Cathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
Is the appeal queue being screened at all? Reason I ask is that we're prompted to appeal poor screening decisions and then they just sit and do nothing for over a month - not exactly an ideal situation on a website that is all about it's photos. I think a little too much emphasis is going into other areas of the site and the original mission of a.net now comes second to the money - after all we don't have to pay money to upload do we?
The photos are what make people come here and it's hard enough as it is to get photos accepted that are slightly out of the ordinary. Perhaps a reason another site is doing so damn well at the moment with it's daily hit rate increasing in a huge way. Don't get me wrong, I love airliners.net but I just don't think we're going in the right direction. I personally have had some nice shots rejected for the most obscure reasons and yet every day I see shots added that are by no means airliners.net material.
Pardon the pun, but let's re-focus on what makes this site tick along so nicely before any more of our top quality photographers leave.
And screeners, please don't take this as a personal attack - I admire the time you spend screening as opposed to working on your own photos (the reason I didn't ever apply for a position!).
And I'm happy for any comments on the above rejections
Cathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
Thanks EGGD, I'm a big hater of oversharpening - I've done these out as far as I'd happily go before it get's that oversharpened jagged look. And agree, the jet blast is the key cause of that "soft" look.
I'd sooner have it a fraction under than a fraction over - the difference is a good smooth looking shot or a rough, jagged, visibly oversharp kind of shot. I don't want mine looking that way. Get my drift here?
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1589 times:
I understand, I'd have most likely added them but then again i'm not a screener .
As far as i'm concerned, if I let some like these into the database, NOBODY would notice, if I rejected them, and then the photographer asked for them to be critiqued, then we have a huge debate.. So yea i would've added them because you need a sharp eye to spot the softness anyway.
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1561 times:
The 707 looks oversharpened near the engines and soft near the main fuselage- would try some selective sharpening there . The 767 looks great to me- maybe just resize to 1024 and add a tiny bit of USM?...
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
we're prompted to appeal poor screening decisions...
Just to correct that misconception once and for all:
No, you are not prompted to "appeal poor screening decisions". You're prompted to appeal screening decisions you disagree with. There's a big difference. Examining Johan decisions on appeals (all screeners get copied on Johan's final decisions), typically 90% or more of appeals get rejected, indicating that the vast majority of screening decisions are not poor, but in fact are actually correct.
As far as the length of time it takes for appeals to be processed is concerned, this as you know is Johan's department...
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
And I'm happy for any comments on the above rejections
The 707 is difficult to justify on the basis of the number of pictures we already have of it. Even on my laptop screen I can see noticable noise in some of the solid colour areas. If I had to guess, I'd say that in the original image the airplane is somewhat smaller than we see in the final result, and you've cropped the image rather agressively to achieve a picture that you hope has greater impact. I've been there, seen that, done it myself - sometimes it works, but sometimes when you push it a bit too much the noise comes out. Of course, its not helped by the jet efflux and exhibits some sharpening artifacts anyway, but I very much doubt whether sharpening more will fix it.
The 767 is probably a little less cut and dried as far as I'm concerned, but it does show some similar signs to a lesser extent - its more difficult to be clear about it using the laptop screen right now, but I do remember seeing that one during screening last night and feeling that it didn't make a convincing case for itself one way or the other.
Cathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1516 times:
Thanks for the input Andy, appreciate it. Bboth have been subjected to very minor cropping - not enough to bring out distortion as such but I'm hearing where you're coming from mate! Higher ISO setting on the 707 shot would probably be responsible for the little extra noise.
There is a little "noise" as you describe but certainly no more than has been visible in uploads I've done before. I personally think the 707 one is a ripper and like the Australian one more than some already in the database, but it's my opinion only!
I did appeal the decisions based on them being equal to alot of other pictures of many different aircraft being uploaded every day. I personally think the quality is of the easily acceptable variety. Based on the "noise" we're talking about very few scanned shots would be deemed good enough (excluding all those golden oldies!).
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
I'm with you on this one Craig, I was just thinking this the other day actually. More for my photos that were passed to Johan for a decision. At this point I'd rather just have them rejected so I can have another try at them after adjusting, instead of waiting about 3 months (yes I have one waiting for 3 months) just to get rejected by the boss. I know he's busy, but apparently he's too busy for this que, and if so, the "passed to Johan for final decision" que needs to go.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1458 times:
I've just looked at those two pictures on the big screen here at home, hoping to come to a more conclusive judgement (of my own, of course!). My opinion on the 707 hasn't changed, and had I seen it in all honesty I'd have done same if I'd screened it. The 767 is a toughie and like I said I ummed and ahhhed about it when I first-screened it last night. Could be a harsh rejection. It'll be interesting to see what the boss makes of that one.