Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejection Help Needed!  
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4045 times:

I just recently had a photo rejected.

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=JUNE133.jpg

It's a NWA A319. I don't see many shots of closeups with A319s of NWA here. It received a rejection due to the aircraft not being fully visable. When you zoom in for a closeup, parts of the aircraft will no longer be visible! I thought this shot was pretty good for a 2 mp camera!!!! I also thought that the cool reflections would add. Any suggestions on what to do, or shall I let this one go as well!? I came here because I am puzzled! Thanks for all help that I receive!

co

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDelta777-XXX From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

I love it... don't think it should have been rejected.  Yeah sure

Hank


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9664 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3979 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

well, what was the rejection reason?

User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

It received a rejection due to the aircraft not being fully visable.

co


User currently offlineAA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3960 times:

Thats a weak ass reason. Its a great picture. Maybe the screeners need a vacation.
Good shot Continental.



Go big or go home
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Thanks!!!! That was very kind! I will reupload, and hope that it gets in!!

co


User currently offlineLN-ATC From Norway, joined Jul 2001, 62 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

To me this photo seems a bit "half close up/half regular". If your intention was to shoot a close up, you should have zoomed even more. You would've get rid of the empty space in front of the plane as well.


Anders Presterud, Stavanger, Norway
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

I think it is closeup enough to be called a closeup. I didn't want to zoom in anymore, I'd loose the engines.

co


User currently offlineCrank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1564 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

It's a great photo, it should be accepted.

User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

Its a very nice shot Continental... but not all nice shots get accepted necessarily.

A.net happens to be the highest quality image database of its kind, but that does not mean there are not preferences or perhaps even fetishes at work in what will or will not get accepted.

Why don't you simply appeal per the policy already in place to find out where the image stands, rather than try to undermine the process by simply adding it again?

Tom


User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

I'm never going to appeal. Johan always rejects them. Plus I don't think Johan is accredited to tell me if my pic is of good quality or not, he's not like Joe who has been taking photos for decades.

co


User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

I'm never going to appeal. Johan always rejects them. Plus I don't think Johan is accredited to tell me if my pic is of good quality or not, he's not like Joe who has been taking photos for decades.

Sorry there John- but it still is a private website, owned by Johan like it or not. The appeal function was created as a last resort- its the end of the line of an image unless later on you are somehow able to improve it severely- its the standard itself you are submitting it to- if you follow.

My thoughts.. anyway.

Serge

[Edited 2003-06-19 05:42:10]

User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

As for your photo- great idea but it would most likely be accepted a lot easier if you zoomed out to include the tail- or zoomed in to half the engines.. I can show you what I mean by manipulating it in PS if you want.

Serge


User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

That's how it showed straight from the camera. I zoomed in to show upclose of the fuselage. I know, I'll continue to not appeal, I don't care if Johan doesn't like my pics, I still don't think he's accredited to, if he took photos for decades then I could see. I've had pics rejected, I bothered not to appeal but to simply put them back in the queue, and they were accepted! Thanks for the help Serge!

User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

I have to agree with Serge here.

In my personal preference, I wouldn't accept it. It just doesn't seem right without the tail section. If it was cropped closer to just include the engines, it would be fine, but it seems just to be confused between the both ideas.



Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3808 times:

Ok, whatever. I'm going to keep uploading it until it gets in. It's better than some of the crap I see here.

co


User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

"I'm going to keep uploading it until it gets in"....that's not the type of thing you admit to....

Part of the rejection process is to make you a better photographer, it let's you know what is wrong with your photo.

How many times will you have to put it into the queue before you give up?



Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Actually you're right, if it doesn't get by in 1 to 3 times I send it to the 'other' site where it gets in like it should.

co


User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Strictly speaking you shouldn't re-upload unchanged photographs at all. One uploader in the past has been temporarily banned from uploading to the site because of consistent re-uploads of unimproved images.

Whilst I understand that you are simply trying to exploit some of the consistency problems inherent in the screening process, be advised that we have introduced new mechanisms into the process specifically aimed at catching this kind of re-upload approach.

If you don't like the decision, appeal. If you don't think Johan will let the shot in on appeal then, with respect, you probably shouldn't be uploading it in the first place.


cheers,


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Why shouldn't I be uploading? I have the right. I improve the photos everytime I reupload. When I reuploaded, I cropped it a little better. I'll never appeal, I doubt Johan even looks at the photos...

co


User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

All I said was that you shouldn't re-upload an unchanged photo. if you have made an improvement to the photograph then there is no reason for you not to upload the new photograph.

