Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Feedback Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post-screening (JakTrax)  
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 585 times:

Hi all,

Bit disappointed with this one, done for contrast (originally) and now level on appeal. I'm not going to beat about the bush here - I don't get level rejections (and the three or four I've had in total have been based more on matter of opinion than fact) and consider myself a bit of a perfectionist wehn it comes to levelling. For anyone familiar with this spot, only the large concourse in the background is generally considered level - which makes this image level, since that's what I used primarily. One thing is is not is unlevel. Now low contrast; well..... that seems to be more a matter of taste than fact as the contrast looks about right to me. The head left a comment saying, "Looks like really poor light" - it was shot in full sun shortly after sunrise, so I'd hate to see what crap light looks like!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...3.3897d-abmb_pmi_190912_kn_291.jpg

If this site's preferences are for more contrast that's fine, but I'm sure any pro wouldn't see an issue with it. There's a big difference between saying, "That's not right for here" and, "That's not right full-stop".

Karl

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9401 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 575 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Looks level to me. What rotation did they say it needed (I assume CW)? If it needs any rotation, it's minimal enough that I probably wouldn't be able to accurately measure it....which to me, means it's level.

The light looks perfectly fine to me. The sun is clearly not too high in the sky. It's over to the right, but the whole side of the airplane is in the light....Strange.

Contrast also looks fine to me.

Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
There's a big difference between saying, "That's not right for here" and, "That's not right full-stop".

I take every rejection and critique here with a "...for A.net" added onto the end, since that's generally what's meant anyway.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2825 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 573 times:

Hi Karl,

Level and contrast look perfectly fine on my screen. I think this is another example (which we all seem to be getting lots of recently) of overly harsh rejections.

Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
The head left a comment saying, "Looks like really poor light"

  

I really think we need a debate about some of the goings on at the moment. I've been emailing head screeners for the last 2 weeks asking for clarification on a couple of issues and I'm either being totally ignored or given the silent treatment for some reason. Then when you post here, moderators remove posts. Not exactly good customer relations. You really can't win.

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
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 570 times:

Darren,

Thanks. Glad it's not just me. How can we put our trust in people who are finding faults where there are none? I'm sorry to say this but it needs saying - I have seen plenty of screener images accepted lately that have glaring faults; and even pointed one out to a head recently (who incidently agreed it had a fault and asked for a re-upload).

There seems to be a reluctance among screeners lately to reject each other's images. I don't expect anyone in authority to respond to this but if they'd like to see examples I'm more than happy to post them here. Enough of this hiding behind the A.net facade - that only hints to us that there is indeed an internal issue. If there's nothing to hide surely no-one will mind images being publicly aired here?

We are always told that we should show respect for the team, but in reality if the team had any respect for us as photographers they would at least give us an answer/explanation. I've often dismissed the rumours of there being a clique here but the evidence at present clearly points right at one!

I've had plenty of experience sussing out what people in authority are up to behind the scenes - and I'm rarely wrong.

Karl


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Allright, so I usually don't bite at troll-baiting, but can't let this go unanswered:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 3):
There seems to be a reluctance among screeners lately to reject each other's images.

Simply ludicrous for you to make such a statement without any hard knowledge. Do you know the rejection ratios of each screener? Didn't think so. In fact all screeners can have their own images rejected, but you would never know, unless they told you. Same thing for anyone else who supposedly gets favoritism. You only see one side of the story, what gets accepted. You have no idea how many of my images, or anyone else's who gets 'special treatment' get rejected, so best to keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, because you only end up looking foolish to those who actually know what happens behind the scenes. No one gets special treatment. No one. Some bad ones do slip through from time to time, but that can happen to anyone's image.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 3):
if the team had any respect for us as photographers they would at least give us an answer/explanation.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that most assertions made are based purely on speculation (like yours above), and don't really need explanation as they aren't based on any real fact.

