Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:21 am

HI to all,

I'd like to receive a clarification by the airliners net screeeners about a rejection to my shot... I don't believe in that!!!!

About 10 days ago a screener rejected me a shot a an A 332 of AP (first registration in A.net database only for "info" reason, in your regulation form in the "reason of rejection" section you wrote that if you reject a shot only for info reason you invite us to reupload the same version of the shot and surely in the next screening process it'll be accepted.

However I made what you requested but the same shot that (10 days ago) respect your standards and was rejected only for "info" reason my shot yesterday was rejected (for 2 reasons???????) for "grainy" and "level" reasons after my second upload of the same file!!!!

I only correct the registration and re-uploaded it in your database!! Nothing else...

Now, I'm very disappointed about this situation because I don't believe in that... 14 days ago you told me to correct only the info (the registration was wrong because i wrote EI.DIR instead of EI-DIR) but I correct it and now you rejected it for other reasons... (the same version of the shot!!!!!).

If my shot was grainy and unlevel why didn't you tell me it before?! Why didn't you tell me that in the first rejection of it and you refused it only for "info" reason making me sure to be a perfect shot from a tecnichal point of view??

I tried to put my shot in the appeal queue to be reviewed by a head screeener telling him the reason of my appeal to have the shot accepted... but after some hours yesterday evening he refused my appeal.

I want you to know that before my first upload (and before the first rejection) a screener, Eric Fortin suggested me to make a CCW rotation to have the shot accepted sending me an exemplification version of my shot I had in queue modified by him from his point of view... How is it possibile that it happened this thing???

Sincerely if a screener suggests me something to do I believe in that and I follow his advice because I believe that it's the right way to have a shot accepted.

The screener should know more things than the uploaders and should have more experience... Sincerely I believe that Eric is a good screener but for me this situation is very absurd, and I'd try to understand more...

I downloaded the two rejected versions of the shot on my computer, if you want I could send them to you by e-mail... you can see the date of the 2 shots and make a comparison between them... and notice that they're perfectly identical!!!

I don't want to be polemical but I want to receive some clarifications possibily by the screeeners directly in this topic answering me... and the opinion of the ohter members of the forum...

Thanks a lot in advance...


Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-24 00:22:29]

[Edited 2008-07-24 00:23:33]
 
deaphen
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:57 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:39 am

I think this thread is useless without the concerned picture, no one can help you unless you post the picture.

Regards
Nitin
I want every single airport and airplane in India to be on A.net!
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:01 am

I'll post you the two pictures in this thread as soon as I'll be at home... no problem. I'm not on my computer now...  

I can't link you the rejection shots in this case because I made the appeal two times (for the first rejection first and after for the second one...) so in my personal rejections list page the two shots aren't visible in the "large version" but I've downloaded it before the appealing rejections on my computer, so that's no problem for viewing them... I'll post them here...

But imagine that the same picture that was rejected only for "info" reason before and rejected for other two reasons after... what would you think about that in this situation?? If the first version would be accepted with the correct registration the problem doen't exist in my opinion... but surely I'll upload the two shots in the next hours in this topic.

Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-24 01:18:08]
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:41 am

I sympathise. This is a long-standing issue - when shots are rejected, the rejection notice does not normally include all possible reasons that would justify rejection, but only the first (most obvious) one seen by the screener.

When shots are resubmitted on appeal, they are re-screened and other defects may come to light.

It is an unsatisfactory situation, I agree.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:00 am

Quoting Viv (Reply 3):
the rejection notice does not normally include all possible reasons that would justify rejection, but only the first (most obvious) one seen by the screener.

It's not correct in my opinion, It's important for the photographer to know all the the rejection reasons in the first one before making some changes, not after.

Quoting Viv (Reply 3):
When shots are resubmitted on appeal, they are re-screened and other defects may come to light.

I'm not referring to the appeal screening results in particular... I'm referring to the second upload I made, completely separated from the first one Do you understand now??

In the second upload my shot was rejected for other two reasons and the absurd is that in the Airliners.net regulation form in the "rejection section" the screeners advice you to reupload the same version of the shot you uploaded firstly to be accepted in case of only "info" rejection. What should I've done?? I had to modify it for the second upload without running the risk to have my shot rejected for other reasons?? I prefered to follow the advice of the screeners... it's seems to me the right way.

I only follow the regulation and anything else!!

So why did anyone rejected me the shot for "grainy and level" in my first upload also with "info" reason?? (I repeat... before its first screening I made a CCW rotation like Eric told me to do, he screened it before the other screeners only because I put it in the priority screening queue before because of its first registration in the database... This is an absurd situation...) The rejection for "level" in particular was the last thing I expected sincerely.

This second unexpected rejection affected also to my acceptance ratio, and I couldn't do anything to avoid it because I preferred to follow the regulation about "info rejections" without correcting the image but only uploading it writing the right registration.

Before this double rejection I had more than 80% of accepatance ratio but now for this episode It felt to 60%. I'm very disappointed about that!!


Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-24 03:02:39]

[Edited 2008-07-24 03:03:21]

[Edited 2008-07-24 03:04:00]
 
javibi
Posts: 1295
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:54 am

Welcome to A.net, Andy.  Smile

j
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:28 pm



Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 4):
I'm not referring to the appeal screening results in particular... I'm referring to the second upload I made, completely separated from the first one Do you understand now??

When pictures are re-uploaded after a rejection, they are screened again and undergo the normal screening process, which means they have to pass three screeners. If one of them finds a flaw, it gets rejected. The screener who rejected your shot for info, probably only looked at this very obvious mistake and rejected it before getting a chance to discover the other flaws. After re-uploading at least one screener found the others. Do you understand now??

And maybe you should've posted a link to the photo in the meantime, to get some input on the subject.

I take it you don't have a lot of photos in the database yet, as one rejection normally can't hurt your acceptance ratio by more than 2%, and you say yours dropped more than 20% with those two rejections??
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:36 pm

It's a rejection, it happens, no need to whine like that about it. Appeal it if you think you are right, or fix it if you can and move on. You aren't the first to have this happen to, and surely not the last.

Get used to it....it's a one strike you're out situation.
 
codeshare
Posts: 1689
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:23 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:36 pm



Quoting Deaphen (Reply 1):
I think this thread is useless without the concerned picture, no one can help you unless you post the picture.

Yes and no.

One thing is the missing picutre.

Second thin is the rejection process: first you get the info rejection, and then you upload the same picture with the correct info, wait another 2 weeks (or however long it is now) and get another rejection for other things. That is obsolete. Why not mark all the rejection reasons at once then insted of wasting uploaders' and screeners' time ?

KS/codeshare
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
 
bubbles
Crew
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:44 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 6):
as one rejection normally can't hurt your acceptance ratio by more than 2%, and you say yours dropped more than 20% with those two rejections??

I don't understand that, either. For me, it doesn't really matter to drop 2% acceptance ratio.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 7):
Appeal it if you think you are right, or fix it if you can and move on.

 checkmark 

What I can suggest here is to fix the problems and upload the photo again.

_Hongyin_
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:10 pm

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 8):
first you get the info rejection, and then you upload the same picture with the correct info, wait another 2 weeks (or however long it is now) and get another rejection for other things. That is obsolete. Why not mark all the rejection reasons at once then insted of wasting uploaders' and screeners' time ?

I agree with you... I think that wait so long to know that your shot doesn't respect the screeners standards after more than a week isn't very good in my opinion expecially if the the shot I'm referring to'd be the first registration shot in the database, It should be important for me to know all the wrong things of my shot imediately to correct it as soon as possibile and reupload the shot after few hours...

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 6):
The screener who rejected your shot for info, probably only looked at this very obvious mistake and rejected it before getting a chance to discover the other flaws. After re-uploading at least one screener found the others. Do you understand now??

I didn't know about this method... I thought that the screener would have looked for all the flaws of my image and not to stop at the first one. I think that if you stops imediately you don't give to the photographer the opportunity to improve his shot... doing so I don't know if the shot respects your standards... Do you understand what I mean??  

In this way my acceptance'd fell down for two times, the first one for the only "info" reason and the second for other reasons you didn't explain in the previous rejection (after more than one week...a very long wait for a shot that should be the first registration in the database, not very common...)

This isn't a very good situation for people that send you their shots in my opinion.

Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-24 07:11:55]
 
User avatar
acontador
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:36 pm

Hi Andrea,

First let me say that I fully sympathize with you, I can totally understand your frustration and I see your post as a mean to express it and "let some steam off".

I had a look at what happened (unfortunately I cannot link to your rejected pictures, you will have to link to them), and I think I have more or less an idea what occurred.

A few data:
- Your first upload was screened and rejected for info on July 10th.
- Your second upload was screened and rejected for level and grainy on July 23rd.
- In the meantime, the first shot of this particular registration was accepted into the DB on July 21st.
- Today you have 6 pictures in the DB.

Now please allow me to explain a few things that hopefully will help you understanding our system and how it worked in your particular case:

- The info rejection means that part of the info you submitted is wrong or missing. Now, since your first upload was under a wrong registration (one that doesn't exist), then during screening we are going to see "0 pics in the DB", which in your case INCIDENTALLY was correct, but we have no way to check for it. Accordingly, there is no way we are going to accept a picture with the wrong registration, even if it would be the first one of that particular registration in the DB. Since this is such a big "no-go", the screener probably immediately just rejected your picture, and most probably didn't even have another look at it.

- When you receive a rejection for ANY reason, you as the uploader have to make sure the new upload meets all our standards. How are we screeners supposed to know if you just uploaded exactly the same edit, or changed something? We don't, and thus we have to screen your picture all over again as it was the first time you uploaded it.

- When you upload a picture of a registration that is not present in the DB, we tend to be more lenient during screening as it is deemed to be a "rare" picture. Unfortunately for you, before your second upload was actually screened, we accepted the first shot of this particular registration into the DB. Accordingly, when your picture came up for screening, we applied basically the same standard as for any other picture during screening, and it was (correctly) rejected for level and grainy.

