Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Appeal Queue Screening  
User currently offlineCathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2685 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

http://www.rwy34.com/craig/n707jt_3_8jul03.jpg
http://www.rwy34.com/craig/ogl_ao7863_2_13jul03.jpg



10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2663 times:

Craig - sharpen them both up a bit, the fuselage on both is soft probably from the jetblast. Apart from that they are good enough, we all make mistakes  Big grin

User currently offlineCathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2657 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?


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2652 times:

I understand, I'd have most likely added them but then again i'm not a screener  Smile/happy/getting dizzy.

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.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3515 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

Perfect shots! I wouldn't sharpen more.

Daniel


User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

The 707 looks oversharpened near the engines and soft near the main fuselage- would try some selective sharpening there  Smile. The 767 looks great to me- maybe just resize to 1024 and add a tiny bit of USM?...

Nice shots..

Serge


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2598 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...

Andy


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2595 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.

Andy


User currently offlineCathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2579 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!).

Thanks again for the input mate!



User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2574 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.

Brian - SPOT THIS!


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

Craig,

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.

Andy


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...
Appeal Queue posted Mon May 30 2005 09:19:55 by Granite
Photos In Appeal Queue posted Sun Oct 24 2004 19:12:45 by United4EverDEN
Appeal Queue - Missing Photos? posted Tue Oct 19 2004 08:11:05 by Spacecadet
Appeal Queue posted Fri May 7 2004 08:15:02 by Paulc
Appeal Queue Question posted Thu Apr 29 2004 05:40:08 by Concord977
Appeal Queue posted Mon Dec 1 2003 02:05:47 by Lanpie
Appeal Queue - Gone! Where? posted Tue Aug 26 2003 14:43:08 by JetTrader
Photo In The Appeal Queue Since Over A Month Now. posted Sun Oct 6 2002 13:15:24 by Rol
Appeal Queue And Photo Stats posted Mon Sep 23 2002 10:00:40 by Bruce
Appeal Queue Problem? posted Wed May 8 2002 08:56:17 by Paulc