Funny to see such a wide variety of contrast/exposure being accepted of two nearly identical photos:

Exposure-wise I think both are within tolerance, although the second is certainly in need of a saturation/contrast boost (and I'm surprised it wasn't rejected on that basis). This actually illustrates the kind of broader tolerance bracket I'd like to see, rather than the narrow, knife-edge kind we frequently bear witness to nowadays.

Karl

JakTrax wrote:

Exposure-wise I think both are within tolerance, although the second is certainly in need of a saturation/contrast boost (and I'm surprised it wasn't rejected on that basis). This actually illustrates the kind of broader tolerance bracket I'd like to see, rather than the narrow, knife-edge kind we frequently bear witness to nowadays.

Exactly.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... /5436035/L is this quality acceptable?

Apparently, it was accepted by the screening team.

vikkyvik wrote:

JakTrax wrote:

Exposure-wise I think both are within tolerance, although the second is certainly in need of a saturation/contrast boost (and I'm surprised it wasn't rejected on that basis). This actually illustrates the kind of broader tolerance bracket I'd like to see, rather than the narrow, knife-edge kind we frequently bear witness to nowadays.

Exactly.

Well put! If there is a broader range of tolerance then more people will contribute.

Moose135

Who else is going to accept it? What a useless observation that adds no value to improving the quality standards LGM is seeking clarification on. Just another of your low quality posts that are scattered throughout this thread. First Phuket, now this.

Please add value to the discussion so the community can work together and improve each and every shot.

Thank you

I don't know what to think about this one. It seems underexposed, has vignetting and is dirty.

Of course, standards are different for old shots, I know because I only do old ones myself. Still shots like this would go straight into my impossible-folder, especially if it isn't something super-rare.
So I don't really understand why this got through.



Not saying this should have been rejected. I'm asking because underexposed is a rejection reason I struggle with a lot. Getting this kind of scan bright often causes other issues, which are worse than the lack of brightness.

Hi

Thanks for your feedback. The image has been deleted and a rework asked for from the photographer.

Hope you have a good Christmas

Bit surprised by this one, given the recent spate of 'low in frame' queries. Looks dark to me too. Hopefully its reprieve is due to it being a noteworthy subject.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflo ... ER/6289277

Good Day All,

I've read and re-read the photo acceptance guide, and thats why I've submitted so few, and only have thirty-something published on A.net.

I'm fine with this. Mine are mostly slide film from the '70s and '80s with ISO/ASA too high, shutter speeds too slow and apertures too big, because I didn't know any better. I guess I'm dependent on historical interest rather than technical brilliance to get mine accepted.

However I've seen some images on here recently which make me wonder. I won't single any out, but I see for example airliners from the '80s, nothing unusual, with maybe the top of the fin clipped off, out of focus such that you can hardly read the registration, colour too rich as if over-corrected, some of which remind me of 20(?) years ago when A.net started and accepted just about anything.

Example - there's one prolific photographer whose images I always enjoy, whose early work published on here looks as if it's been created with his first SLR when he first started out! The improvement demonstrated by his more recent work is like chalk and cheese, and a pleasure to see. But I am really surprised, given my experience and knowledge of the acceptance rules, that some of his early work has recently been accepted.

Has there been a policy change? Quantity over quality for commercial reasons that I don't understand? Sympathy for photographers going through their archives with nothing else to do in lockdown? Slowdown in new image creation due to travel limitations preventing us from visiting airports?

I'm NOT CRITICISING! Its the screeners' or owners' site and we as contributors can play along or go elsewhere. Or F.I.F.O as they say! I've never had much sympathy for photographers who throw their toys out of the pram if they get rejections. When I have, although disappointed because I've given it great consideration about whether the historical appeal is sufficient to overcome the quality shortcomings, I just "acknowledge and move on" as someone said in a movie (or a song?).

So its a question, not a rant. Have standards been relaxed? Because if so I'd better get a few more in the pipeline while the window of opportunity exists!

Best Regards All - musang

The short answer is it depends on who you are.

Hello Johnr

May we ask what or who is, according to you, receiving what you claim to be preferential treatment? We've closed anything like you insinuate down for a long time and always will.

This is a community for everyone and if someone feels it's not right for them we would appreciate facts we can act on, not an unsourced generalisation of what someone percieves.

Paul, 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 sufficient quality to justify acceptance let alone promotion on the site FB?

