Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Improvement Or Just Accept It?  
User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

Guys

Been uploading many photographs recently, still enjoying Airliner.net and i still have respect for the screener decisions. But within the last 2 days i had 2 photos rejected which i actually thought were quite good.

[LINK REMOVED]

Photo1
-------
SAS Airbus A330 LN-RKH. First Sunshine shot on the database

Photo2
-------
Air India Boeing 747-200 darkness at Copenhagen.

I'm sure you can see the others, we all have rejects from time to time but i just would like your advice how i could improve the top 2 photographs.

Keep up the good work.
Colin




40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Colin,

Not a good idea to post a link to your appeal page - anyone can appeal your pics from that page. Better to post a link to the large rejected photos.

On to the pics:

Scando A330 - rotate slightly so the hangar is vertical and reupload
Air India 747 - can't see the large version anymore

Andy


User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4751 times:

Andy thanks for the info and the warning. Just awoke after nighshift so my heads in the clouds and i didn't think.

Sorry everyone..

I Tried to post a link to the large rejected photo but the Air India wont display. There is a error there.

Colin


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4752 times:

Colin:
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=lnrkh.jpg
Peter



-
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

I see some funny jaggies on the tail of the SAS A330, which I can't really explain.

BTW, it's an A330-343X.

Regards
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

Seems to be alot of rejections of reasonable shots coming through lately. But has anyone seen some of the stuff that the screeners get accepted. I saw the single most un-level shot get added today and laughed my brains out! We get them (rejections) for 0.2 of a degree tilt! Not a hard one to find, I won't link it here as that is not appropriate.

Also this week I've seen shots showing parts of planes, shots that are just plane (pardon the pun) "badmotiv" rejections to anyone else. Shots that aren't centred, shots that are so similar to previously added ones that it isn't funny. Another trick is to omit the registration so that it can't be checked for duplicates.

Rest assured dudes, you reject our work based on your opinions, we look at your work with the same opinions sometimes and wonder "how in the hell....." If you want site dominance, say so and we'll all bugger off somewhere else!

Considering Colin's rejections there for bad camera angle I'd be seriously considering the one a screener had accepted overnight!!!

I am not intending all out war on you guys of course, but when your average work, your unlevel work, your duplicated work etc etc get accepted and we get rejected for the most amusing reasons one starts to wonder.....

I urge others to keep this debate in good taste.

No problem with you looking at my rejected work either.

[LINK REMOVED]

Bad soft, that one really amuses me!


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5486 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

Craig....still trying to see the "badjagged" on the DC3.....  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Colin...that Air India 742 looks cool (can't see the large one though)....bad scan ey...interesting! Awsome Varig M11 shot BTW.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

The first photo on your appeal page (badcontrast) is kind of cool, I just like the way it looks IMO.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4631 times:

Justin,

I know what you mean, but if you look at the cheat line it's a fraction jagged. Seen worse added, even of my own, but it didn't make it! But I learnt something from that one I must admit.

One thing I will make clear, and I'll make it VERY clear right from the start to avoid ANY confusion that some who can't read too well always miss, is that I DO NOT disagree with EVERY rejection. Like all of you, screeners included, I throw some real borderline cases into the queue sometimes - sometimes someone likes them and makes them HQ other times they are rejected for good reason. But it's the other times that are a little disappointing that one has to bug Johan with a shot that's not really that bad. We all know he has better things to do these days. And the excuse "we are only human" isn't worth the effort they use to hide behind it! There is a solution.

And, to make it alot more level sided, I propose this:-

The appointment of a dedicated Screener to screen those shots submitted by the screeners.

While this will never happen, I believe independant assesment of ALL work is the fairest way to operate any organisation. Ours is by the Screeners, let theirs be screened independently as well.

My hand's up to do it.

Perhaps see how this thread runs and then perhaps a vote in favour or against the idea would be appropriate.


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4625 times:

Screeners get rejections. What you're implying is it doesn't happen. We are all subject to the same rules. And it is quite easy to show examples that seem strange applied to NON Screeners as well

Enough has been stated as to why decisions are made. Do we really need to repost them or are you able to find those threads yourself ?


User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4601 times:

Never said screeners don't get rejections! Everyone does!

But, given Colin's rejections and this one's acceptance one would really wonder just how the screening REALLY works!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Glenn Alderton



If that shot is level I'll eat my mobile phone! Photos that are many degree's less "unlevel" are rejected. So how could such well trained eyes for perfect photos let this through. Not to mention soft, blurry, shots of parts of planes etc etc etc that get through too (and not all yours I might add to avoid confusion and accusations of picking on individuals). The above shot highlights the point very clear though and I thought it worthy of inclusion in this thread to highlight a point (not to make fun of a specific individual).

My point is, you are all so good at rejecting photos off by .2 or so of a degree. How can you miss this!

I'll ignore the second sentence, no-one likes a smarty!


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Glenn,

I will have to agree with Craig at least on that photo, it off by about 3 deg CW, and it doesn't lose its effect when level (IMO it enhances the photo, because the dutch angle just distorts the person view). And I have to agree that other peoples photos are rejected for much less, now this isn't to say that you don't get rejections, it just shows that there are some irregularties in it.

In particular I love the Icelandic Air 757 shot he has. Its effect is just ammazing IMO, I would have loved to see it in the database.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4570 times:

Ahah I knew that would come up. Well I wont go into degrees or angles I am sure you guys understand about converging lines, Parallex etc etc. I will tell you that the mound in the background was running approx 45 degree's away from me. The Aircraft was not level, being light they get affected by wind but the real clincher that no one bothered to look at is the fence posts in the background.

VERTICAL as they come and yes they were upright, not leaning or anything, No UFO conspiricies involved either. But never let the facts get in the way of a good Bitch huh  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Of course you would ignore the second sentence. It shows you don't bother with the facts.



User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

Glenn, the fence and the fence posts are on the same level as the ground. In fact I leveled it by the cones in the back ground. I personally feel that the photo, is even better leveled because its more believeable for the person viewing the photo.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

Ahhh so if all the fence posts are level that means that the photo is still crooked

Whatever, I could have done a whole bunch of things. I gave you verticals, they were accepted you really need to live with it.


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2769 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4563 times:

Yappy yappy stuff. Its my turn.  Smile

I think the first 2-3 photos of Colins are kick ass material. That Greenland air shot is superb. Bad contrast?! *SLAP* haha.
Also the Air India and SAS 333 is coool as well which I thought could of been treated NOT as harshly but more fairly.

Craig also has some beauties worth adding too. I like that one Qantas shot of the 763 and the 747 taking off where you said it was like QF123 to asia.
Bad common seems to be getting onto you as well eh?
Ah well, I guess if tiny angle adjustents and color correction is what it takes for a no problem upload for those rejects, then go for it. But compress the pictures like nuts so upload time would be like 2 seconds.  Smile


Bo



Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
User currently offlineAndyhunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4563 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Craig,

You mention that you "sometimes throw some borderline stuff into the queue......like all of us". Sorry, and I don't think I'm the only one here, but I don't.

My question is, "why would you want to do that???" I don't see the point?

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

I guess I don't see the need for the appeal process. I have had my share of rejections, some I really liked, but this is not my website, and I agreed to the terms when I paid to join, and I accept the judgment of those assigned to screen my submissions. Is there such a picture that just has to be posted here? I doubt it. I understand the cost and effort that goes into these shots, as well as the disappointment associated with a rejection. But, there are always more planes to shoot and more places to shoot 'em. With the exception of few people, I doubt I will even scratch the surface of all the possibilities out there. Each outing provides it's own opportunities and challenges, that is what I enjoy about this hobby, sport, or occupation, which ever you call it.

As for a "screener" for the screeners? Nah....don't see any conspiracy going on, it would just bring more unwanted debate in my opinion. Someone will most likely claim his submissions are getting accepted in return for accepting the the screener's shots.

And on Glenn's photo... I did see the fence and the tree line, had to look twice, but they convinced me.

v/r
Jeff Miller


User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

My sincere apologies.

I would wish to thank the screeners for the wonderful and highly consistent job they do here. They are all professional photographers whose photos are among the best aviation photos you will see anywhere in the world. Having never made mistakes, they would never admit to one. And indeed the way they commend and praise their fellow photographers is superb.

They lead by example and show the utmost respect in every instance.

Again, these utterly perfect human beings deserve nothing but our praise and thanks.

I "dips" my hat to you and salute you all. When the dear lord created you he had perfection in mind. We should all stand tall and aspire to take photos like yours.

My sincerest regards and compliments.

Mr. Whadda Loadofshite

Get with the program boys. Winds, mounds running away from the camera. What a Loadofshite! It highlights just how arrogant some screeners have become.

I'm happy with my work, my statistics and hits tell the only story I choose to tell.









User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4534 times:

Sorry craig, I thought you called yourself a photographer. Obviously as long as the camera does the work you don't need to understand the rest I guess.

"Winds, mounds running away from the camera. What a Loadofshite"

Anyway, glad that your doing so well, attitudes can sometimes work against you.


User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4512 times:



Rwy level, blurred fence posts level, cones level, horizon level. This is how Narromine looks.

You say "attitudes can sometimes work against you" I do agree they can can't they?

I know what looks more level to me!



User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4525 times:

Craig,

What's up? You consistantly place great photos into this database. Why the bad tone? Especially since your use of a high-end digital camera ?

What's up dude? Maybe I should not speak of this -but are you so high and mighty that you have to cry about a few rejections ?

I speak rather sour and dark and gloomy in this forum but never in criticism of screeners or other photographers here. I bitch and moan sometimes about the "system". I complain sometimes about life - but come on Craig - you have been given your due - eh'?

Grow up Craig. Put the sarcasm to sleep. You are great sometimes. Please don't try to force it - cause it's not worth it...


