Bobster2
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:39 pm

I got a rejection for a nice picture of a Pan Am 707 taken in the early 60's. There are zero pictures of this plane in Pan Am livery on airliners.net. I submitted it as 1024x537 because 1024 is the minimum width for landscape mode. The rejection says the size is too small or the size is very unusual. OK, which is it, too small or very unusual? I can make it bigger but I can't change the proportions. Will a bigger size still be rejected as very unusual size because it's too narrow? I thought the standards were lower for rare pictures. What do they want me to do?

Thanks for any help.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:52 pm

Could you not crop the photo to change the aspect ratio? Perhaps to something like 1024 x 683?
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
 
Bobster2
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:02 pm

The airplane fills almost the entire width of the photo. If I crop to change the aspect ratio I will cut off part of the plane. That's why I'm so frustrated!
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
airlinelover
Posts: 5287
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:45 pm

Give us a link to the rejection part. Maybe we can look and see what we can do..

If all else fails, APPEAL!

Chris
Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
 
European
Posts: 1495
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:01 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 6:22 pm

Can U not give us a link to the photo? Like, But it on a Photobucket website and then post the link on here?

Thanks

European
Jimmi
Come on Ryanair! Come on BOH! BASE BASE BASE! Flying high in the skies...........
 
Bobster2
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:27 pm

This copy is reduced further in size (600x315), but I'm just trying to show the problem with the aspect ratio. I like it the way it is even though the ratio is 2:1. Since it is a rare picture I would hate to crop any of the plane out, and cropping the small empty space on the left doesn't help much. Thanks for looking.

"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
cHabu
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:58 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:40 pm

Hiya,

As with a lot off pics that get rejected, i wonder why. (Just as i wonder why a lot get approved.....)

I'd like to let you know that i do like this one.
It's a lot better then a lot off old pics on A.Net.

Perhaps you can upload the original scan onto myaviation.net ?

Bet the viewers on that website like it too.... 8-]

Bye, Chris.

Someday i'll fly away......
 
f4wso
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:04 pm

Perhaps cropping the left side and again between engine 1 & 2 will work.
Gary
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:10 pm

As with a lot off pics that get rejected, i wonder why.

Because they do not meet the standards of the site. The rules clearly state the requirements, if they are not met, they are not getting in.

Wietse
Wietse de Graaf
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:09 am

Don't crop it.

That is a great image. If aDOTnet doesn't want it up here, that is their loss. It is worth more than a thousand identical Southwest 737's taken this month.

There seems to be this idea among the screeners that if they reject a picture like this you will simply go back to 1963 and take a better one.

I have a number of pictures, decent, color pictures of prototypes and experimental airplanes, or the first two built, sequentially numbered sitting side-by-side. I don't even upload these anymore because they are best possible scans of pictures that are forty years old and they will be rejected. The criteria says they will make quality concessions for rare images but it just does not seem to be true.

I appreciate the glimpse of the picture. Thanks
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
LeanOfPeak
Posts: 496
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:18 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:42 am

Is there not more picture at the top and bottom on the original slide/print?
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:16 am

There seems to be this idea among the screeners that if they reject a picture like this you will simply go back to 1963 and take a better one.

Really? And how would you know such things? It is easy to sit here and type negative things, isn't it.

We try to hold uploaders to a certain standard. If you are scanning a picture and preparing it for the web, there is no reason (as an example) that the picture should be unlevel. Or the color be all wrong. Or cropped smaller than it needs to be. The fact that a slide or print might be 30 or 40 years old is irrelevant, take pride in your work.

The criteria says they will make quality concessions for rare images but it just does not seem to be true.

For anyone reading this, I will tell you, straight from the horses mouth, that this statement is a flat out lie. Not only do we "make quality concessions" but we work with our photogs to make their images as high quality as possible. Just because something is old doesn't mean it has to look like garbage. But there are the photographers who don't want to hear it, who aren't willing to make the adjustments neccesary to produce a quality picture.

I will let you decide which has spoken here.
 
RayPettit
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 9:04 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:25 am

I do not have the benefit of seeing the original print of this 707, but I'm at a loss as to why its been rejected merely because of the ratio of the image.

I take pride in levelling and cleaning my slides uploaded here, which are mostly 30 years old, but then I'm dismayed that some shots from the sixties and seventies get through which contain dirty marks which can clearly be seen.

Yes, its easy to type these words not being a screener, but there appear to be some inconsistencies in what is acceptable so I can understand why people get put out.

If you look at the 1960's pages here you will see a black and white airliner photo uploaded early January 2005 proportioned at 1024x522 ~ narrower than the 707 in question. Its had over 400 hits and so I would say that compares well with, say, a bulk standard side-on Southwest 737 shot uploaded at a similar time.

I respect the screener's decisions, but feel I have to help defend Bobster2's case and I hope he successfully appeals the image.
 
