airimage
Topic Author
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:18 am

Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:16 pm

I gave up trying to upload to this site because I struggled to meet the standards that are required here and have my doubts about the screening process where newer, less established members are concerned.
There have been a number of instances where I have seen a shot accepted yet it has glaring quality issues and a quick click on the photographer reveals he/she has hundreds of photos on the database. Yet there are a lot of 'noobs' submitting photos in the feedback section who are getting rejections for the tiniest of flaws.

I know it has been stated by A.net screeners in the past that this sort of two tier screening does not happen but now this photo has appeared.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rotan...raer-EMB-145MP-(ERJ-145MP)/2171238

It's a great pic I'll admit, but it's a pic of a landmark with a little bit of Embraer wing in it. Would the likes of me and other members with less than a handful of photos on the DB have had the same success uploading it?
I was surprised to see it had been accepted until I saw the photographers name.
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:53 pm

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
I know it has been stated by A.net screeners in the past that this sort of two tier screening does not happen but now this photo has appeared.

I don't think that's the case, I just think it's a steep learning curve to reach the required standard. It isn't easy and takes a while to get to know the accepted criteria. We've all bean their. Having said that, I must say the screening of late has been very inconsistent in my experience. When you try and discuss it openly on here, moderators remove posts and when you email screeners, you just get silent treatment so even established uploaders have their problems meeting the criteria, it's not just 'noobs' as you put it.

I don't personally see anything wrong in Sam's photo. It's good composition and well executed. I know what you mean about the shot concentrating on the architecture rather than the aviation, but part of the wing is still in shot and it's the view on approach so I can't see why shouldn't be acceptable here. There's enough aviation in the shot for me. I don't think the person uploading that photo would have made a difference, he photo speak for itself. It shouldn' do anyway.

Darren

PS how long before this thread is deleted?
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
 
ilpavone2004
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:00 pm

Totally agree with you, airimage. I'd be really curious to see what happens if i upload a photo of a famous photographer and he/she uploads a photo taken by me.
The photo you linked is for sure a nice photo but according to a.net standards shouldn't be there...
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:54 pm

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
It's a great pic I'll admit, but it's a pic of a landmark with a little bit of Embraer wing in it. Would the likes of me and other members with less than a handful of photos on the DB have had the same success uploading it?
I was surprised to see it had been accepted until I saw the photographers name.

There are thousands of other shots featuring an equally small piece of wing in the database of this and every other aircraft photography website, plenty of them uploaded by photographers with a few hundred or less pictures on the site. If the scenery adds something to the picture then so be it, whether it's a coral reef or a mosque, I'd rather see something like this than another side on Southwest 737.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
baldwin8
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:37 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:26 pm

I do see your point airimage. But when you try to accommodate so many people, the interests tend to widen. I saw the image on the opening page originally, but it was not interesting enough for me to want to have a more detailed view. Lucky guy was sitting in a seat with a clean window. My flight yesterday on an AirCanada Jazz Express flight only left me with a scratched frosted view of some great scenery.

It would be interesting to hear what experience levels are needed to become a screener and do they hold online meetings now and then to make sure they are all on the same page.

When I visit the airliners website, I do come to view airliners, not military, private jets or such. But we all know what they about opinions.....
 
airimage
Topic Author
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:28 pm

There was a guy the other day that posted a pic in the feedback forum of a pic he had rejected.
The pic had a crowd of people in the foreground and although they weren't in focus and the aircraft was, a screner had commented about how the viewers eye is drawn to the people in the forground rather than the aircraft.
I could see his point because the crowd was a distracting factor but never the less, the emphasis on viewpoint was the main factor of the rejection.

Now in this shot my eye is drawn to the landmark and not the wing.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting airimage (Reply 5):
Now in this shot my eye is drawn to the landmark and not the wing.

Of course it is. The fact is that a.net accepts such photos, whether they are real aviation photos or not.

Peter 
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Soaring1972
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:32 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:28 pm

I personaly like these kind of immages a lot!

And in my oppinion some rules of a.net are reducing the variety of aviation-photography sometimes a lot!
Thanks to all ONE-Star voters just to push a photograph down!!!
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:47 pm

I agree with the first half of the OP, but I disagree about the shot in question. I think with window views, the view outside is the main subject of interest. I'd rather see this than a shot consisting of the whole wing and blue sky and brown ground from 35,000 feet. YAWN...

