Early morning shot, sun just poppin up - pretty much as I remember it. I figured to 'lighten' the shot would take it out of context and probably blow some aspects'
'Soft', well I am struggling with that too and I know its been done to death on here (inc me) but i'm sure its probably justified.
I use white balance, threshold and levels/curves etc..It would have been useful (to me) if the screener had put a small note on so I can see where its gone wrong - So again any hints/tips/tricks to sort that one appreciated pls?
Tonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 940 times:
Thx both
Vik, if you get a minute i'd be interested in where you see image 1 soft please?
John, appreciate your feedback, albeit considered a tad bad to compare like for like here. That said, its again down to light at the time. The flag is indeed 'red'
Certain paint jobs react almost dichotomously to light changes giving vibrant to almost flat comparisons - so I guess a valid question to ask is by what 'colour' standard are 'Screeners' judging accept/rejection?
jpmagero From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 929 times:
I just had a batch rejected for bad color, so I'm far from the expert, but that's what I'm doing now...comparing to other shots of the same plane. Trying to make sure I don't go overboard in my editing and keep it close to other accepted photos in the db until,I get a better feel for a simpler workflow to tweak it just enough, and not too much.
cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1154 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 919 times:
I'll preface by saying I'm not a screener, and I get my share of rejections for color and soft too, but...
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Thread starter):
I use white balance, threshold and levels/curves etc..It would have been useful (to me) if the screener had put a small note on so I can see where its gone wrong - So again any hints/tips/tricks to sort that one appreciated pls?
I looked at it for a little while and at first could not decide, but I think it's just a little yellow. I took it into photoshop and slightly reduced the green and red in the curves, then pumped up the total curve just a bit. The result:
I would probably not brighten it this far in hindsight.
I don't know if this is necessarily better or if this would push it to acceptable, but it's the direction I would go - the whites seem cleaner, the temperature a little lower, and almost no detail was lost in the highlights.
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5): Titles, windows, and tail look a bit soft to me.
Same here. It was the Thomas Cook logo that first caught my eye, then the titles, particularly near the B757-200 script.
Tonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 767 times:
Okay I am gonna put this back in the queue to see what people think.
I'm very open minded but this smacks - You get a rejection which no one seems to understand and appeal based on good feedback then get a completely subjective knock back about 'centre' absolutely nothing to do with the appeal reason as stated.
Are you judging the appeal on the reasons stated or not? Hence, in this case - if the 'color' wasn't an issue on appeal why is it that 'centre ' now is or vice versa?
On a personal note I've got to be honest and say that I am finding hugh inconsistencies with A.Net now
I feel this is important and in need of some candor. Hopefully people will put their heads above the parapet because 'screeners' are not right all the time.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2572 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 762 times:
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 12): On a personal note I've got to be honest and say that I am finding hugh inconsistencies with A.Net now
You certainly aren't on your own with that. I rarely appealed screening decisions up to a few months ago but find myself appealing quite a few these days with many ending up being accepted. There's a lot of petty rejections in my view at the moment.
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 12): You get a rejection which no one seems to understand and appeal based on good feedback then get a completely subjective knock back about 'centre' absolutely nothing to do with the appeal reason as stated.
I experience exactly the same just over a week ago. Photo rejected for contrast and grainy, appealed to find the heads agreed contrast and noise were acceptable but was then rejected for centre, with a photo of the same aircraft type taken from the same position with the same angle accepted with the same composition (centring) the day after. Work that one out!
Personally, I think the centring of your photo is fine and it doesn't need to be any lower in the frame. It looks balanced as it is to me with many examples in the database with the same composition. I guess centring is just the thing being cracked down upon at the moment.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
Tonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 753 times:
Thanks Darren
I honestly feel people need to be more vocal about this - I've just had one accepted and one rejected 'grainy' in the last 15 mins - Yet I see photos from certain people that are grainy,soft and well...accepted.
I am now of the view its hit and miss with the screener you get. Real shame because theres some super stuff about and I do now wonder what i'm not seeing compared to what I'm being allowed to see.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 15, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 723 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 12): I feel this is important and in need of some candor. Hopefully people will put their heads above the parapet because 'screeners' are not right all the time.
We are not, and that's what the appeal process is for, to try and correct the mistakes. Your image should not have been rejected for color, but for center. Mistakes happen all the time, and we do our best to minimize this, and rectify the ones that do occur. No one denies errors are made.
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 14): Yet I see photos from certain people that are grainy,soft and well...accepted.
A common complaint that we hear all the time "you rejected mine when there are so many other of worse quality being accepted" but is rarely true. Feel free to provide some examples, and I guarantee that for nine out of ten them, what you claim will not be the case. People are just not very good at being critical of their own images, but are quick to find flaws in those of others.
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 14): Real shame because theres some super stuff about and I do now wonder what i'm not seeing compared to what I'm being allowed to see.
Spectacular or rare images rarely get rejected for minor flaws, but common ones do. You're assumption is based on what you have experienced submitting the latter (no offense). If it is the 150th image of a BA 744 landing at LHR, then yes, standards are going to be extremely strict. If you've got an a2a of a British F-4, then we're going to be much more lenient. Unfortunate for those of us who can't get access to shots like that, but that's how it goes.
Soaring1972 From Germany, joined Jan 2011, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 700 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15): Spectacular or rare images rarely get rejected for minor flaws, but common ones do. You're assumption is based on what you have experienced submitting the latter (no offense). If it is the 150th image of a BA 744 landing at LHR, then yes, standards are going to be extremely strict. If you've got an a2a of a British F-4, then we're going to be much more lenient. Unfortunate for those of us who can't get access to shots like that, but that's how it goes.
Nice to hear that! But is it true in reality?
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 13): I guess centring is just the thing being cracked down upon at the moment.
Well, personaly for me I can not agree with that. But my alltime "favourite" rejection is "needs CW rotation"!
Tonyholt777 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 667 times:
Dana
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15): People are just not very good at being critical of their own images, but are quick to find flaws in those of others.
- Certainly not my view, nor I suspect most who upload here regularly!
It is important that we are able to debate process and share views.
To be clear my point was A.Net ask you to be specific in your appeal submission, which I was, based on the rejection reason given me by the screener.
Are you saying that each and every appealed photograph is viewed afresh by the Head Screener? If yes, then its useful to know when formulating an appeal that you (Head Screener) will be looking at the whole composition again as well as the specific rejection reason(s).
Re 'high/low in frame my approach is for the overall composition of the shot. I believe Mick summed up centering by screeners in a reply to another question..."We are not looking for precision in centreing but for them to be about right...."
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 15): Feel free to provide some examples
Not something I thought you would advocate but one doesn't need to look far:
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, RR: 32 Reply 18, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 648 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 17): Are you saying that each and every appealed photograph is viewed afresh by the Head Screener?
Yes, this has always been the case. If I see a dust spot that was missed on originally, I will add it to the rejection, just as centering was missed on yours, it was added by the head screener on appeal. The appeals process is there to correct mistakes made on the first screening, be they rejection reasons that should or shouldn't have been added.
Quoting Tonyholt777 (Reply 17): Its an 'of interest' example given the new airline etc..
As I mentioned above, rare, old, and priority images often have more relaxed standards applied to them, so that image of importance, albeit with minor flaws, can be accepted. Again, this is nothing new.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 109 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8200 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7236 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2011, 161 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