- Here is the relevant part of the FAQ for info:

Quote:
If this reason was the only one given in the rejection email, please re-upload the photos and pay high attention to supplying the correct info.

Please have a close look at the wording. It says "please re-upload", it doesn't say "please re-upload exactly same edit". In other words, what you read is an encouragement to upload again your picture and not simply forget about it, it doesn't say you have to re-upload your very same edit with no changes.
Having said that, I can see how this can be misunderstood and I think we should change that wording to make it clearer.

- Since you have uploaded so few pictures, one or two rejection will have a huge impact on your acceptance ratio. But this works both ways, as a few acceptances will increase it again very quickly! In any case, for you this is a temporary problem that will tend to smooth out once you get closer to 50 uploads.

Finally, I agree that ideally on each rejection the screener hopefully should include all rejection reasons to help the uploader improving his picture for a re-upload. But as you may have seen in other threads, not everybody seems to be happy with that...However, we cannot be blamed for the possible flaws your pictures might have - we are only here to point them out. The responsibility for the info and quality of an uploaded picture lays with the photographer, so please use all possible means to achieve that, like reading and understanding our upload guidelines, using the Photography forum to ask your fellow photographers for advice (see pre-screen thread), and also have a look at other guidelines that are available on the web.

Hope it helps  Smile .
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:22 pm

Great post Andres!  thumbsup 
Airliners.net Crew - Head Photo Screener
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:36 pm

Thank you Andrés... a lot of things are more clear now... I'm very frustrated for the things that happened, Fabio Ferioli (the photographer that uploaded the first shot in the database is a friend of mine). I knew before that he had got his shot in queue, for this reason I tried to put my shot in the appeal queue after its first rejection for "info" because I was sure that probably you could have accepted his shot like the first in the database (I want to underline that his shot is excellent, and deserves to be the first registration uploaded in the database  ).

Quoting Acontador (Reply 11):
the screener probably immediately just rejected your picture, and most probably didn't even have another look at it.

Doing that from a point of view is a quicker way to invite the photographer to upload the shot imediately and correct any errors but from the other "side of the coin" like we say in Italy the photographer thinks that his shot respects your standards and that the info reason is the only one thing that needs a correction...

As soon as I arrive at home I'll send here the link of my shot so you could advice me how to rotate it in this topic (however Eric Fortin in his priority screening told me to rotate it in CCW giving me an exemplification shot modified by him, i appreciate his help and I made what he requested uploading my shot with the same rotation adviced by him... but one of the reasons of rejection was that at the end).

What do you think about that??

In the "comment to screeners" space in the two times I uploaded the shot I suggested them not to be deceived by the lamp-post located on the right of the frame and some houses in the background that seemed to be tilt, that position could deceive you, the shot was taken from a terrace located in front of the runway but you look not to the east but to the north-east... you aren't perpendicular to the rwy when you shoot... the effect of the perspective could deceive people who see the shot...

I'll post directly one of the two shots (identical) here in the next hours to receive some advice from you...

Regards.


Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-24 08:38:14]
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:37 pm

Hi all,
I'm sorry for having posted my shot so late... here is it:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r184/TRN_Dreamliner/APPEAL_20080723_TRN25062008_0269_EI.jpg

The same version was inictally rejected for "info" reason and after for "grainy" and "level".
I rotatd it like Eric told me to do, nothing else... but what have I do in your opinion?? For the grain I could use a program of noise reduction but without exaggerating...

So... what about the level rejection?? You surely notice that the house on the tilts ti the left, but other buildings, for example in the middle of the frame are right... so what should I do in these cases?? It's very difficult to obtain better results from this position?? You're not perfecly perpendicular to the runway like I told you in the last post...

What do you think about it??

I'm waiting for your answer then... Wink


Andy.
 
bubbles
Crew
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:26 pm



Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 14):
I rotatd it like Eric told me to do, nothing else...

You have said this several times. I have to chip in.

I don't think Eric told you exactly how much degree you should rotate the image. Rotating the image too less or too much could also result in "level" rejection. There is nothing Eric could do.

When screening photos, we could only drop a short note to uploaders which direction the rotation should have been done. The re-upload photo may be still underdone, or even overdone. No big deal - fix it again, and upload it again. We simply can't open up Photoshop and measure how much degree is good for the photo to be level.

Hope you understand that the photo was rejected in appeal which means at least two screeners have the same opinion on it (one is the screener who rejected this shot, the other is our head screener). So, there must be some defects in your photo.

If you are purely seeking opinions on how to fix this level rejection, that's fine. But no need to mention Eric's name five times in this thread.

_Hongyin_
 
codeshare
Posts: 1689
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:23 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:49 pm



Quoting Bubbles (Reply 15):
Hope you understand that the photo was rejected in appeal which means at least two screeners have the same opinion on it (one is the screener who rejected this shot, the other is our head screener). So, there must be some defects in your photo.

I thought the appeal was always screened by head screeners only ?

KS/codeshare
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:05 pm



Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 14):

The composition of this picture does cause me some questions as well. If we take a picture of a plane on the ground, at anything other than straight on nose/tail or on wingtip, we can end up with a composition like this - which is visually more interesting than the wing or nose angle to begin with.