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 1):
Having said that, I must say the screening of late has been very inconsistent in my experience. When you try and discuss it openly on here, moderators remove posts and when you email screeners, you just get silent treatment

So sad, but so spot on.

[Edited 2012-10-14 13:33:03]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
ilpavone2004
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Quoting Soaring1972 (Reply 7):
And in my oppinion some rules of a.net are reducing the variety of aviation-photography sometimes a lot!

Ok but rules are rules for everybody and not only for the bad ones...
 
dlednicer
Crew
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:12 pm

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
There have been a number of instances where I have seen a shot accepted yet it has glaring quality issues and a quick click on the photographer reveals he/she has hundreds of photos on the database. Yet there are a lot of 'noobs' submitting photos in the feedback section who are getting rejections for the tiniest of flaws.

Then explain to me why my acceptance ratio at this moment is only 60% (and has been down to 35% recently) when I have almost 3000 pictures in the db. We are all equals as far as the screeners are concerned.

I had to struggle for a good three years to get to the point where I was having any images accepted. One of my biggest lessons was to swallow my pride and be open to critiques.
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:16 pm

The title of this thread is one of the best and most enjoyable that I've seen in a while. Landmarks.net is absolutely hilarious!

But seriously, I thought the exact same thing when I first viewed it. Sam is a brilliant photographer but this picture has nothing to do with aviation except for the fact that it was shot on an airplane. Would a picture of someone's brand new ipad laying on a aircrafts tray table with only a small corner of the table visable make it through screening? I think not.

The picture was incredible, there is nothing to disqualify it quality wise, but I'm at a loss of it's relationship to anything here EXCEPT maybe some airlines keep windows cleaner than others. His description clearly states the "Jackpot" of this picture is the building itself, and not the aircraft. This alone should disqualify the shot because, again, the building has nothing to do with aviation. Picture of a new terminal? Absolutely. Some random building? Nope.

Now, I did enjoy the shot, so why not explore the thought of making a new category? There have been some postings here about a number of shots taken out of windows but unless I'm missing something, the vast majority of them are of other airplanes or airports.

Seriously, a Landmarks category that shows things like this. Could open up a bunch of new shots.

[Edited 2012-10-14 14:19:41]
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
User avatar
Joshu
Crew
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:05 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:14 pm

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 10):
Then explain to me why my acceptance ratio at this moment is only 60%

Well stated, I am at 40%. I have been uploading for just over a year with like 105 shots in the DB.

Instead of complaining, go back to the drawing board and figure what you need to fix. We all have done this multiple times over.
Washington-Baltimore Spotters Group
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:09 am

I know exactly where the OP is coming from although to be fair I have over 1900 images on the db, been uploading for 12 yearts and have an accpetance ratio in single figures. Maybe you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The Abu Dhabi picture is a superb picture but it doesn't really belong here; not if is supposed to be an aircraft database. Well, that's what we keep being told anyway.

Next time try uploading a picture of a tray of drinks. That was accepted here a month or so back. Yes it was taken in an aeroplane but seriously?
Whatever.......
 
johnmiller
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:35 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:29 am

I have to agree, nice image that it is, it's hardly a prime aviation pic. I also agree with consistency and some really puzzling acceptances like the shadow of the photographer in one picture. My specialization is air to air and the screeners appear to have no real expertise in this field. I've had rejections of pics that have been used on magazine covers or double page spreads. However, they do throw back ones where there are dust spots I've missed but have some funny ideas about composition.
 
User avatar
yerbol
Crew
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:18 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:56 pm

Sam had everything at that very moment! He was on that flight, good sunlight, clear window, nice position of seat and most important thing in our hobby - desire to photo and desire to share. That is why he commented - JACKPOT!
Is it bad to be lucky?
With best regards from Almaty
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:57 pm

First off, I have to say that it is nice to read a debate like this - rarer these days than used to be the case.

