Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bad Double - Can A Screener Explain This?  
User currently offlineAAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 548 posts, RR: 50
Posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's seems that in the past week or two I've been getting a high number of bad double rejections for shots I really feel it isn't warranted. For example, the other day I uploaded these two shots, admittedley of the same aircraft, and both were rejected for bad double.



OK, the same airplane, but two completely different views. Don't the instructions say pick your best 1 or 2 shots at most? OK, I thought maybe I had a previous picture accepted of this aircraft and that was why they were rejecting it for bad double. So I went into the database and found these two:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett



OK, I've got two shots of that aircraft in the database, both side-on shots but with the aircraft in the opposite direction (and the titles are different on each side of the aircraft). Neither of the two shots I submitted are the same angle as what's in the database and, furthermore, checking the shots of the aircraft on A.net there is no shot at all showing the angle of the close up above. I can accept the full body shot being rejected as a bad double even though it does show another angle, but it's hard to swallow the closeup being rejected as a bad double. So how do both of these get rejected as bad doubles?

On the same day I got the two following shots accepted of another aircraft.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett



The photo ids are 389177 and 389178 telling me that these were accepted by and added by the same screener.

So, what's the real story with bad double rejections? And, why don't the screeners treat them equally. It's obvious that there is different treatment by different screeners.

Art

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAndyhunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2939 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Art,

Simple, different screeners, different results. As stated before, they are human they sometimes do things differently. I know that as an ex-screener. But they are doing a good job........and for free.

I know you are not bashing them, but honestly there is no answer to your question......or prehaps you already answered it:

"It's obvious that there is different treatment by different screeners."

And that is why there is the appeal function.

Andrew





Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Art, were the two that were rejected taken on the same date as the one that's already on the database (the one taken from the same side)? If the new ones you uploaded was taken on the same date, then at least one of the two rejections was justified. If the two you uploaded were not taken on the same date as the one you already have on the database, then assuming the quality was OK we should certainly have accepted one, quite possibly both.

Andy


User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Art,

You have a very good point there. We are still in training and we are bound to make a few mistakes, so please appeal so we can get the feedback to improve.

Perhaps another explanation is that the baddouble was selected instead of badcommon so they may not be yours but someone else has a similar shot already in the database?

Regards,

Colin



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineAAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 548 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Andy,

The two in the database were taken on different dates in April. The two uploaded the other day and rejected for bad double were taken on July 20th so they have no connection to the pics in the database.

Art


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 2793 times:

Then assuming the quality is there, at least one of the two should have gone on, unless we were feeling really mean, in which case we might reject badcommon Big grin

Andy


User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

One shot should definitely have got in here. IF it was me I'd have accepted the first of the two, the second shot looks a bit ugly to me. It almost seems as if you were a bit late firing the shutter, just past side-on but not far enough past for one of those under-the-wing going away shots if you see what I mean? In this kind of situation it could be said to be badDouble and it's easier to tick badDouble than badIThinkYouWereAbitLateAndTheShotLooksUnbalanced  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineAAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 548 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Kingwide,

I hear what you're saying, but the kind of shot you're talking about isn't possible from the angle I was at. The shot, as is, was attempting to show as much of the markings as possible. I'd have taken the second one because there is no other shot like it of this aircraft in the database.

Art


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...
Can Someone Explain This To Me Please? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 04:00:23 by Qantas077
Can Someone Explain This posted Tue Feb 3 2004 21:15:49 by Espion007
Can Someone Explain Why This Was A Quality Reject? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:20:48 by AIRBUSRIDER
Would This Be Bad Double posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:28:15 by CallMeCapt
Does This Rate As A Bad Double? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 21:14:43 by Malandan
Wouldn't This Have Been A Bad Double? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 00:25:19 by Jorge1812
Confusion With This Bad-double. posted Wed Sep 21 2005 22:15:55 by Mx330
Is This "bad Double" ,"bad Common" Or Non? posted Wed Oct 13 2004 02:03:02 by Eksath
Bad Double - Do We Have To Go Through This Again? posted Wed Jul 7 2004 23:08:44 by Aagold
BAD MOTIV!Please Explain This! posted Sat Mar 13 2004 16:05:46 by VIAF