So if I had a picture compused like this one I see a horizon which is fairly even, with houses, trees and whatnot but with a kind of visual average to it. It is THAT I would level to. In photoshop I would take the rectangle tool and draw the line over that area of the horizon, then use the freeform 'rotate image' mode to make the best match I could. Tthat would leave me with several STRONG non-horizontal, non-level lines in the image, most notably the fuselage itself, but also all the concrete edges and possibly even the distant airport fenceline.

In my opinion it is those that make the photo more interesting. Otherwise we could simply lift the airplanes out of the background and display them on white.

My question: I've uploaded such a composition with the horizon pixel-perfect LEVEL but design elements within being tilted one way or another - an unavoidable consequence of photographing irregular shapes on a curved planet with undulations, in a three-dimensional universe Had some rejected badlevel.

What, in general would you photographers and screeners say to use as a reference for level?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
INNflight
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:10 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 17):
What, in general would you photographers and screeners say to use as a reference for level?

Nothing at all.

Level a photo so it L O O K S level. That's what it's all about.

There's no point in having whatever vertical reference levelled when the whole scene leans to a side because of that.
Jet Visuals
 
User avatar
acontador
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:38 pm

Hi Guys,

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 16):
I thought the appeal was always screened by head screeners only ?

That is exactly what Hongyin said! The first screener he's referring to is the one who rejected the picture during normal screening process...

Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 14):
So... what about the level rejection??

Needs about 0.5º CCW. I cannot be more accurate since I would need the original file as here the background verticals are rather small.
Regarding the quality, just add contrast to it, as the blacks are a rather light shade of grey. Again, I cannot tell you what to do without having a look at the original, as I don't know if the issues we see in your edit are from the original picture or from your editing workflow.

Quoting Bubbles (Reply 15):

May I also suggest you to use less the ?????????? marks  Wink .

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 17):
What, in general would you photographers and screeners say to use as a reference for level?



Quoting INNflight (Reply 18):
Level a photo so it L O O K S level.

 checkmark 
That means, both the complete picture and the details in it should be rotated such as to make the picture look level.
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:34 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 17):
What, in general would you photographers and screeners say to use as a reference for level?

Just like an aircraft, if it looks right, it is right.

Don't over-analyse it.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:11 pm



Quoting INNflight (Reply 18):



Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):



Quoting Viv (Reply 20):

I find these responses not very satisfying. Gut feeling? Eyeballing it? So, how about the picture included in Reply #14 - that pass your test?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
bubbles
Crew
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:22 pm



Quoting Codeshare (Reply 16):
I thought the appeal was always screened by head screeners only ?

Yes, photo in appeal will be screened only by head screeners. Is what I said somewhere misleading you?

_Hongyin_
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:36 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 21):
that pass your test?

It needs cw rotation, I believe.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:02 pm



Quoting Bubbles (Reply 15):
I don't think Eric told you exactly how much degree you should rotate the image. Rotating the image too less or too much could also result in "level" rejection. There is nothing Eric could do.

He's a very good advicer in my opinion, I think that the opinion of a screener is better than mine because surely he's got more experience than me with photos examination... he sent me a mail with the photo modified by him attached in... I uploaded it on Photoshop and after made a comparison between it and the shot of mine at 1024 pxl... after that I modified the big shot, saved before on my pc in TIFF format from the original (you've to consider that for every shot that I decide to modify to send it to A.net I'm used to keep 2-3 versions of it, one modified from the original not cutted, one cutted, rotated and centered and another one sharpened from the second one, every one saved in TIFF format not to lose information), not the one cutted but the one "not cutted" and rotated it in different "degrees versions"...

After that I made some tests and noticed that he'd done a CCW rotation of "X" degrees and I found the exact number... after that I superimposed it with the one given me by the screener and with a simple quick view program like ACDSee I noticed that the rotation was the same because there was no difference... doing so I hoped that there would be no problems with it...

I think that sending me his version was more accurated than giving me the exact numerical value of rotation... is it true?? Or am I wrong??
For me that's no problem, like I told before he's a good advicer, I've no doubt of his screener abilities and I always say thank you to him for the help he gave me in that situation however my shot was rejected at the end... no worries...  Smile

Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
Needs about 0.5º CCW. I cannot be more accurate since I would need the original file as here the background verticals are rather small.

I could try but I'm not sure of the final result, like you surely know you've to consider that the A 332 rear is higher than the nose of the aircraft normally, it was probably empty that day, infact it operated a crew training flight from FCO before beginning its scheduled flights from MXP to the USA.
So the aircraft seems to be tilted to the right... Wink Probably another CCW rotation more than now could cause the tilting of the house on the left, do you see it... now (in this conditions) it seems to be tilted to the left, with another 0,5 CCW rotation it could be more tilted in my opnion and i think that after the screener could reject to advice me a CW rotation (to the right because of a simple house tilted to the left, I don't want the problem to be repeated to the contrary).