Your image that started the thread was rejected by a head, and then again by another head screener on appeal. It does look a little flat to me as well, for what it's worth.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 557 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 4):
Your image that started the thread was rejected by a head, and then again by another head screener on appeal. It does look a little flat to me as well

So you're asying that us 'mere mortals' can't spot something you deities can? We're all wrong? It's not flat. Simple as. Often I look at my rejections in a dark room and I usually pick up on the rejection reason, but I've looked at this over and over and can't see anything wrong. And what about the comment about 'poor light'? Do you guys know some sort of inter-stellar super-sun that gives a different edge to your images?

Nothing wrong with the light and nothing wrong with the contrast. And certainly not unlevel.

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 4):
because you only end up looking foolish to those who actually know what happens behind the scenes

A bit like how the current screening process looks here on 'the outside'? Let me put forward a scenario. A young, enthusiastic guy shows promise and becomes a screener; he's nowhere near as experienced as the heads, but he gets a head's image from the queue that he feels has a fault. On the one hand he wants to reject, but on the other, it's a head's image and he fears ridicule should he not accept. And don't tell me that this can't happen because a) it's simple human nature, and b) you cannot profess to know the personality traits of people you've in some instances never even met. It's a well-documented area, that in which a person of lesser authority is often too nervous to point out a senior's mistakes.

This is not having a go at the screeners for the sake of it; this is simply asking for a bit of honesty and modesty from time-to-time. If we as photographers mess up, we're quickly told. When you guys mess up, it's swept under the carpet until it goes away. Like anything attributed to human behaviour, the screening process will always mess up - but it shouldn't be messing up with such astonishing regularity! As for our assumptions, if we're kept in the dark we can only assume.

I truly wonder if you guys on 'the inside' know about the scale of resentment escalating amongst the photographer community. If you don't, you should look harder.

Karl

[Edited 2012-10-25 13:27:25]

User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
So you're asying that us 'mere mortals' can't spot something you deities can?

lol, deity. Thanks Karl.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
Nothing wrong with the light and nothing wrong with the contrast. And certainly not unlevel.

Your opinion.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
Let me put forward a scenario.

Sure, why not. Nothing like speculative scenarios based solely on your interpretation of what goes on, and not actually based on any real facts.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
This is not having a go at the screeners for the sake of it; this is simply asking for a bit of honesty and modesty from time-to-time. If we as photographers mess up, we're quickly told. When you guys mess up, it's swept under the carpet until it goes away.

If there is an honest mistake made by the screening team, I'll be the first to admit it. Check any number of the feedback threads where I have disagreed with screening results and counseled appeals.


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2825 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 531 times:

Dlowwa,

I think part of the problem is when you get the silent treatment when asking for clarification or when you try and debate things here, moderators will often remove posts or parts of posts before getting a consensus. While I don't share all of Karls sentiments, there is a lot of negativity at the moment among contributing photographs with some puzzling rejections.

In my case, I have emailled head screeners on several occasions over the last couple of weeks to seek clarification on some rejections. There was no criticism of the screening process or standards, just about a few recent rejections that didn't seem consistent to previously accepted photos so I know what is or isn't acceptable in the future. When it feels like you are being ignored and getting the silent treatment, the result is the feelings and opinions like Karl is vocal about, it's just many aren't as vocal as Karl. I'm more than happy to open a thread with the questions I asked, but I fear it'll simply be removed or go down the wrong road, hence why I emailed. A response would be appreciated. I must add Royal did reply initially asking for links to the photos concerned, but that was all.

Thanks,

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
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2519 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 7):
In my case, I have emailled head screeners on several occasions over the last couple of weeks to seek clarification on some rejections.

Why don't you just email Dana? He is a head screener, he has always replied to my emails and he always replies on this subforum. In fact he is the only screener that posts in here.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 519 times:

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 6):
Your opinion

And that of TWO professional photographers I've spoken to in the past couple of hours. But what would they know, with their collective near-century of experience?

