LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
After the system error thingy that lost 30 photos after they where accepted I re-uploaded a photo of g-viia and also told everyone by posting the info in the thread about the system thingy
then it gets rejected
The following photos were rejected:
(Please read more below)
- viia.jpg (British Airways Boeing 777-200)
The photos were of low esthetic qualities - bad angle, included
window reflections (for shots taken through glass such as terminal windows),
pictured just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation, like a special
sticker, damage etc., for doing so), out of focus, distracting or
obstructing objects in the foreground or similar (this is especially true
for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common
nature and the large amount of ancilliary equipment which usually surrounds
the aircraft) or did not picture an aircraft or anything sufficiently
related to aviation at all. Finally, you might read this because your camera
displays the date in the lower right corner of the image. If so, please
disable that feature in the future.
Just asking whether or not to bother uploading again? it was accepted then rejected???
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
Ben, post the link to the pic, so we can take a look.
I also have some questionable float plane rejections, think they should have made it.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
Ben,
As Peter has already said we cannot remember every picture in every topic when these sorts of things happen. You chose to ignore the advice posted at the time, which was to mention the loss in the comments associated with the photo, so that's in part down to how you got to the situation you are now with this picture.
You are wasting time posting this here in any case - there is nothing in this forum that can help you with this specific problem. If you fundamentally disagree with ANY rejection (as opposed to wanting to seek opinions on how to improve a picture, which you are clearly not doing here), then there is a clear mechanism - appeal.
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1474 times:
I also have some questionable float plane rejections, think they should have made it
It's not a questionable rejection because it has already been accepted!
You are wasting time posting this here in any case
How is that? I am asking whether or not to re-upload I have not said I agree/disagree with any rejections, including this one so it i worth asking because this problem affected a few foum members and I know that most of the screeners do read the boards.
You chose to ignore the advice posted at the time, which was to mention the loss in the comments associated with the photo, so that's in part down to how you got to the situation you are now with this picture.
Well, I just had a look at the post by Johan about this matter and no-one in the whole thread including screners say to add comments with the uplaod, I read people say re-upload (Peter) and just put the file name in the post (Wietse) so I did all that I was told to, in the post so to say I chose to ignore information is harsh and untrue.
I am not going to worry about this as after all its only one photo and not a 'super' shot anyway its just the situation I am commenting on
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1464 times:
Ben
The thread was started on 2002-09-25 20:54:30 thats roughly 11 days ago.
Sorry for loosing the filename out of our memory in this short time
Just upload it again, make a remark and i think it should work.
Peter
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1397 times:
LGW said: Well, I just had a look at the post by Johan about this matter and no-one in the whole thread including screners say to add comments with the uplaod
Extracted from the very thread concerned... "Upload the pics again, mention that they were previously accepted, and we MAY (not guaranteed, MAY, because circumstances have changed since then and we may have better pictures in the database now) accept them again"
LGW said: It's not a questionable rejection because it has already been accepted!
It may not have been a questionable rejection when it was first accepted but it may be now. There are many pictures already in the database which if uploaded now would not be accepted. Things move on.
LGW said: after all its only one photo and not a 'super' shot anyway its just the situation I am commenting on
Exactly. If its not a super shot, why bother raising this topic??? Oh I know why - to stir up the "accepted and then rejected" debate again!
AA 777 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 803 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1392 times:
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Enough with the critism! It was 1 shot of which a.net lost not me and I asked what I should do on the matter!
I know about standards and know how hard the screeners work etc so there is no need to get so animated!
Even though this shot should already be in the db if it where not lost by the software upagrade I thinka fter all this I shall forget this image as it seems to cause more trouble than its worth and move on!
Bigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4073 posts, RR: 56 Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1389 times:
I gotta side with LGW on this. For real, people need to take responsibility for their mistakes (not pointing fingers).
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1382 times:
Im not stiring the acceptance/rejections debate again...why would i?
also I have to say doesnt matter about the shot being super or not i said its not super, doesnt mean its c**p - out of principal as this happened about 2 weeks ago and standards cant have changed too much I must say i think morally they photos should be accepted as they already have been!
i am raising the topic because it was accepted through the HQ queue without warnings if it had been accepted with warnings then i may not bother but seeing as it got in last time i thought id re-upload as all other shots that where lost appear to have been accepted again
andy, who said that in the post? i remember readig that but have looked at http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/64061/ a few times over and cant see that post (maybe im just blind!)
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
Actually LGW, I had an interesting air shot, but didn't make it, I will have to scan the alternative.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