If you look to the vertical elements in the middle of the shot you could notice that they are right... you've also to consider that I've done it with a 120mm lens, probably there's more border effect like aberration optics... do you understand?? Every lens could cause aberration effects, expecially if you use grandangular ones... There's no lens that doesn't cause aberration effects... The lens I used for that shot is a Konica Minolta 75-300 4.5-5.6, I've noticed that sometimes there could be these strange effects... it's difficult to delete this problem, you need to have some plug-in for PS or last versions of it like PS CS3 for aberration deleting process... I use the 5.5 one (very old) because I still have Win 98 uploaded on my personal computer.

I'm waiting for your answers then... thanks for all your opinions and advice!!  Wink


Andy.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:12 pm

Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
That means, both the complete picture and the details in it should be rotated such as to make the picture look level.

Okay, that is my point. Unless the horizon and the major "horizontal" lines in the composition are paralell this is not possible. It would be impossible to get a photo taken anywhere but straight-on the nose, wing or tail* to pass such a subjective test.

So I'll ask you for a second time, the photo in reply #14: Is it level?
Not asking about any other quality, just the composition as we see it there. Is it level?

* Think of three-view drawings.

[Edited 2008-07-27 11:14:04]
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:49 pm

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25):
Okay, that is my point. Unless the horizon and the major "horizontal" lines in the composition are paralell this is not possible. It would be impossible to get a photo taken anywhere but straight-on the nose, wing or tail* to pass such a subjective test.

I completely agree with you... it's not possible that different parts in this shot (orizzontal and vertical I want to underline) could be leveled in the same way...

I also want to tell you all that the shot was taken from the (tilted too ) car ramp down (is it the correct expression in english?? ) at the fifth and last floor of the car park located behind the terminal area not parallel to the runway.

Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-27 11:51:48]
 
INNflight
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:49 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25):
So I'll ask you for a second time, the photo in reply #14: Is it level?

Being a photographer, and being very against the nit-picky rules this (and also other!!!) sites use for screening, I'd say yes....it's acceptable.

Being honest and looking through my screener mode eyes, it would need a T IIIIIII N Y amount of CW rotation. I'd accept it nonetheless, but I guess that's why I'm not a screener  Wink
Jet Visuals
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:41 am



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25):
So I'll ask you for a second time, the photo in reply #14: Is it level?

Some people have answered saying it needs CW rotation. I on the other hand think it needs CCW rotation.  white 
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:42 am



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 28):
I on the other hand think it needs CCW rotation.

That is my assessment as well. The actual horizon, while not a straight line, appears to be quite level but the major "horizontal" lines in the composition are markedly downhill to the right side.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:04 am

So what should be the right choice to apply?? Your different opinions about it are making me oubtful...

I think that in a shot it's not only important that the aircraft is right in my humble opinion, but I'm also used to consider all the vertical elements as well as the subject of it excluding the lamp-posts that in a lot of cases are always tilted  

Give me your impression about that!!

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 28):
Some people have answered saying it needs CW rotation. I on the other hand think it needs CCW rotation.

This is the demonstration that in this case is very dificult to understand and interpret what should be the right solution to the rotation problem for this shot... I agree when someone say: "The aircraft has to be right and leveled" but not in this case... The vertical elements of the shot are very important like the aircraft in my opinion, the aircraft is taxiing on a shelf located five floors down from the photographer point of view and with a different inclination from you.

The first version of the shot I modified thanks to the advice given to me by the screener before its rejection was infact rotated about +0,4° (in CW rotation) than now... so the idea to rotate it in CW rotation again seems to me out of sense. But I also have to underline that rotating the shot in CCW rotation the aricraft could be less tilted than now but the vertical elements in the horizon could be more tilted to the left.  

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 29):
The actual horizon, while not a straight line, appears to be quite level but the major "horizontal" lines in the composition are markedly downhill to the right side.

Like I told you all before it depends on the effect of the perspective, it could be impossibile that the rwy, the taxiway and the vertical buildings in the background could be perfectly horizontally right at the same time.  


Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-28 00:13:58]
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:54 pm

The house above the plane's registration, the red-white structure above the front door and the pole on the right edge of the photo all strike me as leaning towards the right, hence I feel CCW Is needed. With a photo this small, me thinks about 1/4 degree.

Which would suggest that after your initial rejection you overcompensated and applied too much CW rotation.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:29 pm

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 31):
Which would suggest that after your initial rejection you overcompensated and applied too much CW rotation.

I repeat what I've done more clearly, probably you didn't understand what I've done exactly in my different upload processes:

#1 I uploaded the first shot in the database wiith priority;

#2 The priority screener told me that wasn't a good reason for priority, left it in queue suggesting me to repuload it with a CCW rotation (Sending me his version of the shot attached in a mail);

#3 I reuploaded the shot rotating it like he told me to do and after 13 days it was rejected for "info" reason (after that I appealed but my appeal was refused by the head screener);

#4 I reuploaded it for the third time only correcting the registration of the aircraft, without rotating the image, I only reuploaded the same version I uploaded after the priority rejection (the one of #3);

#5 I decided to appeal for the second time telling the screeners that wasn't correct in my opnion to reject a shot with a reason already analized by a screener and for something that i've correct before thanks to the help given by him.