J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3762 times:

Thank you. If I ever reupload, I do make changes to the photo.

co


User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

Now Johan rejected the appeal as low quality. These people on this site are nutcases.....

co


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

Now Johan rejected the appeal as low quality. These people on this site are nutcases.....

No they're not. Leaving aside the cropping issue which I will admit can be immotive, Johan's assessment is fair in my opinion... It falls into the "badscan" category - OK, so it may be digital, but non the less there's too much noise in the solid color areas, especially the grey. Without seeing the original, I have no idea whether the problem can be solved.

Andy


User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While I think the photo is quite nice, I think you should give it a rest.
There's no need to go crazy and call people names just to get a picture on here........
You like the picture, that is all that matters! Upload to another site if you desperately want other people to see it.

Tim



Alderman Exit
25 Post contains images EGFF : "Ok, whatever. I'm going to keep uploading it until it gets in. It's better than some of the crap I see here." "Now Johan rejected the appeal as low q
26 Post contains links and images Captainmatt : MY opinion probably isn't worth much to any of you... However, John I like your photos. And this photo to me is sweet. As a regular Joe, that apprecia
27 Continental : Thank you very much Matt! That was kind! I just really wish my pic was in this database for everyone to see! co
28 Post contains images Sonic99 : If the quality of the photo is bad (with parts of the aircraft missing) although it's a perfectly great photo then what is the REAL reason behind the
29 Cicadajet : Joe's shots are entirely different. There's a better balance to the subject, while still providing dynamic visual tension that conveys size and power.
30 Ckw : I think what's being forgotten is that Co's shot also has significant colour noise. Cheers, Colin
31 Continental : Keep in mind Colin, I don't have $8000 like you do to spend on a camera. It seems that only people with nice cameras get photos on here. co
32 Ckw : The reason I've got money to spend on new equipment is from money earned shooting on camera equipment, which, looking at your profile, is older than y
33 Craigy : I like your shot a lot, and the reflections really make it good. The only thing I can see against it is the digital noise, especially on the grey part
34 Continental : I always shoot with ISO 100. Colin, I just got a little pissed because I thought that was my best shot ever with my 2 mp camera. co
35 Ckw : Yeah, I understand that feeling - I've had favorite shots dumped as well. But A.net is not the be all and end all ... like any publication, it has par
36 C-GRYK : Grow up Continental! Your attitude disgusts me... you seem to think it's a right of yours to have your photos added to the database. You seem to be th
37 Continental : First off, calm down buddy. I discarded this photo like last week. I have every right to say what I want, so I am, and I did, and I do NOT regret it o
38 Post contains links and images Glennstewart : Hi Continental, I've just seen this post, and have only recently started to post anyway. I'm a new screener and finding it harder than I thought I wou
39 Continental : Thank you Glenn, that cleared everything! That's basically what I wanted to hear. Now I know to include the entire fuselage in the future. Damn, that
40 Glennstewart : Continental, You're right. Fantastic shot of the Airbus with reflections, but nipping that tail end nipped your chances of uploading it in the butt. I
41 Post contains images Continental : Ok cool! But you have to admit, it was a pretty good shot for a new photographer shooting with a C700 2mp camera! co
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...
Yet More Rejection Help Needed posted Wed Jun 28 2006 22:15:14 by Derekf
Rejection Help Needed posted Tue Mar 7 2006 04:04:34 by Garri767
Quality Rejection Help Needed posted Sun Feb 26 2006 21:45:37 by Kukkudrill
NOA_Quality Rejection Help Needed posted Fri Nov 25 2005 17:41:44 by Kukkudrill
NOA-grainy Rejection. Help Needed! posted Tue Aug 30 2005 22:49:28 by EZEIZA
Bad Motive Rejection Help Needed posted Wed Aug 24 2005 07:23:41 by Kukkudrill
Badquality Rejection Help Needed posted Sun Jun 5 2005 19:19:40 by Kukkudrill
Badquality Rejection Help Needed posted Sat Mar 5 2005 12:38:56 by Kukkudrill
Badexposure Rejection Help Needed posted Mon Feb 28 2005 11:35:41 by Kukkudrill
Rejection Help Needed - Opinions Sought posted Wed Jan 19 2005 09:57:12 by Thowman