I see no problem with the quality. They are superb shots.

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

by members who do not actively upload or in the case of CPD deleted all his images years ago and only posts what is perceived to be popular opinion. More posts than any uploads

Thank you

Are you suggesting I should upload images?

Given the image criteria is obviously changed permanently I won’t say anything further.

Front on view with only one side of the plane?

Curious why this one wasn't rejected for dirt spots (not only birds): https://www.airliners.net/photo/The-Car ... SF/6027465

Hi dutchspotter1, the rules (used to at least) state that birds in the frame are acceptable if they are easily identifiable as birds (which in this case they are). I would have removed them personally as they are a bit distracting but it's not an issue per the acceptance criteria.

Thanks, but there are also dirt spots that are clearly not birds, e.g. in the upper right corner and just above the first lightpole on the right side of the red-white pole.

Thanks, but there are also dirt spots that are clearly not birds, e.g. in the upper right corner and just above the first lightpole on the right side of the red-white pole.

Yes, I see them now. Sorry, I thought you were referring exclusively to those specks that are obviously birds.

The one above the lightpole is likely a bird but since it can't really be identified as such it should have been scrubbed. The one top-right is either an insect or dust spot on the sensor and should certainly have been addressed.

I am not one to really vent about rejections and I try my best to remain reserved as I know it can be hard. But lately, it feels like consistency has gone totally out the window.

For the past two months, I had a high acceptance rate and any rejection I had was understandable as it was usually a minor mistake(s) on my part. But lately, nearly everything I have submitted has been rejected and in my honest opinion, some of them have been flat out ridiculous. National Cargo B744s, for example, are very rare type for KPIT. Yet both images I submitted were rejected partly for "Common". I understand if it is a popular upload, but come on. If it is rare for a certain airport, shouldn't that at least be a consideration? I'll add too that both had additional rejection reasons of which I didn't have much of an issue with.

And then there's this image. Rejected for Blurry/OS. Appealed and upheld.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 2ab93b2969
Yet here is the image at full size. I don't see any blur here.
https://i.imgur.com/6jTpigO.jpg

The Blurry/OS and "not suitable at this size" rejections have gone way up for no visible reason. If I had an image that was blurry at full size, I would never bother to try uploading it. However, it just seems hard to please anyone when I have to go from full size to 1600px wide and I'm basically told to give up on the image when I know there's little or nothing wrong with it. Especially when I have not changed my work flow, equipment or camera settings at all and Blurry/OS rejections were basically nonexistent a few weeks ago.

Anyway, I don't mean to be a whiner. It's just been frustrating to upload here lately. It's also not like I have much time anymore to go back and constantly re-edit images, mainly due to work and personal reasons.

Common doesn’t mean that an image won’t be accepted, it just means that the subject is well-documented and that only the highest quality shots will make it.

To me the UPS seems blurry around the reg number - possibly from the exhaust but it is noticeable.

Hi Evan,

I did the initial screening of your UPS MD-11 and unfortunately could not see accepting it as uploaded. The nose area, including the main title is oversharpened. Based on the overall appearance, it looks characteristic of too much sharpening applied to compensate for blur. While a soft image can be improved with sharpening, blurry images cannot. Also the UPS logo on the tail shows blur. Unfortunately, your image at 1600 pixels showed issues. It was upheld by another head screener on appeal. While you have described the rejections as "ridiculous" in your post, I'd say it was more an example of quality standards being kept high, which is indeed the Question raised in the title of this thread.

As for "Common", images are not rejected for that reason alone. As Royal mentioned, it means it is a common registration in the DB, and those images are held to the highest of standards. The threshold for "Common" is >100. It might be good if you plan to upload a "Common" registration, to ensure that there are no visible flaws.

Regards,

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

Also the UPS logo on the tail shows blur.