JetJock22
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:46 am

Clickhappy - I respect yall as screeners and know you guys take pride in your work, but yall dropped the ball real bad here. This picture is one of the finest old photos I have seen on this site, and I have seen quite a few, most of which are pretty shitty, based on their age. A few examples:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm I H McCrow


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Morris


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Varndell

- I fail to see what is wrong with the pan am shot. Much better than some of these from the same time period. I think we know what has spoken here, and it is not what you want us to believe clickhappy.

ps - no disrespect to the photogs whose pictures i put in here, just simply using them for comparison
 
Jan Mogren
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:16 am

It seems utterly important to keep the ratio. For what ?
Just because some might want a print???

/JM
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:57 am

(Bobster, please tolerate this modification of your shot.)
To my mind, converting the picture to a more conventional format detracts from the overall feel. The original emphasizes the 707's sleek lines and also highlights how much less hectic the airport environment was 40 years ago.





Clickhappy or any screener:
What then is the minimum height for an image 1024 pixels wide? The Upload FAQ section gives this unclear and contradictory guidance: "Furthermore the photos need to be bigger than about 1024x768 pixels. We suggest using sizes around 1000 pixels in width."

Thanks,
Mark
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
j.mo
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:29 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:18 am

If only you were a more popular photographer on here, we might be able to see it... Insane
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:22 am

Clickhappy perhaps you should count to ten before typing your response. A lot of anger there.

Did you read my entire post or just the part that apparently stepped on your toes? I don't think I've ever written one critical word about this site, the administrator or the screeners before. There is a word of wisdom in non-profit organizations: "Be kind to your volunteers."

I submitted several pictures of one-of-a-kind airplanes. Prototypes, experimentals, first of production, first two built, consecutively numbered sitting side-by-side and had them rejected badquality. I am talking about tail number not in database, aircraft type not in database and in some cases, not one example of the type left in the world, even in a museum. Rejected badquality for showing some sign of their age.

One of my pictues that is up in the database here was rejected badcenter the first time. I went in and constructed a ruler in the image. It was within three pixels of being perfectly centered. You guys do a good job but do you really think you can see 3 pixels?

I am now in posession of dozens of large format pictures of 1920s and 1930s military airplanes in Hawaii. These are so detailed that you can read (with a magnifying glass) stencils on a plane parked a hundred feet from the camera. I'm not going to bother to submit them because there are some cracks and stains. I will still submit a decent shot of a plain-vanilla airliner because that is what you seem to want and it is not my website.

The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions. That picture should be in the airliners.net database. That kind of picture is what many of us come here for.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
User avatar
Ryan h
Posts: 1609
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 7:11 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:18 am

I would ignore all the politicsa and crap here and put it on myaviation.net.
It is to good a picture to be sat in the dark on your hard drive unseen by anybody.
South Australian Spotter www.ryanhothersall.net
 
Bobster2
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:38 am

Hello again everybody. The crisis is almost over. I just spent the last two hours searching for the original negative. I don't why I cropped it so narrow when I scanned it the first time several years ago. It must have been an accident because I usually scan the full frame. It was long before I heard about airliners.net and image screeners. By the way, there's absolutely nothing of interest that got cropped out. Now I have to go install my scanner. I haven't used it for a couple years. I'm going to scan the negative again to prove to the world that I can follow the rules about aspect ratios. It also means that I'll have to fix the dust and scratches again. Thanks for all the nice comments about the picture. I hope the final result will be worth all the effort.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
jetav8r
Posts: 282
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 4:01 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:56 am

prove to the world that I can follow the rules about aspect ratios.

Can any one point me to any place where the aspect ratio rules are written (other than some post in the forum)? I remember searching a while back to no avail, it almost seemed like the rule was made up or didn't exist! (I'm in no way implying that it was).

Thanks,

Alex.

Edit: Come to think of it, I even asked here and got no answer. The only replies were other photographers who were just as confused as me.

[Edited 2005-01-23 02:02:26]
 
cyclonic
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:18 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:28 pm

C'mon screeners, cut this guy a break huh? Otherwise, you're going to end up with an elitist situation - none of us want that.
Keith Richards: The man that Death forgot...
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 pm

Slamclick said: The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions

On the contrary, the cropped picture of the 707 posted by Vzlet is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that many inconsistancies and problems can easily be corrected, even with old images. The original has a large area of wasted space on the right hand side which adds nothing to the image (I might have a different view of this by the way if the wing-tip had been included), and with the revised crop we now have something that works for both the subject AND airliners.net.

Furthermore, we've now learned that there is indeed more image above and below the subject, but that would necessitate a rescan. So the photographer can have it either way - cropped to exclude some of the wing as seen above, or to the original width but with more above and/or below so as to achieve an acceptable height/width ratio.