For me, what is at the heart of airimage’s concern is the apparent internal inconsistency he sees with a shot like this. My own view is that this is a good example of a long-standing ‘dilemma’ for the site – is it a ‘database’ or a window for ‘aviation photography’? To a large extent things have evolved here such that it is some of both, but that inevitably leads to what some might interpret as inconsistencies. For one type of motive factors a, b and c apply, but with a different kind of motive those same factors may be reason for a rejection. As just one example that comes to mind, I recently had a photo (of which I was rather proud) rejected because it lacked detail in the shadows – i.e. there was too much contrast between the brightly lit aircraft and its black belly. However, one of those (often lovely) sunset shots with the silhouette of an aircraft will be fine, even though, by definition, all detail of the aircraft is, by definition, lost. This is because – again, in my opinion – in that latter kind of example the photo’s primary motive is as a landscape photograph, with an aviation connection (like the wing views). In my photo the sole subject was the aircraft itself.

Personally, I very much enjoy landscape photography, so often enjoy seeing images here which are basically landscape photographs, taken from the air. I also enjoy looking at those well executed silhouette sunset shots. Both have minimal (visible) detail of the aircraft in question. It is within the rules and, so long as other factors - such as quality - are met, they are accepted.

It is the fact that other rules – when the motives vary – appear to be inconsistent that causes the furrowing of brows. Once we move out of the landscape arena other rules then come into play, or are interpreted differently. Chopping an engine cowling in half will generally be a no-no when the subject is a plane on the ground, because it can be interpreted as clumsy framing; if it is the view out of a cabin window then it is fine. Some rules apply across the board, such as quality/exposure etc, but others are applied differently, depending on the subject. Now when the subjects/motives are similar, but the rules appear to be applied inconsistently – then that is another story.

Paul
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:23 pm

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):
Of course it is. The fact is that a.net accepts such photos, whether they are real aviation photos or not.

Pretty much.

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
Personally, I very much enjoy landscape photography, so often enjoy seeing images here which are basically landscape photographs, taken from the air. I also enjoy looking at those well executed silhouette sunset shots. Both have minimal (visible) detail of the aircraft in question.

Me too. I even have a photo album on here called "Landscapes". I'd be pretty sad if that type of photo was no longer accepted.

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
It is the fact that other rules – when the motives vary – appear to be inconsistent that causes the furrowing of brows. Once we move out of the landscape arena other rules then come into play, or are interpreted differently. Chopping an engine cowling in half will generally be a no-no when the subject is a plane on the ground, because it can be interpreted as clumsy framing; if it is the view out of a cabin window then it is fine. Some rules apply across the board, such as quality/exposure etc, but others are applied differently, depending on the subject. Now when the subjects/motives are similar, but the rules appear to be applied inconsistently – then that is another story.

This is why, as much as I can, I only worry about my own shots. At the end of the day, does it really matter to me what Sam Chui or whomever else had accepted or rejected? No.

There are other places I can display shots not accepted here, if I want to.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
johnmiller
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:35 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:12 pm

Behind almost every decision in life there's an element of sentiment and partiality. The question was: how much nod did this picture get because of Sam's name? I have had images rejected because they are from the same air to air shoot (although different compositions) and yet more prolific photographers will have several from a single shoot accepted. I have slowed down with a.net because there is no consistency, even though I'm grateful that 53% of my images have been accepted.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:18 pm

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 18):
I have had images rejected because they are from the same air to air shoot (although different compositions) and yet more prolific photographers will have several from a single shoot accepted.

Technicalities. You can have one from each side.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
megatop412
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:50 pm

There are two options one can take. One is to not upload here. The other is to, for lack of a better term, 'suck it up' and try to understand what the screeners are saying and try to adopt the feedback into your workflow. Eventually, the saying goes, you will find success.

After recently seeing two photos accepted that really had nothing to do with aircraft(a shot of turtles sunning themselves on a grass 'runway' with no aircraft in sight and a shot of what looked like a tropical paradise that was indoors, which I later found out was supposed to be the inside of a terminal, again with no aircraft in sight) I decided that there really is no point in trying to learn from the screening process here, because the inconsistency makes trying to understand what the Rules are an exercise in futility. What one screener will accept another will not. So be it.