Do you understand now?? I never apply CW rotations to the 332 photo versions that I uploaded on A.net, but only the CCW rotation suggested me by the screener.


Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-28 06:38:21]
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:36 pm



Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 32):

#2 & 3# - not priority was correct. info was a correct rejection and I guess as far as CCW goes you may have not applied enough then. would be the first time I see a screener telling you *exactly* how much rotation is needed.

Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 32):
I never apply CW rotations to the 332 photo versions that I uploaded on A.net

332? I see 5 photos in the d/b by you: http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...ea%20Primoceri&distinct_entry=true
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:08 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 33):
332? I see 5 photos in the d/b by you

332 = abbreviation of Airbus 330-200 version!!! Big grin

I wanted to say: I never applied CW rotations to the versions of this shot I uploaded in queue on A.net.

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 33):
#2 & 3# - not priority was correct. info was a correct rejection and I guess as far as CCW goes you may have not applied enough then. would be the first time I see a screener telling you *exactly* how much rotation is needed.

I know now tha not priority was a correct decision, info was correct at the end, I repeat... i superimposed my rotated version with the screener's rotated version of the same shot (I wrote that before) and there were no differences, he didnt't tell me the exact degrees to rotate, he sent directly the shot rotated and cutted by him.

I modified the large and TIFF version (not cutted and rotated one) of my shot rotating it with the same degrees of the exmple shot given by him. He told me "I'd reupload it in this way" and after he attached me the modified file. I would underline that I asked him clarification about CCW rotations in general and what it was...he had shown me how to do this to have this shot accepted.

Do you understand now?? I hope yes...  Wink


Andy.
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Allow me to quote from the rejection e-mail: "Don't worry, everyone has their photos rejected from time to time." (I understand that means screeners, too... on occasion.) Looks like one screener had an opinion different to another's.

Time to lock this thread, me thinks.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:03 pm

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 35):
Allow me to quote from the rejection e-mail: "Don't worry, everyone has their photos rejected from time to time." (I understand that means screeners, too... on occasion.) Looks like one screener had an opinion different to another's.

You're right... I agree with you...  but not always the ideas of the screeners are right... the demonstraton is that a screener could have a different point of view than another one and could make different choices, the same thing could happen between two photographers for example... but for me with this topic was important to receive suitable clarifications most of all by the screeners.   Nothing else... I repeat, in this thread I didn't want to be polemical, no worries... I only wanted to understand something more about these situations and what are the features of typical screening processes.

Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-28 09:10:08]
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:37 pm



Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
That means, both the complete picture and the details in it should be rotated such as to make the picture look level

Well, I asked my question about whether the picture in reply #14 "looks" level, I asked three people and so far the other two have replied. Unfortunately they are the two who are not screeners.

I downloaded the picture and opened it in Photoshop. Using the "rectangular marquee tool" in "normal" style, I have determined that the actual horizon is very level with taller or nearer trees extending above it, but overall, level. The edges of the concrete are distinctly non paralell with that horizon, sloping in either direction. The fuselage itself slopes even farther to the right as the plane actually is nose-low in reference to the taxiway surface.

So here's the question, where is level in this picture.

In a three-dimensional world you simply cannot have all lines either paralell or perpendicular. Reality doesn't work that way and any composition so arranged would look really WRONG to our eyes.

In my opinion, your eye and brain know what level is: That is the basis of our very sense of balance (in the ability to stand up sense, not the feng shui sense) We understand that tall or near objects may project above the horizon but all of the nearby planet surface is either flat, or hilly in relation to a flat plane like sea level. Further, we undersand instinctively that paralell lines extending away from us will taper together (perspective) and so forth. Our eye knows that an object angling toward us, when viewed from slightly above is going to appear to be lower at the front than at the rear and so on. We get all those things and the very best you can do is to "level" a picture so that the apparent sea-level plane in the foreground seems to be flat - whether the actual terrain is or not. If you do not then out brain will argue with our eye about what we see.

My wife had a poster from a winery in Napa Valley which had a nice painting of a manor house in a vinyard. In the distance rolling hills rose above the flat valley foreground until we were looking DOWN at the surface of a lake! It was a horrible clash - "level" in the foreground argued with "level" in the background. Even though the colors were perfect we eventually took the picture down because we couldn't stand to look at that error.

So since this:

Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
both the complete picture and the details in it should be rotated such as to make the picture look

is not actually possible in this universe, it would be nice to hear another explanation. After all, the rectangle tool in Photoshop can disclose over a million photos in this database that violate this rule.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
User avatar
acontador
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:05 pm

My dear SlamClick,

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 21):
I find these responses not very satisfying. Gut feeling? Eyeballing it? So, how about the picture included in Reply #14 - that pass your test?



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25):
So I'll ask you for a second time, the photo in reply #14: Is it level?



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 37):
Well, I asked my question about whether the picture in reply #14 "looks" level, I asked three people and so far the other two have replied. Unfortunately they are the two who are not screeners.

I would very much appreciate an apology now, considering that before you posted the above questions (in a demanding tone that I do not appreciate at all), I already had answered them:

Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
Needs about 0.5º CCW.

