In my opinion, a simple warning would have been enough Johan is encouraging the screeners NOT to pass border cases to him unless its absolutely essent
40 Craigy: Cue the sound of half of the forum members searching through dictionaries to find out what a colloquial idiom is Craig.
41 EGGD: Staffan - I am (reasonably) proficient in the English language, but its still hard for me to read that! Colloquial - used in or characteristic of fami
42 LGW: Maybe my future shots will be rejected will be rejected for using bad english LGW
43 Craigy: ...or for repeating, or for repeating yourself. :D
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11097 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 297 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2000, 3479 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