That is not to say I'm above criticism, at all. I'm constantly beating myself up about missed opportunities, soft focusing, and blown exposures. The only way to improve is to know your weaknesses and always strive to improve upon them. I consider this to be a meeting place of the most knowledgeable folks in the aviation world where any question I ever had about an airline or aircraft can surely be answered. It covers breaking aviation news faster than some news networks. But it is no longer relevant as a marker of what constitutes quality aviation photography. So, as I've stated in the past, I take the first option and only upload to communities which are less sensitive to minutiae like 'motive'.

Honing your craft as a photographer is not necessarily the same thing as striving to meet acceptance criteria.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 20):
Honing your craft as a photographer is not necessarily the same thing as striving to meet acceptance criteria.

No it's not, but who's to say you can't do both?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Joshu
Crew
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:05 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:31 am

The strict acceptance criteria here has improved my abilities as a photographer and editor. Don't get me wrong, I'll still curse when a photo is rejected but I'll get "back to the lab again, yo" and re-edit and re-upload.
Washington-Baltimore Spotters Group
 
notaxonrotax
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:27 am

Airimage,

Good topic!
Completely agree with you!

This is an interesting discussion, and I truly hope this will continue in a civilized fashion.


Cheers.
For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
 
ilpavone2004
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:18 am

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 20):
After recently seeing two photos accepted that really had nothing to do with aircraft(a shot of turtles sunning themselves on a grass 'runway' with no aircraft in sight and a shot of what looked like a tropical paradise that was indoors, which I later found out was supposed to be the inside of a terminal, again with no aircraft in sight) I decided that there really is no point in trying to learn from the screening process here, because the inconsistency makes trying to understand what the Rules are an exercise in futility. What one screener will accept another will not. So be it.

+100
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:43 am

I was also surprised to see this shot accepted, when viewed in the context of the existing acceptance criteria.

That said, I enjoyed viewing the shot, which is excellent when viewed as a non-aviation photo.

The fundamental question is whether, and to what extent, the acceptance criteria should be modified to enable shots like this to be accepted without a concomitant collective raising of eyebrows.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
mat1979
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:42 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:15 am

Sometimes, pictures show little airplane or aiport, yet they show a little of the magic of flight.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthieu Labatut
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © matthieu labatut

 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:48 am

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 20):
What one screener will accept another will not. So be it.



The examples you quoted are very unlikely to have only been accepted by one screener. Whenever something comes along that 'pushes the boundaries' most of, if not all, the screeners and head-screeners will have their say.

Quoting mat1979 (Reply 26):
Sometimes, pictures show little airplane or aiport, yet they show a little of the magic of flight.

I would suggest they show more than just a little of the magic. IMHO, that's why they belong here.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
vposbic
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:31 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:19 pm

Quoting mat1979 (Reply 26):
Sometimes, pictures show little airplane or aiport, yet they show a little of the magic of flight.

To my surprise, my 50th photo in the database is a landscape shot that is one of my most popular, and was featured in the Top 5. I guess it showed me how much people tend to enjoy these type of photos.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/9/3/2139390.jpg

[Edited 2012-10-16 05:22:00]

[Edited 2012-10-16 05:23:04]
-Vincent
 
User avatar
acontador
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:07 pm

One thing is to argue about acceptance criteria, another very different to drag a photographer's picture around that was rightfully accepted (according to the criteria set by the site). Sam's image is great, he is lucky enough to be able to travel a lot and use many rarer airlines/aircraft types to reach interesting places. However, the OP has clearly a particular agenda:

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):
I gave up trying to upload to this site because I struggled to meet the standards that are required here and have my doubts about the screening process where newer, less established members are concerned.


I think it would be good to have any of the current screeners/headscreeners chipping in a putting the record straight, as I am completely sure that no such discrimination against newer members exists or has ever existed. It is natural for all of us to struggle at the beginning (we all did, believe it or not), since you have to go through a tough learning process until you better understand what screeners find acceptable and what not, and in the process you will certainly improve with both your photography and post-processing skills. That learning process actually is an ongoing one, since you will always have something in your workflow change that will make an adjustment necessary. I recently went through the third monitor change in a short time, and my acceptance ratio went to hell. So I will have to take again the long, tough and hard road to relearn to adjust what I see in my new monitor to what screeners do in order to have some pictures accepted.

Cheers,
Andres
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:23 pm

Quoting acontador (Reply 29):
So I will have to take again the long, tough and hard road to relearn to adjust what I see in my new monitor to what screeners do in order to have some pictures accepted.

  

It happened to me when I upgraded cameras, and to a lesser extent, lenses. Had to refine my sharpening procedures. My acceptance rate dropped from ~70% to ~30% for a little while. And this was after having 300 or so photos accepted.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Crew
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:21 pm

Quoting airimage (Thread starter):

Hi
I would suggest contacting the head screeners if you have an issue with an accepted shot, not post in forums or in the Photo Comments like you did (yes, it was instantly deleted).

Would you like your photos to get this kind of negative attention?

We might not always like a photo that has been added, but we should still respect the work of our fellow photograhers, and the crew.

I love the fact that a photo like this can get in to the DB!

A crowd in front of an aircraft does not add any extra value, but a landmark, a natural wonder or such sure does.
Airliners.net Crew-Head Support
5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, SPEEDLITE 600EX-RT
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:45 pm

I've given up posting here as it's far too catty (this thread goes to show), with both sides (the team and photographers) showing more disrespect towards each other than ever before. BUT if you upload your images here you should realise that they are subject to the world and his dog airing their critique. If someone doesn't like a photo of mine, they have the right to tell me publicly and link my image, should they so choose - that's what forums are all about. I have crap images here that perhaps shouldn't have been accepted but I ain't going to lose sleep over it!

I sometimes wonder how many of you actually still get out there and do it, without worrying what this site and its people will say or think. When did we become a site of whining individuals, whose bleeding hearts cry every time someone says something mildly 'offensive'? Deal with it. These hard times can throw much more worrying things our way.

And for the record, I think the shot belongs here. At one time we strived to change the site from merely a database into something that truly represented the spirit of aviation photography. The image in question isn't perfect but it does just that.

Karl
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:58 pm

Quoting acontador (Reply 29):
I think it would be good to have any of the current screeners/headscreeners chipping in a putting the record straight, as I am completely sure that no such discrimination against newer members exists or has ever existed. It is natural for all of us to struggle at the beginning (we all did, believe it or not), since you have to go through a tough learning process until you better understand what screeners find acceptable and what not, and in the process you will certainly improve with both your photography and post-processing skills. That learning process actually is an ongoing one, since you will always have something in your workflow change that will make an adjustment necessary. I recently went through the third monitor change in a short time, and my acceptance ratio went to hell. So I will have to take again the long, tough and hard road to relearn to adjust what I see in my new monitor to what screeners do in order to have some pictures accepted.

   Well said. However there is some inconsistency with how not only the acceptance criteria, but how rules in general are applied. There is a legitmate case to be made under some circumstances. In this case I don't see an issue, however.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
I sometimes wonder how many of you actually still get out there and do it, without worrying what this site and its people will say or think. When did we become a site of whining individuals, whose bleeding hearts cry every time someone says something mildly 'offensive'? Deal with it. These hard times can throw much more worrying things our way.

Hmm...interesting...

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
And for the record, I think the shot belongs here. At one time we strived to change the site from merely a database into something that truly represented the spirit of aviation photography. The image in question isn't perfect but it does just that.

  !!!! 100%, spot on.

We asked for changes. We got changes. And now we still complain. We are in danger of losing credibility with behavior like this. That's if we haven't already...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:29 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
I sometimes wonder how many of you actually still get out there and do it, without worrying what this site and its people will say or think.

That's wondering about something that, really, has no bearing. Why people shoot is a personal decision, whether it's to upload here, to upload somewhere else, to sell prints, or just for the pleasure of it. And it's certainly possible to shoot for multiple reasons.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 32):
When did we become a site of whining individuals, whose bleeding hearts cry every time someone says something mildly 'offensive'? Deal with it.

You got that right. I've read countless threads here and in the Feedback forum where people seemingly get so upset over something a screener or another photographer says, which was clearly meant innocuously or constructively.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 33):
We asked for changes. We got changes. And now we still complain. We are in danger of losing credibility with behavior like this. That's if we haven't already...

Problem there is that I'm sure not everyone wanted the changes that were made. So now one group that was upset is happy, and another group that was happy is upset.