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4503 times:

Craig yes it does look good. It also doesn't detract from the fact my original still has verticals. Would you prefer I upload them twice, you know I have in the past  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

But come on now, we gave you a break on this one

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/251691/L/

Do you really want to carry on about angles. If I was to have screened this shot (mine not yours), I would have looked at my shot and said well yes I can see a vertical, that's a pass. If there was nothing like a fenceline to guage it, I still would have, who am I to say what's right and wrong if I can't tell visually. If there was a building leaning, then NO. Unless of course other factors that have been mentioned in other threads (Do you really want me to post them or can you find them yourself) come into play. They all get accepted or rejected on what is a fair decision at the time.
Next w'll be complaining about this colour getting accepted over that colour.

Chill out, if it isn't Smoky in Sydney, enjoy a couple of days down at the airport. Unfortunately (well fortunately) for me I am tied up watching the Cricket, Rugby League and Bathurst Race, so no photography for me.


User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4496 times:

WOW-

I need to mind my "own business" or maybe get a "media" job. You fellas seem to be getting on with fun. I like it. Keep the comedy rolling...


User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4488 times:

Back to Collins post.....

I thought I would show you some of my last week rejections just so you can see you’re not on your own with strange (in my opinion) rejections

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DSC02816.jpg bad scan

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DSC02936.jpg bad distance

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DSC02956.jpg bad scan

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DSC02848.jpg bad scan

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DSC02718.jpg bad scan

All the above were rejected by the third screener, so 2 accepted 1 rejected.

Its very difficult to judge your own work, but I can see no reason to reject.

The screeners in my opinion do a great job 99% of the time and I accept that variations in opinions will forever be something that we will have to live with.

What I think would be nice is to be able to get the rejected screeners comments rather than just bad scan etc from (a screener) even if this was for photographers who say have over a 100 pictures on the DB, so not to waste screeners time to much.

But your honest opinion on the above would be interesting to hear.

All the very best

Derek Pedley


25 Cathay111 : Yo Glenn, None of that for me this weekend, I had the Bathurst Race all ready to go but have got Anna's Mum here for the weekend and Anna's in hospita
26 Post contains images Glenn : Well I guess I have to disagree just once more. Go FORD (even though they ain done to well this year )
27 Post contains images Andyhunt : What an interesting thread this has become. As usual, it degenerates. Craig: relax. Like planeboy has said, you take great photos, sometimes we all ge
28 DerekF : Trying to get the thread away from a bitching session, I recently had most of mine rejected for blurry, badscan etc. I don't agree with saying don't c
29 Skymonster : Before the "new" screeners were appointed, everyone with over a certain number of pictures in the database was e-mailed and asked if they wanted to /
30 Post contains images Sukhoi : Im sorry but I have to agree with Craig here..... Go Holden Cheers Paul (Preparing to watch the race live from the wrong side of the world!)
31 Post contains images Andyhunt : Paul, You are asking to get kicked out of our cliquey club aren't you!! More rejections for you Andrew
32 Post contains images Glenn : Well all I can say to you Paul is (Blows a big Rasberry) I hope you're worried about your cricket team. See what we are currently doing to the Pakista
33 Post contains images ADG : Loundes ... phrrrrrrr VH-ADG
34 Cathay111 : Back from hospital briefly! Nice pic Bron but he really belongs in a COMMODORE!!!!!!!!! Nice pic of Lowndesy anyway! Ok, gotta go again! C YA folks!
35 Post contains images ADG : No way Craig, Holden was built for... SKAIFE!!!! Not anywhere near the physical appeal of Loundes, but drives ok when he's in the right mood. VH-ADG
36 Cabbott : Guys thanks for the comments. It's very interesting to see how some people take rejection. I take my hat off to the screeners, it must be a hard job l
37 Cathay111 : Andy, Yeah I did get both e-mails to join the team as a screener, but both times I left the e-mails in a pile of others and never got around to applyi
38 Administrator : Wow, I just noticed you posted your Appeal link on the starting post of this thread Colin - that's a Bad Thing. Never make your appeal link public or
39 Administrator : Wow again, Craig had done the same thing! Time for some additional text on the appeal page. Thanks, Johan
40 Cathay111 : Sorry chief! It would be good if there was a link to the photos though that didn't feature the ACTUAL appeal button. So those who so desire could show
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...
Good Enough? (or Better Delete It...?) posted Tue Nov 14 2006 19:16:49 by JetCrazy
Don't You Just Love It! posted Mon Jun 26 2006 17:52:27 by Thowman
Thai Air Asia, Indonesia Air Asia Or Just Air Asia posted Fri Apr 14 2006 07:08:39 by Paparadzi
ArcSoft Photo Studio, Anyone Familiar With It? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 05:15:47 by A388
Rejected WTC Photo - Any Way To Rescue It? posted Wed Oct 12 2005 20:07:49 by Birdwatching
Bad Dirty Or Just Air Traffic posted Thu May 26 2005 21:31:33 by WakeTurbulence
Order Photo CD Or Scan Yourself? posted Tue May 17 2005 07:48:42 by Mrniji
Photography, Documentation, Or Just Bullseye? posted Sat Nov 23 2002 22:50:12 by Planephoto
Improvement? Or Lost Cause? posted Thu Jan 17 2002 22:42:09 by Osu_av8or
Flying Towards The Camera Or Away From It? posted Wed Nov 21 2001 10:41:25 by Thom@s