I'm sorry but I really don't see any blur here (at the rejected image). I do agree that the rejected image is oversharped and that the tail area on the original image looks blurry, but I'm curious how you're able to tell that the UPS logo on the rejected image is blurry. Sometimes I also get the feeling that screeners are seeing things that aren't there, so I get Runway28L's sentiment.
Furthermore I find the tree parts quite distracting, so when talking about upholding the high quality standard, why not consider such things as well?

The original file isn't blurry but the tail does look softer than the rest of the aircraft. Generally it looks excessively sharp to me for an original file and I suspect resizing to 1600 pixels is, without any additional sharpening, going to render it oversharp by default.

Somehow how I sense the expectation that the screening process needs to be perfect, each time, all the time. That is not realistic. As humans, we see, and perceive images differently as exemplified by the comments on this very post. Candidly speaking, if you know of a site similar to this where the screening process is perfect or pretty darn close to it, let me know since I would like to start contributing there myself!

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

Somehow how I sense the expectation that the screening process needs to be perfect, each time, all the time. That is not realistic. As humans, we see, and perceive images differently as exemplified by the comments on this very post. Candidly speaking, if you know of a site similar to this where the screening process is perfect or pretty darn close to it, let me know since I would like to start contributing there myself!

It doesn't need to be "perfect, each time, all the time". It needs to be consistent. I stopped uploading to this site because I got tired of inconsistent screening. Looking at this latest example, I guess I won't be uploading any time soon, because the UPS shot looks good to me, and I would have uploaded it if it were mine. Apparently, I don't know what makes an acceptable A.net photo.

Moose,

Even to be consistent is unrealistic, IMO unless we adopt robo-screening. As humans there will be variability...that's what defines us as humans. So let me rephrase: If you know of aviation photography site where the screening process has better consistency compared to a.net, do please share.

Jehan

I don't think anyone expects perfection — or even 100% consistency — but let me give an example:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-E ... nEum5K5DCG

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwe ... nEum5K5DCG

The disparity isn't 'just a bit' — it's enormous! Then we see rejections for the same aircraft type (or similar) where the subject in the frame is actually somewhere between those two. And the rejections are upheld on appeal.

The above is not an isolated incident. You only need search the first few pages of 737-600/700s and you'll see that centring is all over the place.

Jehan, I really appreciate you chiming in with your view. However, I just have to disagree with the shot being blurry. Looking at the original TIF file (had to share it as a JPEG since Imgur apparently doesn't let you upload whatever size you want anymore), I see no evidence of that. I even made that clear in my appeal, but unfortunately the head screener still didn't see it that way. That's also what bothers me a lot: there is just no way to make a strong case for what I am seeing on my computer screen. I always just have to run on luck and hope that the HS has a different opinion, which is at best a 50/50 chance.

Just want to make it clear that it is nothing against you at all and I don't mean to rub you the wrong way if I have. I'm just frustrated at the entire process as of late and things going one way when I think it should have gone the other way. Also, I agree with you and some of the other posters that the human factor makes perfect screening impossible. But I do think there needs to be a more consistent way to decide on what is acceptable and what isn't. That also goes for the extreme level of nitpicking that I sometimes see.

jelpee wrote:

Somehow how I sense the expectation that the screening process needs to be perfect, each time, all the time. That is not realistic.

Well, if you replace the words "screening process" by the words "photo editing process" , you will get a sense of the photographers' POV .

Anyway, in my opinion screening should start with the basics and consistently pick out the obvious/unambiguous flaws. If that is not under control, there will always be confusion and frustration among photographers.
Without consistent (which is not the same as strict) screening, photographers will not be able to properly adjust their workflow and improve their photo quality and thus the quality standards of this website.
Obviously perfection is not possible, but photographers and screeners can at least strive for it by helping each other and giving each other feedback. A.net is obviously the best starting point as the other well-known (aviation) photo websites (and social media) are a lot farther away from perfection.