Btw, all buildings in the back are leaning to the right.
Now Andrea, if you need further assistance, please feel free to email the original file to screeners@airliners.net and I'll see what I can do.

[Edited 2008-07-28 10:06:27]

[Edited 2008-07-28 10:07:51]
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
 
alasdair1982
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:49 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 6):
The screener who rejected your shot for info, probably only looked at this very obvious mistake and rejected it before getting a chance to discover the other flaws. After re-uploading at least one screener found the others. Do you understand now??

Why is this person a screener then? It just wastes peoples time and gets their hopes up of a successful uploads

I don't see why providing a link to the image is necessary. The issue is clear, apparent inconsistency amongst screeners
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:38 pm

Well, the problem with your answer in reply #19 is twofold:

1. You posted the "0.5 CW" answer in response to a question from Dreamliner84 and not in response to my question. In reading carefully replies 14 and 19 I still can not be sure if the picture you are speaking of is the one in reply #14 or one in the appeal queue or if they are one and the same.

2. I didn't even ask my question until reply #21. So with reference to the fact that I didn't know, (still can't tell) whether in reply #19 you were talking about the exact version shown in reply #14.

Perhaps I didn't make my question clear enough, so here goes:

First, in #17 I just wanted to hear from screeners what they would use in a picture for "level" guidance. I got two responses:

Reply #18 INNflight (not a screener) said

Quoting INNflight (Reply 18):
Nothing at all.
Level a photo so it L O O K S level. That's what it's all about.

and in reply #19 you said

Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
both the complete picture and the details in it should be rotated such as to make the picture look level.

Those two responses do not answer my question, at least not in a way that would provide any guidance to a person wanting to upload pictures successfully. The first because it didn't come from a screener and the second because it contains an impossible condition - that both the picture and the details in it be "level" when they are not paralell.

I'm not trying to make trouble so if this whole exchange angers you, which it seems to, perhaps another screener would like to answer. Here's the problem. I'll use the most popular pictures in the entire database for examples:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Cederholm


The horizon seems relatively level but the "details in it" including the airplane and the road/seawall are decidedly tilted.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Samuel lo


Not a vertical or horizontal line in the whole picture. What is level here?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Samuel Lo


No horizon in sight. No good horizontal lines spanning more than maybe 8-10% of frame width. Only vertical reference available is the taper of the grassy infield to the right of the runway. What is level here?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Patrick Lutz


The horizon curves too much to be useful. The picture appears to have been leveled (if at all) to the horizon indicators on the instrument panel but Photoshop shows them to be several pixels out of level.

So, what is a photographer to do?

Finally, as for an apology, I've taken a look at the rules particularly (a) (c) and (f) and don't see how a personal apology is due. If I am mistaken there, well, I guess a ban would be warranted. I am sorry that my misunderstanding of your "0.5" in #19, and my inability to phrase my question properly has led to any hard feelings. As for being "demanding" that appears to be a cultural difference. We in the US tend to regard ourselves, as members, as being the "customer" in this relationship and the staff having a primary obligation to serve our needs. All I ever wanted was for any screener to discuss some guidelines for leveling a photo.

I still have not had that and frankly I am a little disappointed. I understand that all the screeners are unpaid volunteers and I appreciate the service they provide. In most instances I agree completely with their judgement but I believe that most screeners are also readers of this forum and I'm sorry they have not felt moved to add any comment on this question.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:56 pm

This is getting silly. Moderators, please lock this thread.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:57 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 37):
I have determined that the actual horizon is very level with taller or nearer trees extending above it, but overall, level. The edges of the concrete are distinctly non paralell with that horizon, sloping in either direction. The fuselage itself slopes even farther to the right as the plane actually is nose-low in reference to the taxiway surface.

You've noticed the same things I've noticed when I used the Photoshop grid to see if there were some tilted details to improve my image and to rotate it in the correct way, the horizon is leveled, infact it's impossible to have the subject right and all the elements in the background (buildings, houses, trees etc...) right at the same time.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 37):
In my opinion, your eye and brain know what level is: That is the basis of our very sense of balance (in the ability to stand up sense, not the feng shui sense) We understand that tall or near objects may project above the horizon but all of the nearby planet surface is either flat, or hilly in relation to a flat plane like sea level. Further, we undersand instinctively that paralell lines extending away from us will taper together (perspective) and so forth. Our eye knows that an object angling toward us, when viewed from slightly above is going to appear to be lower at the front than at the rear and so on. We get all those things and the very best you can do is to "level" a picture so that the apparent sea-level plane in the foreground seems to be flat - whether the actual terrain is or not. If you do not then out brain will argue with our eye about what we see.

I completely agree with your opinion.  Wink

Quoting Acontador (Reply 38):
Now Andrea, if you need further assistance, please feel free to email the original file to screeners@airliners.net and I'll see what I can do.

I've just sent you the big version of the shot I uploaded in the reply #14 in this topic (converted from TIFF to JPEG format not to lose information) to show you more details of the buildings and all the background.
For the original file I've to search for it in my CD's, I think that it could be enough... however if you want the original file at the end don't hesitate to ask me for it... I'll search it with more calm... ok??