Clickhappy said: We try to hold uploaders to a certain standard. If you are scanning a picture and preparing it for the web, there is no reason (as an example) that the picture should be unlevel. Or the color be all wrong. Or cropped smaller than it needs to be. The fact that a slide or print might be 30 or 40 years old is irrelevant

Clickhappy is RIGHT ON. We do lower standards considerably for old and rare subjects, but not so much that a reasonably easily achieved correction (or as in this case, a rescan) could correct an issue. Judging old images is often the most difficult part of the job - balancing the need to get rare subjects onto the database against knowing (or having a very strong suspicion) that with a little more effort or a slightly different approach an even better result could be obtained.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Jan Mogren
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:44 pm

So the aspect ratio thing is because of possible prints wanted?
/JM
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:46 pm

So the aspect thing is a rule defined by the boss and applied by the screeners.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Jan Mogren
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:19 am

LOL !
Thanks Andy.

/JM
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:37 am

Is the aspect ratio rule something that can/will be revealed to the photographers?
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:40 am

If only you were a more popular photographer on here, we might be able to see it...

Ah come on, give the screeners a break here. They spend a lot of their time to process a lot of crap pictures (not reffering to any of the pictures named here). They do not need this unsubstantiated crap about bias towards photographers.
Wietse de Graaf
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:42 am

Well, now that we know there is more image outside the top and bottom framelines by all means un-crop it.

Just the other day I was thinking how we really need more black and white images of sky and concrete in the database.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:45 am

With my large numbers of old black and white photos of rare aircraft now on the database I feel that I have to step in in the defence of the screeners. They get it right most, though not all of the time.
Clickhappy has summed up the situation perfectly as I see it. I put a lot of time (ask my Wife) into scanning my photos but sometimes even the rarest aircraft will not get on because the negs have deteriorated so badly. I could scream at some that the screeners will never see.
The quality of a lot of mine leaves a lot to be desired but we cannot turn the clock back. If I could, they would mainly be in colour ! However, most of the aircraft in my photos are now our beer cans.
When I have done my best with a mouldy 30+ year old negative, I use the comments to tell the screeener. The choice is theirs to reject or accept but I am annoyed with myself when I get one for bad level or similar. A lot have taken me an age to get to the acceptable (note, not good) standard.
I am certain that this site started as a site for aircraft enthusiasts and it has evolved into a site for aviation photographers. We should not forget the reason for the site - the aircraft
Looking at the viewings for a lot of mine, I am sure that a lot of people find them boring, but they are a part of aviation history, a part not recorded by many people.
The Pan Am 707 is subjective and as Andy says, if the wingtip was there in the first place there would be a dilemma in cropping it. With it already missing, the crop actually looks better to me, and I would bet on it getting on.
Mick Bajcar
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:14 am

You might well be right but WHAT IS happening to the golden frogs in Panama?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:06 am

SlamClick.
I am probably the only one on here who understands where you're coming from on that one !
Presumably you did mean Costa Rica ?
Mick Bajcar www.thebdg.org
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:32 am

To be honest I had to look some things up.

I used to see the golden frogs along the creeks in the jungle-covered mountains around El Valle de Anton, Panama. May have been toward the southeast end of their range. This was back in the late 1960s.
 Smile
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:35 am

Back on topic:

I sure would like to see some favorable resolution of this issue. That is a tasty, even if imperfect, photo of a classic 707 in its natural habitat - (PanAm 1960s) It would be a valuable addition to this database.

The plane was a thing of beauty and this shows the elegant, slim lines and slender, swept wings.

Hope you can manage a crop that satisfies the screeners.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
cboyes
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:08 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:13 pm

Vzlet

Is the aspect ratio rule something that can/will be revealed to the photographers?

You had me rolling around on the floor with this one.  Laugh out loud

I wouldn't mind being brought up to date on the aspect ratio rule either.

CB
 
rampkontroler
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 1:54 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:19 am

"Slamclick said: The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions

On the contrary, the cropped picture of the 707 posted by Vzlet is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that many inconsistancies and problems can easily be corrected, even with old images. The original has a large area of wasted space on the right hand side which adds nothing to the image "


You may not have the wingtip of the 707 in the original shot, but you would never know that was a DC-8 at the other gate behind it if you only saw the cropped shot! "Adds nothing to the image?" I think not! I like the whole airport, not just the subject planes. Just my 2 cents worth. I like it.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Chuck
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:07 pm

This shot was added today.

For all you screener haters out there all I can say is "have a nice day."
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unusual Size? But It's Rare.

Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:20 pm

Clickhappy you seem a little bitter. I have no idea what kind of communications you have with the would-be uploaders here, so perhaps it is justified. But if you think you can conclude from my remarks that I "hate" the screeners you are much mistaken.

I submit the best picture I can get out of the original shot. If you reject it, I accept that and move on. I never re-submit. I never appeal. I never post a "why did they reject my masterpiece?" thread. Most of the time I agree with the screeners when I bother to read one of those threads.

However . . .

That does not mean that you guys are perfect. It does not mean that no criticism can ever be made of your decisions. It is your website, you choose whether or not you even want to let us read that criticism. You get the last word.

What more do you want.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests