There is a shot on the front page at the moment of some mothballed freighters where the main aircraft in the shot has the tail, engine and nose wheel all cut off. Blown highlights on the noses and generally seeming quite flat contrast wise. My question is is this allowed for those type of shots only...
Jump to postPaul, of late I’ve been receiving rejections of scans ( some from old damaged slides and negatives) for reasons such as slight blur, grain and even very slightly unlevel. Can you put your hand on your heart and declare that you truly believe the quality of that Singapore Airlines B757 scan is of suf...
Jump to postThe short answer is it depends on who you are.
Jump to postDon’t forget Jehan that the very reason for the existence for A.net, the photographs, are supplied to the site at no charge also.
Jump to postThanks for the feedback....they were both rejected for being underexposed.
Jump to postWhere did the 1992 come from? It was always pre-digital ie about 2002. Is this another rule that has been implemented without any advise to the community?
Jump to postRequesting opinions on this shot, in particular in regards to exposure. It was taken in early morning light. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 90b576b628
Jump to postAny issues with exposure, contrast and sharpness do you think?
Jump to postRequesting on possible flaws with this shot please. Taken in evening light with low sun. Regards.https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8a6d13ddcf
Jump to postCan anybody tell me how to add rejected pictures from my Photo Corner into a thread? I’m not very computer savvy. Thanks in advance. John.
Jump to postYes, it’s nice to know what they think about us.....behind our backs. I think every rejection/acceptance should have the screener name visible. If the screener is confidant in their own ability this shouldn’t be a problem.
Jump to postWhoever the screener is who wrote that comment should be relived of his screening duties immediately.
Jump to postIs there any possibility this fault will be rectified? Each day more of my photos lose hundreds of views, in some cases thousands. The total view counter is also still stuck.
Jump to postAny updates on this issue? Just today 3 of my photos that I’m aware of have lost several hundred views each. These 3 shots are also available for Photographers Choice again, it’s almost as if they have be uploaded again??
Jump to postThe Total Views counter in my Photo Corner has not updated for the last couple of days. Is this a site wide problem or only affecting me?
Jump to postThe next person to upload a similar image should have it accepted, forget about this “screener discretion” nonsense...it either meets the site criteria or it doesn’t.
Jump to postJulian...”to keep it on the facts”,I was simply enquiring as to wether the photo in question was the same one or an updated version because the time line of the comments including the one from the screener who initially rejected it didn’t seem to match up. I wasn’t aware that Jehan is a newbie scree...
Jump to postIs this the same photo that’s been in the Top 5 for the last few hours or am I missing something?
Jump to postWhy is that a rant? It’s an observation about an issue that was raised in this thread. If you keep rejecting images based on personal preferences that have otherwise been acceptable on this site then you are indeed effecting change in the upload criteria not necessarily for the better.
Jump to postSome of the screeners have certainly changed the standards of what was once accepted based on their own personal likes. There was an instance recently where a newbie screener admitted that he rejected an image solely because he’s “not a fan” of that type of crop despite admitting that the crop is a ...
Jump to postThe reason I mentioned the number of shots was because the screener alluded to the rarity of the Mig being the reason it was accepted and mine was not. There are 770 Romanian Airforce Mig 21 shots in the DB and only 440 Vietnam Airlines A350 shots. Julien, it would be naive to think that a handful o...
Jump to postBTW there are 29 shots of my rejected airframe in the DB.
Jump to postMy appeal for blurry and four ( 4 ) other rejection reasons was turned down, but reduced to just blurry and quality, with the personal message that it was obviously blurry and not a rare airframe in the DB. That’s fine. However a HS has said in this thread that the Mig is “obvious bad quality”. Ther...
Jump to postI’ve just had another nit picky rejection including blurry. When will the shot that is the subject of this thread going to be removed?
Jump to postThat would be fine if it was applied fairly to all photographers instead of just a chosen few.
Jump to postThe ANA 777 over the sea that recently won PC has an exceptionally wide crop so where is the consistency?
Jump to postIf it was clear enough I wouldn’t have asked for clarification. The shot in the opening post may have updated but in reference to the hangar it is still not level. But anyway, apologies for asking a question.
Jump to postSo just for some clarification with the new rules....If Royal was standing next to Daniel and took the same shot but levelled with reference to the verticals on the hangar which one would be rejected? Would both be accepted?
Jump to postKarl, if that was a hangar at the local aero club I’d agree with you but the structures at the Boeing plant are anything but flimsy. It’s definitely not level but is an easy fix.
Jump to postThis will have absolutely zero impact on Thai tourism. Nobody cares....only a handful of aviation photographers.
Jump to postThe thread in the photography feedback forum concerning this issue makes interesting reading.
Jump to postJehan....taking my last page of accepted photos as an example which totals 36 shots on my iPad 13 of the 36 were accepted on appeal after initially being rejected for what were frankly nonsense reasons. That’s 36% of my shots have been accepted on appeal. If you include the shots that I’ve appealed ...
Jump to postThere is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is an element of the screener group that screen to reject.
Jump to postAn interesting topic. When there is conjecture you go to the numbers. 2013 - 162,907 uploads. 204 - 172,566. 2015 - 165, 035 and 2016 - 131,769. That’s an average of 158,089. In 2018 the total uploads was 97,159..... that’s a reduction of about 40% which is a disturbing downward trend
Jump to postI’ve just uploaded the first shot of Air New Zealand’s first A321 NEO in All Blacks livery in Australia for priory screening. It created quite some interest at the Gold Coast Airport. Within minutes it was deprioritised. Recently one of the screeners had a shot of a Qantas A380 in the new livery pri...
Jump to postSame with P3 160610. Seems pretty run of the mill to me unless I’m missing something.
Jump to postThe only views the site gets are the links from Facebook etc which immediately puts them on the front page. And the only shots that get promoted on FB which facilitates them getting on the front page which explains those so called 20,000 plus views are those that selected by a single individual. All...
Jump to postDon’t drink the water when you get to Sydney Karl....you’ve been warned.
Jump to postMany thanks to whichever screener sorted this out. Regards.
Jump to postI just uploaded a newsworthy first visit of a rare aircraft to Ayers Rock in central Australia and sadly as I feared would happen it has been deprioritised without explanation.
Jump to postIt looks like the QR has been accepted and as usual is racing its way to the Top 5. Did this shot get priority screening? If it did was this a shot of a special flight or some such thing? Regards.
Jump to postI’m curious as to the policy. Can and do Screeners screen and accept their own shots?
Jump to postVIK- Australia has a historcal connection to England...the “old country”. Qantas was formed so we could fly there. It took Captain Cook 9 months to sail here. My immigrant “10 pound Poms” parents spent 6 weeks on a migrant ship to get here. 10 stops on an Empire Flying Boat, 6 stops on a Super Conn...
Jump to postI’m actually talking about the preferential treatment for site promotion not screening which I have absolutely no doubt is fair.
Jump to post