Thanks for your assistance...  Wink


Andy.
 
Dreamliner84
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:39 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:20 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 41):
This is getting silly. Moderators, please lock this thread.

I think that this thread is one of the most interesting I've read in this forum, why do you want it to be closed?? I've also noticed that SlamClick is asking a lot of interesting questions about the concept of "level".

I've also noticed the same things he noticed in other shots in A.net database, I prefer not to link them here because Slam has already shown a lot of typical examples of this type of shots... The meaning of "level" is a very interesting and fascinating concept and it's important to deal it also with the help, assistance and the opinion of the screeners and other photographers.

I think that the forum is a free area where everyone could tell his opinion without being polemical... if you aren't interested in reading a thread in general don't open it... that's no problem...   If you are interested to answer give us your opinion... I'd be very glad to talk with you... like with everyone here... the opinion of everyone is important for me, (screeners and not like me) I underlined it at the beginning of this topic.  


Andy.

[Edited 2008-07-28 14:23:22]
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:13 pm



Quoting Dreamliner84 (Reply 43):

Silly because SlamClick dug up some ancient images from days when criteria were less strict, and then starts using a road and sea wall as reference which must be at an angle of what - 30 degrees to the photographer?

As far as LEVEL goes, I think there are some very clear scenarios, and I shall use my own photos to illustrate these points, so as to not step on anyone's toes.

1. Clearly visible and RELIABLE horizon - use the horizon for levelling. In the second shot there's not much horizon, but it's in the middle of the photo and it's usable before downsizing the original image:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha



2. No usable horizon but tall verticals in the centre of the photo - use the verticals for levelling:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha



3. No (reliable) horizon: how am I to judge how straight and tall the trees are? This is the spot I take most of my photos from. As I am also at an angle to the runway and taxiway (and road which is sometimes visible here if I zoom out enough like in the 1st image below), I tend to use the border between the grass and the trees in the background in this spot and look for similar references in other spots - see the 3rd picture where I did the same thing at an airport that is quite unfamiliar to me.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha



4. No(t much) landscape whatsoever. According to an earlier post in this thread I should level the plane? I don't think so. These birds are on final and obviously descending; I admit, I did not level these two.  Wink


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha



5. Difficult ones... here there is no horizon, and the verticals are small and all over the picture. This is where you have to find the balance that makes the photo look level, and this is the category your shot (#14) falls into. In your shot all the clearly visible fixed structures are leaning to the right:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha



6. No useful references at all: Background cluttered, no horizon visible, no definite verticals... this is where I use gut feeling to try and make it "look right." Sometimes I suceed, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I then agree with the screeners, sometimes I don't.  Wink


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha

I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:10 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 44):
Silly

That actually is a violation of rules:

(a) "choose your words wisely" Can we agree that a "wise" choice would be one that gets the intended result? Or was it your intent simply to insult me?
(b) "word all criticism, whether of another user's opinion, a photograph, crew member, a political topic, etc., in a constructive manner" to which the single word "silly" certainly clearly does not conform.

Perhaps it is not a violation of the letter of (e) because while they covered "irrelevant" "boring" childish" and "stupid" they somehow omitted "silly" but I'm sure you'll have to agree it violates the spirit of that rule.

As for your discussion of leveling cues I think I pretty well agree with everything you said there but here is the problem. All of that is directly contradictory to

Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
That means, both the complete picture and the details in it should be rotated such as to make the picture look level

... which I will say again is not possible and here's why. Any two paralell lines in the universe will appear to taper together as they recede into the distance. So I have an (official) opinion, from a screener, that leads me to believe that taxiway edges etc. are supposed to be level or vertical.

My question regarding that is neither silly, nor intended to stir controversy. I'd just like some discussion of it from an actual screener, or even quotes from their own guidelines (if they are given any)

Perhaps it is not to be.
I'll stop now.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection!

Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:26 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 45):
(b) "word all criticism, whether of another user's opinion, a photograph, crew member, a political topic, etc., in a constructive manner" to which the single word "silly" certainly clearly does not conform.

And I shall repeat my statement. This is getting silly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/silly

Silly as in meaning no. 2, "absurd; ridiculous; irrational." And thus I disagree with your interpretation of the rules, and even while I tried to constructively contribute to this thread after Dreamliner84 in reply 43 voiced his opinion that this thread should not be locked, I think once more that maybe it is time to do so.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 45):
As for your discussion of leveling cues I think I pretty well agree with everything you said there but here is the problem. All of that is directly contradictory to

Quoting Acontador (Reply 19):
That means, both the complete picture and the details in it should be rotated such as to make the picture look level

... which I will say again is not possible and here's why. Any two paralell lines in the universe will appear to taper together as they recede into the distance. So I have an (official) opinion, from a screener, that leads me to believe that taxiway edges etc. are supposed to be level or vertical

I think you misunderstood Acontador's statement. He never said that all the details in an image have to be either vertical or horizontal. He said that the combination of all the details in the picture have to compose an overall level look of the entire depicted scene.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests