Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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
jelpee wrote:Also the UPS logo on the tail shows blur.
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!
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.
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.
JakTrax wrote:Another HKT shot with some serious banding now TOTD. I thought this issue had been 'addressed with the photographer'?
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.
dutchspotter1 wrote:This looks like a pretty poor airbrush/retouch job: https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/Airbu ... 00/6087363
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.
cpd wrote:I’m zooming right in on my phone screen which tends to make flaws like that more obvious.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.