Runway28L wrote:

Jehan, I really appreciate you chiming in with your view. However, I just have to disagree with the shot being blurry. Looking at the original TIF file (had to share it as a JPEG since Imgur apparently doesn't let you upload whatever size you want anymore), I see no evidence of that. I even made that clear in my appeal, but unfortunately the head screener still didn't see it that way. That's also what bothers me a lot: there is just no way to make a strong case for what I am seeing on my computer screen. I always just have to run on luck and hope that the HS has a different opinion, which is at best a 50/50 chance.

Just want to make it clear that it is nothing against you at all and I don't mean to rub you the wrong way if I have. I'm just frustrated at the entire process as of late and things going one way when I think it should have gone the other way. Also, I agree with you and some of the other posters that the human factor makes perfect screening impossible. But I do think there needs to be a more consistent way to decide on what is acceptable and what isn't. That also goes for the extreme level of nitpicking that I sometimes see.

Evan,

We can agree to disagree on the blurriness. But the image remains over-sharpened and that itself was a significant issue to warrant a rejection. Regardless of the condition of the original file, we screeners screen based on the final version that is uploaded. Combine that with variations in monitor that screeners use (airliners.net does not provide us all with standard monitors) and variations in visual perceptions, there is likely to be differences in opinions and judgment. If you are running into a streak of rejections, may be worthwhile to reconfirm if something has not changed in your camera settings or your editing settings/workflow. If 2 head screeners (myself and the appeal screener) saw the same thing, it may be worthwhile giving it some credence.

No offense taken on my part--I am open to different points of view; we all get better by listening to feedback.

Regards,

Jehan

Another HKT shot with some serious banding now TOTD. I thought this issue had been 'addressed with the photographer'?

JakTrax wrote:

Another HKT shot with some serious banding now TOTD. I thought this issue had been 'addressed with the photographer'?

The banding was the least objectionable thing about that shot, but the staff apparently like them, so here we are.

Moose135 wrote:

JakTrax wrote:

Another HKT shot with some serious banding now TOTD. I thought this issue had been 'addressed with the photographer'?

The banding was the least objectionable thing about that shot, but the staff apparently like them, so here we are.

The first thing I noticed was how distant it was. You could crop away nearly half the photo, and end up with something much more pleasing (in the process, removing the photgrapher's annoying shadow).

It is a rubbish shot and I am starting to get frustrated in why these pictures are being accepted and even placed as significant. I do not know the photographer personally but it seems he has a large influence on the screeners at A.net!

Just curious why a clipped stabilizer is not an issue here: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Korean- ... CD/6069925

Hello

Seems to be more feedback on the last image from Phuket. Karl, it has been addressed and your comment adds no value to the community improving their uploads. Please focus on that and may I express our appreciation that the majority of your posts are now insightful with a lot for the community to learn from. It is clear we are allowing you to still express your opinions too. You raised banding again a you do with every such image. From now on please email the screeners. The image you questioned was edited and a reupload accepted by independent screeners. That is fair.

To those who don't like the latest shot from Phuket please think again about what you are being critical of. Your opinions are those of a vocal minority who we accept and understand do not like those kind of shots. With that said, the vast majority of the community overwhelmingly embrace them.

The last image received;

1: Over 20,000 distinct views in 7 days
2: Made Top of the Day with NO social media assistance
3: Was awarded the Photographers Choice award with not voting irregularities.

People post their negative opinions here and make these images sound like it's the end of the world and the site It's not..

You are misguided and out of sync with the overwhelming majority of the community. The above 3 points are the highest community validation and acceptance of such images the community can afford ANY image we accept. It is what ALL uploading photographers aspire to achieve. Again, the vocal minority are the only ones who post their objections. We understand not all will like these images. That can be said about any category, there are those who enjoy and others who critique.

This has been going on for months, we instructed the photographer to limit uploads of such images and they are limiting such uploads. Some of you can't let go of a rule change and raise these images off topic in threads they have nothing to do with. That is not constructive and such posts will be removed for being off topic.

Thank you

Paul, I think you're seeing posts and automatically assuming they're mine. I have NEVER said I dislike the beach shots (the opposite, actually), however when the flaws in some are things that even rookie screeners should be picking up on it's inevitably going to result in questions being asked. There have been a couple of recent pre-screening threads in which the banding has been more subtle yet the screeners have managed to pick it out right away.

Until your last post I had drawn a line under this. I've chosen to leave the site for all intents and purposes (far fewer posts from me of late you'll notice) so what goes on here is much less of a concern to me than it was a month or so ago.

Hello Karl

Okay I appreciate your clarification. You rightly raised the issue of banding on some of them and that is now less of an issue but there was some on the last which was fixed.

Karl, your posts over the past month have all been very constructive and you even uploaded an image. Even if you are participating in a reduced manner when you are posting they are posts that others are learning from and in the true spirit of furthering discussion so anyone who reads can improve their uploads. Quality over quantity benefits everyone.

This looks like a pretty poor airbrush/retouch job: https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/Airbu ... 00/6087363

Looks like part of the fence. Distracting but acceptable I think.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

This looks like a pretty poor airbrush/retouch job: https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/Airbu ... 00/6087363

Looks like the top of a wire fence in the corner.

It is a bit distracting but it is sometimes unavoidable unless you take a big ladder or stand on the roof of a car (or SUV). You cannot always do that.

I’m looking at it briefly on a phone and it is okay at a glance.

As I get quite a few soft rejections every now and then, I'm wondering if oversharpness is becoming the new standard: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Switzer ... et/6072923
The reg and roundel look quite jagged/oversharped to me.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

As I get quite a few soft rejections every now and then, I'm wondering if oversharpness is becoming the new standard: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Switzer ... et/6072923
The reg and roundel look quite jagged/oversharped to me.

Looks fine to me, I’m zooming right in on my phone screen which tends to make flaws like that more obvious.

It’s also a really nice photo. Well done to the photographer.

cpd wrote:

I’m zooming right in on my phone screen which tends to make flaws like that more obvious.

You're kidding, right?
I wonder if the screeners also screen photos on their phone rather than on a PC monitor

dutchspotter1 wrote:

cpd wrote:

I’m zooming right in on my phone screen which tends to make flaws like that more obvious.

You're kidding, right?
I wonder if the screeners also screen photos on their phone rather than on a PC monitor

Right, I’ll go and use my proper computer then. Still I disagree with you, the photo is okay - you are just having a whinge, in this case a totally unjustified whinge.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

cpd wrote:

I’m zooming right in on my phone screen which tends to make flaws like that more obvious.

You're kidding, right?
I wonder if the screeners also screen photos on their phone rather than on a PC monitor

I wonder what percentage of the audience views this site on their phones vs a PC these days. If the majority are on phones, perhaps the screeners should screen on their phone.

Silver1SWA wrote:

dutchspotter1 wrote:

cpd wrote:

I’m zooming right in on my phone screen which tends to make flaws like that more obvious.

You're kidding, right?
I wonder if the screeners also screen photos on their phone rather than on a PC monitor

I wonder what percentage of the audience views this site on their phones vs a PC these days. If the majority are on phones, perhaps the screeners should screen on their phone.

It’s probably a fair amount. We see on our analytics (Google Analytics and Adobe Analytics) for our sites that the mobile devices are getting more and more popular and our users no longer want to be using a computer, they want a mobile app or at least a mobile friendly experience. We do the last bit anyway, we do responsive designs and test all the major devices such as desktops, laptops, tablets and mobiles and we retest whenever any updates are rolled out. That’s not too hard as we use automation for that.

We are also very stringent on accessibility, so we use Jaws and NVDA all the time. If it doesn’t make sense in those we fix it so it does. It won’t get released otherwise.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

cpd wrote:

I’m zooming right in on my phone screen which tends to make flaws like that more obvious.

You're kidding, right?
I wonder if the screeners also screen photos on their phone rather than on a PC monitor

Checked again on my good screen (Apple A1083, similar panel type to the traditional preferred 'editing' screens), it's sharp, but not overdone in my view. It's a nice image.

I had a look at one of the recent images you had a rejection on (Air Canada Star Alliance A330 with the field in the foreground and trees behind it), that looked as though it could take a little bit more sharpening without getting jagged edges. Just makes some of the smaller details look more crisp.

That Hornet looks oversharp on my screen also.

I've never considered softness an image flaw as long as that softness isn't blur or camera shake. The line of what's acceptable and what's not here is way too narrow for such a subjective rejection reason. Marginal softness is one of very few 'flaws' that does not in any way detract from the appeal or enjoyment of a photo.

JakTrax wrote:

That Hornet looks oversharp on my screen also.

I've never considered softness an image flaw as long as that softness isn't blur or camera shake. The line of what's acceptable and what's not here is way too narrow for such a subjective rejection reason. Marginal softness is one of very few 'flaws' that does not in any way detract from the appeal or enjoyment of a photo.

Thanks, good to know that I'm not the only one who thinks the Hornet is oversharped. There is just no way to know these days what amount of sharpness is acceptable and what isn't.

@cpd, Regarding the mentioned Air Canada Star Alliance, it was initially rejected for soft and low contrast, then on appeal I got the message "Contrast and soft is not an issue. But aircraft has a pink color cast and is also High in the Frame."

Just seen another Phuket special that's made it onto the front page ... whilst I like these shots I must ask if the photographer has the permission from the "subjects" (let's face it, the main subject isn't the aircraft flying over) to be posted onto a public website?

Plus more banding, although it isn't as obvious as in previous images. My main issue would be that the primary subject, i.e. the aircraft, is underexposed. The horizon also isn't level.

The primary subjects look correctly exposed.

No pun intended there, I realise that could be interpreted differently.

Judging by the lack of interaction by the moderators / screeners I will take it as they do not know if consent was given from the subjects. I believe the photographer in question is a screener here too so it would be great to hear from him also.

Airplanepics wrote:

Judging by the lack of interaction by the moderators / screeners I will take it as they do not know if consent was given from the subjects. I believe the photographer in question is a screener here too so it would be great to hear from him also.

I would expect that consent was given. Otherwise if some random person was taking photos without permission of those people, surely they’d call the Police on that guy.

I’m not sure why they’d want to be paraded in front of thousands on a website while wearing very little. That’s their preference I suppose.

Just if you are thinking of doing this kind of thing, you’d want to get the permissions of the other people in writing just in case, otherwise as a photographer you could be left without a leg to stand on and in a lot of hot water. They can easily turn around and say “I didn’t give permission” and if you have nothing in writing, then you have no proof.

Laws are different in different countries, but in the United States, if you are in public - even standing in your own yard - I can take your picture and post it wherever I want. As long as I don't use it for commercial purposes, there isn't much you can legally do to stop me.

Moose135 wrote:

Laws are different in different countries, but in the United States, if you are in public - even standing in your own yard - I can take your picture and post it wherever I want. As long as I don't use it for commercial purposes, there isn't much you can legally do to stop me.

Regardless of what the law says, taking photos of someone as in those disputed photos without their permission is creepy, sleazy and wrong. And gives photographers who do the right thing a bad reputation.

Do things the right way, it is better for everyone.

Moose135 wrote:

Laws are different in different countries, but in the United States, if you are in public - even standing in your own yard - I can take your picture and post it wherever I want. As long as I don't use it for commercial purposes, there isn't much you can legally do to stop me.

You could argue that uploading to this website will be classed as for commercial purposes - after all, the site is making money from these images being hosted on their server

Different screener,different results

Very interesting to read this! I also know that a number of other fora are more critical with the acceptance of pictures, but I didn't know that the guidelines have actually become stricter here, too!