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 7):
I must add Royal did reply initially asking for links to the photos concerned, but that was all

Unfortunately this often feels like it's some kind of challenge or smokescreen; counting on you not finding and subsequently linking offending images. That said, I did actually get a full response from a head last time I forwarded an example. But was that an exception?

There appears to have developed some sort of superiority complex lately, reflected in some of the screening, which at present we are describing as 'inconsistent'. In many instances I would change this to 'overly harsh' or 'anal', becasue that's what it is. Look hard enough at anything and you'll find faults. What happened to, "We look for reasons to accept rather than reject"? Can you screeners really sit there, hand-on-heart, and tell us this is the case? I doubt many of us believe it is.

When we do get an answer, it always basically amounts to, "We're only human, mistakes will be made". Yeah, of course mistakes will be made, but, "The odd few slip through" is a real understatement! It's like a top football team losing every game in a season and the manager sitting there saying, "Well, mistakes will be made". Would the fans be happy with that? Better tactics, more communication and sharper preparation would minimise the crushing defeats. There's always something that can be done, and most here feel that not enough is being done to curb 'rogue' screening.

Inconsistent screening is one thing, but subsequently refusing to discuss it and bleating about how 'disrespectful' we are is just passing the buck.

It's such a shame as this is still fundamentally a decent site.

Karl


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 7):
I think part of the problem is when you get the silent treatment when asking for clarification or when you try and debate things here, moderators will often remove posts or parts of posts before getting a consensus.

There could be multiple factors in you not receiving a reply. I have seen only a single email from you, the one to which Royal replied. I saw no further emails after that. We have to sort through a large number of emails every day, so it is possible they might get missed from time to time. You can contact me directly if you need.

We (the screeners) have no control over what the moderators deem appropriate, (just as they have no control over what images are accepted), so any issues related to the forums or post deletions best be taken up with them.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9):
What happened to, "We look for reasons to accept rather than reject"? Can you screeners really sit there, hand-on-heart, and tell us this is the case?

Yes, I can. Again, I'll forgive your unfounded assertions, as you don't have access to the hard numbers. Here are the acceptance ratios for all submitted images:

Last week - 53.0
Last month - 53.2
Last six months - 53.1
Last year - 53.7

Read into them what you will, but your idea that a 'let's reject everything' mentality has suddenly set in simply (and demonstrably) isn't true.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 494 times:

I didn't suggest every screener had a 'let's reject everything' mentality. I do believe many try to screen as fairly as possible. But it would appear that there are one or two 'rogue' screeners, who spitefully seek to find the smallest faults by which to reject. It only takes a couple like this to tarnish the whole operation.

I had a rejection last week for 'over-exposed front portion of tail' - do you not find that a little excessive? Accepted on appeal incidently. And I know someone who had a rejection recently for 'grain in tail logo'. I mean, come on!

This months'a flavour seems to be 'over-exposed' and 'contrast'. Odd how we're all noticing this trend. Perhaps we've all suffered a collective lapse in our workflows.......???

First step to tackling a problem is to acknowledge it.

Karl


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2825 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 470 times:

Thanks dlowwa, I'll dig out the emails and pass them on to you. While I accept you must received lots and the odd few go astray, I'm not sure several from the same person all have. I'll contact you via pm so we can exchange email addresses. Thanks for taking the time.

I must agree with Karls last post. Many of us do exchange emails about rejections to ask each others opinions on things, sometimes before posting her for reassurance and there does seem to be a rejection reason of the week or month based on what reasons we get. Whether it's true or not, we're all experiencing the same things and it's unlikely we're all submitting photos with the same issues all of a sudden. Some of the rejections discussed by a few away from the forums, many of which are accepted on appeal, really need addressing. I rarely appealled anything up to this year but find myself appealing more and more.

Thanks again and for the moderators allowing this thread to continue. I think we need more open debates like this and should be what the forums are used for.

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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Post-screening (JakTrax)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format