Personally, I was happy, and I'm still happy. I'm not uploading much lately, but that's mainly because I just haven't felt like putting the time into editing for here. That's my problem, not the site's.

I really have never been able to understand why people get so worked up over all this!
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:55 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
That's wondering about something that, really, has no bearing. Why people shoot is a personal decision, whether it's to upload here, to upload somewhere else, to sell prints, or just for the pleasure of it. And it's certainly possible to shoot for multiple reasons.

You're right, but it's a sad state of affairs when all one's images are shot on the basis of whether they are acceptable here. This hobby used to be so much fun, and much of that fun was in the sharing of images. However with the advance of sites such as this I now see a lot of resentment and negativity. I may not be the most experienced photographer here but I've put in enough years to know when something is in danger of becoming detrimental to the hobby.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
Problem there is that I'm sure not everyone wanted the changes that were made. So now one group that was upset is happy, and another group that was happy is upset.

Only the 'purists' would not have advocated the change. If you don't like what you see, don't bother opening it. If I shop for a new car no-one forces me to test drive the many I've no interest in; but ultimately everyone benefits from a greater range of car models on offer. Some people will never be satisfied.

Karl
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:06 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 35):
If you don't like what you see, don't bother opening it.

I fully agree, but look at this thread, for example. Someone didn't like what they saw.... 
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 35):
This hobby used to be so much fun, and much of that fun was in the sharing of images. However with the advance of sites such as this I now see a lot of resentment and negativity. I may not be the most experienced photographer here but I've put in enough years to know when something is in danger of becoming detrimental to the hobby.

I'll have to disagree there. I started about 2.5 years ago now, much influenced by what I saw on here. And I'd be lying if I said A.net wasn't a fairly sizable influence on my photography in the last couple years. It's certainly not the only one, and maybe not even the main one anymore, but ultimately, I loved looking at others' images here, and I wanted to contribute. And I've had a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

It's not A.net's fault if it becomes detrimental. It's up to each individual photographer as to how he/she incorporates this website into their work (or doesn't). Not much different than shooting stock photography, or what-have-you.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:48 am

I see they removed the lock on this thread. Interesting...

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 34):
Problem there is that I'm sure not everyone wanted the changes that were made. So now one group that was upset is happy, and another group that was happy is upset.

Actually I don't think that's it, really. What I see often is people complaining selectively about the changes, using shots like this as an example when things don't go their way with one of their own shots. I believe they are often comparing apples to oranges when in their mind, they see an apples to apples comparison. It would be like me trying to upload a crop that doesn't work and getting a distance and motive rejection with a personal note from screeners saying aircraft not prominent enough in the frame. Then I see a window shot with very little aircraft in the frame and think its the same thing when what's really wrong is my attempt at something different just simply did not work.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
megatop412
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:03 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 21):
Quoting megatop412 (Reply 20):
Honing your craft as a photographer is not necessarily the same thing as striving to meet acceptance criteria.

No it's not, but who's to say you can't do both?

You certainly can do both. In my experience though, while not mutually exclusive of each other(heck, often they inform one another), a photographer would do well to know which path he/she is on and the end they hope to achieve.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11760
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:09 am

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 37):
I see they removed the lock on this thread. Interesting...

Take it as a positive sign (until someone complains about it, that is   ).

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 37):
Actually I don't think that's it, really.

Oh gotcha. Certainly plenty of that too. Like, say, comparing your rejection to accepted shots that are 30+ years old....

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 38):
In my experience though, while not mutually exclusive of each other(heck, often they inform one another), a photographer would do well to know which path he/she is on and the end they hope to achieve.

Sure, but again, not mutually exclusive.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
johnmiller
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:35 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:36 am

This has been a great thread with good points being made. It is just the right discussion for this forum. Posters should be allowed to have their say provided they stay with the issue, which is: do regular posters get preferential treatment over 'occasionals'? It is my opinion they do, for what that is worth and our screeners, who we all know have a difficult task, should not get defensive about it but value the feedback.
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:35 pm

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 40):
do regular posters get preferential treatment over 'occasionals'? It is my opinion they do

Can I ask on what basis you think that? I fail to see where that is the case personally. With over 5100 photos on the database, I suppose I fit in to the regular poster / uploader catagory and don't feel I get any different treatment when it comes to photo acceptance or rejection than anyone else. I get my fair share of rejections, some that I feel are harsh and don't agree with just like someone who may only have a few photos on the database. This is one area I feel the screening is good in that photos are screened on their merits, not on the person uploading them.

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 avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:20 pm

Sometimes I even feel that there is less leeway for long-time uploaders in certain respects, when screeners feel that they 'can do better.' I'm not complaining, and maybe it's not at all true. In that case, let this serve as a reminder that we all tend to fabricate our own view of the truth.

Peter 
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
johnmiller
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:35 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:11 pm

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 41):
Can I ask on what basis you think that?

Hi Darren, Yes, as I pointed out in a previous post I have had images rejected because they are from the same air to air shoot and yet other more regular posters seem able to have multiple images accepted from the same shoot.

I don't get silly about it but accept that I am not a regular poster and leave it at that.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:07 pm

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 43):

Read the rules and you might find answers there.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Crew
Posts: 4805
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:33 pm

John, this sounds like a double issue. If you could link the photos here it can be easily solved.
Airliners.net Crew - Photo Screener
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:44 pm

Thanks for that John. I know what you mean about some of the double rules. I'm in discussion with the screeners about that at the moment with a couple of issues that i'm trying to get my head around with consistancy and raised an issue. While I can see why you might perceive an issue, I can assure you that newer uploaders aren't treated any different from more established uploaders, I haven't anyway. I think I remember seeing your thread and it was a straight forward double.

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

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:00 pm

We will get nowhere speculating whether or not some photographers are granted more uploading leeway than others.

The real issue is whether photos of landscapes taken from aircraft, but that include little or nothing of the aircraft itself, should be accepted.

Do we need a new category "Photos from aircraft"?
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:02 pm

Quoting johnmiller (Reply 43):
Hi Darren, Yes, as I pointed out in a previous post I have had images rejected because they are from the same air to air shoot and yet other more regular posters seem able to have multiple images accepted from the same shoot.

I have been reading (and enjoying) this thread but what John said there is simply not true. Photos are judged on their merits not who the photographer and I can assure you that my acceptance rate (as a Head Screener) was recently quite low as I was having some issues. I have had some help but the only way I will be totally sure that I have resolved it will be when my next images go into screening in a few days time.

As to your comments about air to air Kas has probably highlighted the issue. The double rules still apply and as someone who has also done air to air, it can be very frustrating to only be allowed one shot per side in what is a tricky, undoubtedly expensive photographic situation. Only a fool would take one shot, you take plenty, and when a lot are good then it is not easy to be forced to only select one - I know, I have had to do it. With three aircraft in the air to photograph, on one session, I was able to do more but it takes some planning and understanding of our rules. I did not breach the rules, I worked within them, but I know them well.

As to the image that started this thread, the aviation interest is minimal but it is a great air to ground shot. If the wing was not in it, it would certainly have been rejected and the fact that it was by one of our most popular photographers would have been totally irrelevant. We walk a tightrope between being a database and having aircraft related images and whilst I most certainly lean towards the database aspect, I can still appreciate that as a great aviation related photo.

I don't think we do badly in hitting that balance....
Mick Bajcar
 
airimage
Topic Author
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Landmarks.net?

Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 48):
Photos are judged on their merits not who the photographer is

I'd just like to put to rest any idea that I have had a similar photo rejected. I haven't
I haven't uploaded to this site since last year I think and only have 3 photos.
I probably only have 3 photos here because I don't have the time to go out photographing and only do it when I'm at an airport going on holiday, and even then I'm never in the best place to take photos so I basically just get what I can and most of those don't/won't cut it here.
I do like to stick up for the avid enthusiasts that do go out of their way to take pictures and struggle to get them on here because they are slightly soft on the leading edge of the stabiliser and grainy at ISO100 and also has questionable motive because ones eye is drawn to a a particular part of the photo and not the aircraft/airport in said photo.
This shot in question had none of those flaws (that I could see) apart from the eye point thing and is a great shot of a mosque or something and I'll admit that after reading through these replies, I've come to the conclusion that the photo is as acceptable as a wing shot on approach over any major city.
It's just not a city or place I'm familiar with.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests