How do screeners determine level?

clickhappy · Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:25 pm

As someone who has had several level rejections lately I am trying to understand how the current screening team decides if an image is level or not.

I came across this image:

The runway is clearly "level," but obviously the background is not. Given that the image is from a screener, and was screened by at least one other screener, has the airliners.net definition of "level" changed?

I've used this one image as an example, but there are many many more.

Thank you for any feedback :bigthumbsup:

vikkyvik · Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:06 pm

I've actually noticed the same thing in the last few months - that there are a number of accepted shots that aren't level.

airkas1 · Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:44 pm

Runways aren’t always reliable, so whenever there are buildings, those should be used to determine level. I’ve set things in motion for the photo above.

JakTrax · Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:59 am

The problem with hangars such as the one in the above shot is that they are in fact pretty flimsy structures that do a lot of shifting over time. The short answer is that there's no real way to prove (or disprove) that that image is unlevel. If you use the hangar as a reference no doubt the slope of the runway will look odd.

Benefit of the doubt on that one?

johnr · Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:39 am

Karl, 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.

airkas1 · Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:39 am

A slope in a runway (especially at side-on angle) is usually more plausible than a very crooked building.

Royal himself has mentioned on a few occasions that the runway(s) there are unlevel, and despite having never been there myself I’ll take his word on that.

JakTrax · Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:17 am

I'm just playing devil's advocate and I'd agree that it's unlevel, however I think if you use the hangar the runway slope will look odd. It's been discussed here at length about how 'feeling' level is sometimes more important than actually being level. That said, in this instance, if the locals are sure the hangar's not crooked, and that the runway slopes, it's case closed.

As a side note, there are some pretty big hangars at EMA that are all over the place, so it's not just the ones at the local aeroclub....

dutchspotter1 · Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:48 am

I'm not sure if the photo has been adjusted in the meantime, but it looks more or less level to me:
1. runway is horizontal
2. lines at the corners of the hangar are vertical
3. line between the roof and wall on the side of the hangar is horizontal

The shape of the hangar might also be a factor: it is rectangular except at the right side where the roof is slant.

flee · Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:49 am

Yes, levelling is pretty subjective and I have experienced inconsistent screening outcomes.

I tend to take "horizon" literally when I look at levelling - that is make sure I level to distant objects horizontally and vertically. That may mean that the runway/taxiway lines might look unlevel. Sometimes my photos are accepted and sometimes, they are not. Nothing much I can do there!

dutchspotter1 · Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:53 am

BTW the runway slope at Paine Field runway 34L is 0.17% down (so approx. 0.1 deg is my math is correct).

KFTG · Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:20 am

You'd think that by now with the advances in digital camera technology that EXIF data would contain leveling information.
My iPhone knows when I take an unlevel shot and it auto-corrects when I tap "edit" - surely such info is buried within EXIF somewhere?

airkas1 · Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:08 pm

But even if buried in the EXIF, we have no EXIF read-out during screening (although some of us have a browser plugin that shows some of the EXIF info).

clickhappy · Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:20 pm

The flip-side to the argument that the hangar is leaning (it isn't) and the photo is level (it isn't) is that all the other shots from that location, correctly leveled using the building as a guide, are now "unlevel."

You don't get to have it both ways.

flee · Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:30 am

clickhappy wrote:
The flip-side to the argument that the hangar is leaning (it isn't) and the photo is level (it isn't) is that all the other shots from that location, correctly leveled using the building as a guide, are now "unlevel."

I believe that no two photos are identical - the photographer standing next to me will still shoot a photo that is a little different. Perspective is a funny thing.

JakTrax · Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:11 pm

The reason I stopped uploading here was due to an apparent level issue with one on my images, back in 2015. It was at EMA and featured a hangar renowned for being practically impossible to use as a reference; however despite my insisting that I know my local airport the screeners of the time decided that they knew better. It is, therefore, good to know that the word of regular uploaders now seems to be good enough to influence the decision.

jelpee · Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:06 pm

I use verticals and/or distant horizontals to judge level. If none are reliable, then I see how it looks/feels. There are times I will actually view the image in an editing program and adjust level to see if it looks/feels better adjusted. There is a degree (no pun intended) of subjectivity. I also give the benefit of the doubt to the photographer if a comment about the level is included. If I'm unsure, I leave it for another set of eyes to screen.

Jehan

johnr · Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:31 pm

So 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?

airkas1 · Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:59 am

Isn't the post I made in the other thread clear enough?
The photo in the thread starter post has been updated in the mean time, so the answer is 'hangar'.

johnr · Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:16 am

If 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.

vikkyvik · Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:43 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Isn't the post I made in the other thread clear enough?The photo in the thread starter post has been updated in the mean time, so the answer is 'hangar'.

I thought it was clear. However, the photo in the opening post still looks off-level. You sure it's been updated?

Thanks!

airkas1 · Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:54 pm

I thought it was, but not so sure anymore.

JakTrax · Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:18 pm

Still the same image, without doubt.

On a somewhat related topic, what exactly are the centring rules lately? I've seen many a comment in the feedback forum recently hinting that images I've thought looked fine are low in frame. I did actually have a conversation with Kas a few days ago about the below image, which I'm linking only as a reference (not in an attempt to insult or shame the photographer, before any of you sensitive types jump on me). In my opinion it's too high in frame but screener consensus is that it's the norm for the 380 these days — does this mean that if I submitted an image with the 380 lower in the frame, it'd get rejected?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-A ... cudQ%3D%3D

Centring rules of old (circa 2008) certainly preferred the subjects high in frame, then from about 2012 until pretty recently the preference seemed to be for slightly low in frame (my personal preference if I'm honest). I'm not imagining things as, a couple of years back, I went through my own images here and there was certainly a difference between what I uploaded in 2006, 2008-2010 and 2012-2015.

airkas1 · Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:23 pm

A guideline for horizontal/vertical centering will be sent out to the screeners in the near future. When that’s done, I will post it in the general thread.

JakTrax · Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:54 pm

I think horizontal centring is less subjective than vertical, however it still takes a keen eye to assess when it's okay to crop wings/tailplanes and when it's not. Take this image, for example:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130333117 ... /lightbox/

Now had I been uploading it here, I'd have chosen a more front 3/4 image, but of course with Flickr I can apply my own criteria. How side-on does the subject have to be before a wing/tailplane crop becomes too awkward? In this case I think it's borderline; personally I'd base it on the outermost flap fairing, and if it's encroaching into the rear fuselage then it's probably getting into awkward territory. Here's a similar shot (more front 3/4), demonstrating how (at least in my opinion) the wing/tailplane crop appears less awkward due to the positioning of the outboard flap fairing:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130333117 ... /lightbox/

On a final note, what's really encouraging for many old slide/film shooters is the new acceptable ratios — I have tons of older images (some digital) that wouldn't have stood a chance under any past site preferences, however the low in frame issue is negated by simply using a shorter vertical ratio.

Karl

clickhappy · Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:19 am

Lately I've been the recipient of some harsh centering rejections, its just the standard of lack of consistency argument that's always existed:

Then I see images like these, and I smile:

(these are just a couple of random images that were just added)

We are lucky that there is at least one HS who is trying to make it better. Vas's efforts remind me of Tim de Groots, back in the day.

JakTrax · Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:49 am

In my opinion (which is just that: an opinion) both the above linked images (i.e. the ones that aren't yours) are HIF. There's a somewhat unreliable 'rule' that one should use the windowline but that isn't effective when dealing with aircraft with very stubby fuselages or abnormally large tails (the A318 and A380 immediately spring to mind). To me, Royal, your first (UA) image is spot on, however I'd personally rather see the 767 slightly lower (although given the links it looks acceptable).

What's your opinion on the QR 380?

Karl

flee · Tue Jun 18, 2019 6:54 am

I have been cropping my images to 16x9 ratio as it is easier for laptop and mobile users to view those. I cropped them so that the tail fin is not too high up and near the edge of the frame and also to have less of the empty sky in the lower part of the frame. I got low in frame rejections because of this.

airkas1 · Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:47 am

Both Etihads look alright to me. Royal’s 737 looks good, the 767 looks slightly HIF (but not enough for a rejection). The BAe looks good and the 737 looks very slightly HIF (but again not enough for a rejection if there are no further flaws).

jelpee · Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:11 pm

The BA 777 looks HIF to me. The Summit Avro is marginally HIF, but not enough to warrant a rejection for that alone.

At first glance the United 737 looks LIF, but I think it is the lines on the taxiway in the foreground that is causing it.

Since this is a thread about "Level", based on the distant horizontals it looks like the United B737 needs some CCW though? Same with the B767. In addition to the distant horizontal, the trees in the center look like they are leaning to the right.

Jehan

JKPhotos · Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:21 pm

Well, the Comair (BA) 738 is definitely HIF to me, aggree with Jehan.
The Avro slightly, but certainly not enough to warrant a rejection (as I cannot see other issues).

Concerning Royals shots: The UA is a lovely shot and as fine as it gets concerning centering to me (but honestly looks like it could do with some CCW), the 763 could be a bit lower, but again not HIF enough to warrant a rejection as Kas said.

The QR380 mentioned by Karl should IMHO not have been accepted (for being as high as it gets), but mistakes happen.
Generally I don't know where that centering by fuselage / windowline comes from, as far as I know this has never been said on anet.
Centering by fuselage can only work for very long aircraft that don't have a large tail for example a 346 or a MD80, but for 380's 737-600's, - 700's and so on it will look unbalanced.

btw: Nice Etihad Cargo shots, Karl. Would appreciate if you 'd be back uploading to anet.

Julien

clickhappy · Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:35 pm

I guess the opinions are as varied as they get. Nothing wrong with that, it just highlights the challenges in getting an image accepted here. With regards to my own shots, I do agree the 767 was slightly HIF (which is why I did not appeal). However, given that it was a new frame, and the amount of shots that do get through with marginal centering, I was surprised it was rejected.

The screening mantra used to be "screen to accept" but somewhere along the way that was lost (at least for my images). Bottom line, it is easy to find a reason to reject a photo, if that is what your goal was from the get-go. Getting back to the original topic, I've had a lot of images rejected for unlevel - which is why it is shocking to see such a clearly unlevel shot accepted, especially from a screener. It appears the original issue has been reuploaded, but it is still unlevel and now it's LIF :wave:

Miguel1982 · Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:56 pm

clickhappy wrote:
It appears the original issue has been reuploaded, but it is still unlevel and now it's LIF

As far as I can see, it has not been reuploaded yet.

vikkyvik · Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:17 pm

The difference in screener opinion on HIF/LIF is a perfect argument for casting a wider net; that is, accepting more images.

Now, I don't actually think "screening to accept" actually exists, since screening by definition is looking for flaws in an image. But think of it this way - if something looks slightly HIF to you and your first instinct is to reject it, take a second look, and if the word "slightly" still applies, just accept it.

That's my view, anyway.

Oh, also, although Royal's 767 looks slightly HIF to me, from a centering perspective, I'd accept both of his shots and both of the ones he linked.

clickhappy · Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:20 pm

Based on feedback from this thread I appealed the United 737 shot, and it was accepted.

Thank you for the encouragement.

JakTrax · Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:23 pm

Another thing to mention is how deceptive a thumbnail shot is. The amount of times I've seen a thumbnail in which the subjects look HIF, then have gone on to open it full-size to find it actually looks fine.

Karl

How do screeners determine level?

How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Re: How do screeners determine level?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net