Hi Johner

Almost every image has a flaw and we look to accept especially the oldies as a lot of the community have spent more time at home giving them the opportunity to upload old shots. The SQ 757 does have some flaws. No worse than at least 4 of the other 10 we have of that model and airline.

A lot of what is being uploaded with older images is not common. Flaws are okay as the community appears to enjoy them. Top of the day and photographers choice are the benchmark for broad based community acceptance of such images and quite a few are recieving those awards.

Johnr, your rejections. A look at the log and 11 different screeners have screened your images this year. The log doesn't show screener comments and your rejections this year have been for different reasons. We look to accept and your shots do well when accepted. If you'd like to discuss with the crew feel free to write to them, you have their emails.

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? If it is then that’s fine but I am just seeking clarification. Regards.

johnr wrote:

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? If it is then that’s fine but I am just seeking clarification. Regards.

+1

Also seems incredibly backlit. Nothing against any particular photographer, but just seeking the same screening standards for everyone.

I agree. The image is backlit and not the best crop. The matter is already under review amongst the Head Screening team.

Regards,

Jehan

jelpee wrote:

I agree. The image is backlit and not the best crop. The matter is already under review amongst the Head Screening team.

Regards,

Jehan

The image has been removed from the site and the photographer has been notified.

Jehan

An image of a LH 777F currently in the top 5 which is blurry, poorly lit and lacks contrast.

Karl

Karl

Can you provide an ID so we can look please? Last 48 hours doesn't have any shots of a LH 777-F

Thank you

Sure.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthan ... QxJg%3D%3D

Thank you Karl

We'll look into it, please allow us a day to do so

Paul

Hi Karl

Three screeners saw that image before acceptance but we value your feedback. The photographer has made some corrections and a reupload accepted. If you still feel it is not up to par we'll remove it.

Thank you for providing the image, your opinion and for helping us maintain our standards. It's far more constructive than a vague, poorly worded shot at the site like a few others here from those who promote their images on social media and have friends vote on their images.

Paul, it's not about whether I think it's acceptable — it's about whether the site is happy with it. I'm not sure a reupload will fix the blurry nose but it is of course your call. I can, however, say with certainty that, if I were still regularly uploading, I would cite that image in the case of any future 'blurry' rejection.

Karl

Hi Karl

We are happy with the rework. That said, it is a HS shot and you raise a valid point about it becoming a reference for future rejections. As a result we have deleted the image.

Karl, we spoke last year in this thread and I'd like to thank you for using your experience so others can learn and we do our best to maintain standards. I guess it is a long shot to ask you upload a few more than you do? The value you can bring to the community is much and we'd like to see everyone benefit more from your thoughts and observations.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitle ... /6319245/L If this was mine I probably would got noise and other motives.

Hi

Karl, that shot made Photographers' Choice and the votes were from Europe and the USA. But to ensure we maintain standards it is gone despite wide based community acceptance.

LGM, why would that apply to you? We screen the image not the photographer name

Paul

I must admit, I'm curious as to why it was removed if the screening team and the community at large deemed it a high quality image? I don't harbour any guilt as I think the blur was both obvious and excessive, but it does seem drastic to remove a photo based on a single opinion. I wasn't advocating for its removal particularly, I just thought it could become a thorn in the site's side regarding future 'blurry' rejections.

Hi Karl

Your points are valid and we understand you were not advocating its removal. Fact is, it's a crew member image and we do not want to be seen giving preferrential treatment. The blur was still noticeable. Due to that we agreed with your last point about it becoming a reference image in the future for the wrong reasons.

We're trying to maintain the standards this thread asks for and your feedback is valued. With that said, standards for vintage shots have been relaxed a little as there are now so many, they're no longer common and there'll only be less with time. In our opinion they underscore the value of the database.

Hello

Quality standards means the community wants a level playing field. We're trying and listening. Unfortunately some are so insecure they have to hit pump every ordinary shot of theirs on social media to make the top 5. Guess they feel better. Not any more, we'll be putting an equitable stop to that. Same applies to a second account to vote on your own images for PC..

That is so sad people do that. Well, we've the tools and if you are found doing that, you and your images are gone for good. Never to return.

Hi Garrett,

Appreciate your question. It's as you noted, a few individuals misusing the system, it's not in the spirit of the site and we'd like to minimize it. As for you, or anyone else, sharing on Facebook that is no problem. It's been happening a long time and benefits the site and appreciation of good images. To those who use Facebook or Instagram keep doing it as everyone benefits.

Hit pumping of common shots that take the place of high quality shots in the top 5 needs to stop. That is not directed at you Garret and summer is fine thank you. Good to see you and your friends uploading from your travels. Looking forward to seeing more. .

Paul

What is happening is that some people are treating this as a kind of business rather than something fun to do. Hence the hit-seeking, etc.

I’ll be interested to see how it is intended to clamp down on social media posting or sharing. As long as it isn’t misused by groups of people seeking to get the photos of someone they dislike booted out.

I have no idea what prompted the change as I don’t look in very frequently, but I could guess.

On it goes, some refuse to listen. A quite ordinary shot that barely made our acceptance criteria sitting in the Top 5. We're monitoring and know where the rigged views are coming from. The exact same person who took the shot and he's already voted on it.

This is a final warning or every shot goes due to our right to terminate.

Hello

As we noted, there is no problem if you share your images on social media. Everyone appreciates them and they get the recognition they deserve.

The owners, crew and community who make up the site will not tolerate a member generating their own false views and PC votes. We did warn and unfortunately a member is now banned for 6 months from uploading. Had 10 images deleted for artificiial manipulation of views (it should be well more) and will find out shortly if he'll have his entire portfolio and account deleted.

Don't tell us this site runs on "who you know" when YOU are manipulating the view counts on your standard static display shots to the detriment of others who have made a real effort with their shots.

So if you're looking for John Richard Thomson, he may be back in 6 months time and should be ashamed of himself for lying to the owners, crew and community. For at least a year he has been manipulating the views on his shots among other actions that are not in the spirit of the community.

The owners of the site and greater community will not tolerate any such behaviour.

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

Hello

As we noted, there is no problem if you share your images on social media. Everyone appreciates them and they get the recognition they deserve.

The owners, crew and community who make up the site will not tolerate a member generating their own false views and PC votes. We did warn and unfortunately a member is now banned for 6 months from uploading. Had 10 images deleted for artificiial manipulation of views (it should be well more) and will find out shortly if he'll have his entire portfolio and account deleted.

Don't tell us this site runs on "who you know" when YOU are manipulating the view counts on your standard static display shots to the detriment of others who have made a real effort with their shots.

So if you're looking for John Richard Thomson, he may be back in 6 months time and should be ashamed of himself for lying to the owners, crew and community. For at least a year he has been manipulating the views on his shots among other actions that are not in the spirit of the community.

The owners of the site and greater community will not tolerate any such behaviour.

Sorting his 3,324 photos by recent, then switching to by views ascending, kinda tells the whole story, really.

Dear all, Stephen Thomson here. I’ve got a handful of photos on this website under my nickname Lauren Thomson although I haven’t uploaded anything new for years. My cousin also has a couple of shots here under his own account. We both are guilty of regularly voting for my dads photo for PC. I didn’t think this would be a problem. I know that there are other voting blocks on this site. I would also put dads shots on Reddit as well as share them with my university friends on FB in order to increase the hits on his shots. A couple of weeks ago he said he’d had a conversation with Paul McCarthy and then asked me to stop doing it. I did stop even thought I notice it’s still very common to see A.net shots pumped on Reddit. I must also acknowledge that I and my cousin have been putting additional hits on dads shots for the last year or more to increase views. I won’t tell how I did it because obviously it’s frowned upon but it is very easy to do. He wasn’t aware of me doing it or he would have probably told me to stop after the conversation with Paul. When he eventually sees this thread he will be mortified to see that he has been labelled I liar and a cheat. Obviously I’m embarrassed by this situation but more so I’m saddened by what I have / will be subjecting my dad to. He’s been on this site for a very long time and if my actions have jeopardised the enjoyment he has gotten from uploading here I’m truly sorry to him but also the rest of the A.net community.

Not that I see any of his photos ever shared in reddit...

https://www.reddit.com/domain/airliners.net/new/

I did some digging on reddit for a few minutes and see others being shared on there too fairly frequently.

This is all getting way too competitive. Is this a hobby or a business? Put the cameras away for a while and see that things can be enjoyed without being top 5 or photographers choice.

Curious why this one isn't considered oversharped:

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

As we noted, there is no problem if you share your images on social media. Everyone appreciates them and they get the recognition they deserve.

cpd wrote:

I did some digging on reddit for a few minutes and see others being shared on there too fairly frequently.

From Paul's comment, it looks like there is no problem sharing on Reddit.

Moose135 wrote:

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

As we noted, there is no problem if you share your images on social media. Everyone appreciates them and they get the recognition they deserve.

cpd wrote:

I did some digging on reddit for a few minutes and see others being shared on there too fairly frequently.

From Paul's comment, it looks like there is no problem sharing on Reddit.

Reddit is one of the most powerful websites that can drive tons of traffic for literally anything and everything. It should be used to our advantage.

The biggest problem with this website is both photographers and crew are so hellbent on keeping it stuck in 2007. Airliners.net is not nearly as relevant as it thinks it is anymore. Adapting to the times is long overdue.

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

With that said, standards for vintage shots have been relaxed a little as there are now so many, they're no longer common and there'll only be less with time. In our opinion they underscore the value of the database.

Hey,
Only now read this but already had that impression lately.
I believe this is a good decision, but there's a flip side. I've seen a few vintage shots of mine pass while I afterwards got a feeling that I could have done better with. I've also seen shots of others that could have been even better with simple fixes. Personally, I've always appreciated the constructive feedback in rejections. Especially when it comes to colour (something I'm always uncertain about). Those short personal messages in rejections really help to generally get better in editing.

What I'm saying, relaxing on vintage is fine, but don't lose sight on the potential of the shot. Perhaps a simple fix would make it even better...

Examples:

There's this one, brilliant and valuable shot, but wouldn't it have been even better without that cyan cast?


Or, one of mine that got accepted last night and now I'm all in doubt if it wouldn't have been better with more sharpening and maybe less noise reduction?


I really don't mind rejections with constructive feedback and as long as "quality" isn't a rejection reason I read it as: fix and upoad again please.

Hi

We don't mind which social media platform images are shared on. Ever since the foundation of those sites images from here have been shared on them and people view them. It's an automated view that no one sees which isn't acceptable.

Jalap

Thanks for your opinion and you always leave an editing comment. You're welcome to write to the HS about acceptances and we would like to think we're not giving rejections for what you mention, if we are, we should review how we're looking at vintage images and do our bestto accomodate more acceptances.

One thing that is getting sloppy is the lack of promotion of new airlines or otherwise newsworthy subjects in the news banner. I've said this before but this pasat couple of weeks wo brand new airlines have been missed, yet a new (small) decal for a 757 somehow deserves a place?

I'm aware that the team works voluntarily for this website but surely that's not an excuse? You wouldn't volunteer to work in a charity shop then when you frequently give people too much change claim it's fine because your work is for free? And what's the point in photographers doing their best to deliver the latest news to the site for scant reward?

By chance I have just seen an image of another new livery/type for an airline that failed to make the banner. By my count that's four truly newsworthy aircraft in as many weeks that have not been added to the news ticker — why should these photographers bother bringing the site the latest gems if it's not prepared to acknowledge their efforts?

Our intention is to provide banner promotions for those images that are eligible. We miss items on occasion. There are those photographers who images are missed that contact us about it following which the issues are resolved. An email to the Head Screeners about any discrepancies is a more effective means of addressing issues than a generic posting on this thread without any specifics (e.g. photo ID number, etc.) unless the intent is to inflame and/or publicly embarrass.

Regards,

Jehan

Jehan, I take issue with your comment as I did type a note to the screeners (without acknowledgement). If you want my honest opinion this website really isn't worth my investing time to be spiteful as I have better things to do. Missing 'the odd' newsworthy image is fine but yet another missed today!

The photographers make this site. Fact. Without us, you're screwed. And I for one won't continue supplying images to the site. No great loss, I'm sure, but a loss nonetheless. The contempt for photographers here is getting quite unbearable — point out an area that could be very much improved and you face baseless accusations of stirring the pot! Unbelievable!

No wonder this site is losing out to the competition...

Karl, you've said that for a long time in this thread and we respect your opinion. If we've missed another today may I ask you do as advised and provide an ID or other note? The crew would be happy to take a look.

Here is a general question about quality standards: do photos ever get rejected for bad composition or are all photos potentially acceptable, regardless of angle of the aircraft, regardless of what the background/foreground looks like?