A small addendum to my statement about the site going commercial (Reply 13):
in fact I think it already is commercial; basics: we upload photos for free onto a (site) server provided and maintained by Johan and we both make money with it from visiting customers. In addition we have ads and a store and some other features from which to make money of. And given the exposure the site has I'd guess that the daily income isn't bad at all.
So again basically seen: Johan is making good money with our photos! Cause without our photos nobody would visit the site and Johan would earn a big 0 (ZERO) (as he doesn't shoot planes himself
). That's the way it is and if that's not commercial, in the future I'll only photograph Santa Claus has he flies by with his reindeers.
I've no problem with that state however but I do have a problem with the way it is handled: trying to make us believe that it's all just fun and that it's a site only intended to showcase our photos and than on the other side raising acceptance standards so high that they can almost only be achieved with (semi-)professional equipment and much time is just an unfair attitude.
And then I'll already come to the main subject: treatment of the contributors!
As a contributor to a commercial site I'd like to be treated accordingly, meaning a set of clearly understandable rules which are equal for everyone and are followed consistently with exceptions being explained so that any other contributor knows where he and the site is at.
And while I'm at the explaining stuff: more thourough feedback from what I formerly called "the major players" (let's just say A.net crew!) is required.
We have some regular forum contributors like Tim, Royal, Glenn and Eduard and though we may not always be on the same wave-length I attach importance to their posts; but on the other hand where are the other 26 screeners and foremost Johan!?
Now to some other points:
|Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 60):|
Until it turns into a commercial and profit-making organisation, with screeners paid to do that job, then we have to accept that things may not always be done as we would like it to.
Screeners don't have to be paid only for the site to be commercial and make profit! Commercial guarantees even less that things are done the way YOU want them to be done!
|Quoting DB777 (Reply 61):|
At one point in time this site could have totally dominated the aviation photography on the internet but so many people got ticked off with inconsistent rejections they went elsewhere and I'm talking about a variety of sites that one can easily find through Google searches.
|Quoting StealthZ (Reply 65):|
We photograph aeroplanes outside, in the weather, in the wind, in the heat and cold, mostly at some distance, distances that would have most photographers quivering in fear at the hopelessness of it. Perhaps we are nearing the limit of what can be acheived with current technology.
|Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 70):|
Anyway, as I said before, we can't do anything about it without examples.
Well again with all due respect Tim, but I've shown examples a dozen times (forum AND
private mail) to clarify some inconsistency but with absolutely no feedback from the crew at all, so at some point I guess one just stops even considering to do so.
So long for now; I'll take some time and post a few improvement ideas in the "The Process Of Screening Debate" thread.