How could a photo be soft and over-sharpened? So the screening policy is reject photos and select a reason whichever they like, isn't it?

Quoting JimmyLWH (Thread starter): How could a photo be soft and over-sharpened?

It's soft in spots, and oversharpened in spots...

Quoting JimmyLWH (Thread starter): So the screening policy is reject photos and select a reason whichever they like, isn't it?

No comment...  

Jimmy -

There have been quite a few threads on this in the past. In your case, not possible to comment specifically because you have not posted a link to the image. I can do that for you if you like to allow a proper discussion.

I looked the image I think you are referring to - and it seems heat hazed and in the process of trying to correct that jaggies were introduced. It also received a quality rejection. If I received it in appeal I would reject the appeal and provide you with a personal similar to my previous sentence.

In general, yes an image can definitely be both soft and oversharpened? How? Well, in many cases a soft or out of focus image is oversharpened and jaggies are created. So you have a base image that is soft and has been sharpened to daylights and has jaggies. Pretty straightforward.

Of course, I understand how some people get confused by the two being combined together, so many of us try not to use both. Sometimes I will leave a personal stating "Soft and/or out of focus, oversharpened to compensate" to let the photog know, and will select either the soft or oversharpened rejection reason. Some times I will leave a personal saying the image can't be fixed, and to please not resubmit.

Pete

[Edited 2012-04-20 12:53:33]

And by the way, how could you notice such tiny things of a 1200*800 or smaller photo? Do you share laboratories with CIA or MI6?
If a photo is already out of focus, I wouldn't upload it to A.net, that's no doubt.

If every screener has his own special extra standards, I respect that, since it's human society, but please do not treat us like a fool.

Just trying to help and explain, Jimmy. Photographers have asked for more personals and we have tried to do that.

Why not post the image and let others have a look? I'm certainly okay with other experienced eyes having a look and perhaps my opinion is incorrect, but right now only you, I, and the original screener have seen the image in question...

Cheers.

Pete

I used tinypic.com for link

Sometimes there could be information as a rejection reason. Sometimes the reason is soft, then I sharpened, then the reason becomes over-sharpened. It's not the single example that makes me think so. Since Airliners.net does have more and more and more photos, I can understand that they don't want more photos, then they can close the upload function, or just open to paid users.

Jimmy,
If you have a problem with the way you think it was screened, why not send the screeners an e-mail first, or go to the photography feedback section create a link to the photo, and let the other photogs give their opinions. Did you use the appeal function? Usually not very helpful to rip the screeners. As for soft and oversharpened I have a Canon 100-400L IS lens and a problem with that lens for me, is the nose on an aircraft can get soft and blurry, where the rest of the aircraft can really be sharp, if I try to correct the nose everything else will be oversharpened, and usually the nose is not correctable by sharpening either and remains soft. So you could get those two rejections reasons very easy.

Andrew Compolo

Appeal function? I used that long time before, and got rejected a few seconds later. The screener who's dealing with appeal function, has an easier job, that is, to click reject to every appeal.
And what's photography feedback section? There's no such thing. And no one knows the screener's email, unless he knows him personally.

And once I had a cockpic window shot, they say it's unmotivated crop. Then I'm confused, since I've seen so many cockpit shots on A.net. Anyone could explain this? Or anyone could just tell me, they reject photos, because they want to reject the photos.

I will help you: [email protected], and yes there is a photography feedback: go to the aviation photography forum, under the blue and red aviation photography banner you will see photography feedback, that is where it is. Hope this helps.

Andrew Compolo

thank for the information, to andrew50

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 8): The screener who's dealing with appeal function, has an easier job, that is, to click reject to every appeal.

Then why was my last appeal accepted?   

Honestly, you'd be wise to do a little more research (and/or simply calm down) before starting a thread like this, and making comments like this:

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 8): And what's photography feedback section? There's no such thing

FYI, to my non-screener eyes, your photo looks soft, maybe slightly oversharpened in some areas, and possibly heat-hazed.

Because you're a "First Class Member"?
And how come a normal cockpit window shot rejected because of "unmotivated crop"?

I'm no photographer but even I can tell that there are over-sharp parts to that image and blurry parts. If the image is bad, don't blame the screeners, they're just doing their job. It's not about if they're a "first class member" or not - if you want to be one, pay the money per month it costs, alternatively you can just live with the fact you've got one or two rejections, buy a better camera/lens or don't edit them as harshly and the problem is solved.

Attacking the screeners won't get you anywhere, and will cause you to make enemies on here, not friends.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 13): Because you're a "First Class Member"?

Wow, are you kidding? I'm a first class member and I have appeals rejected more often than not. Successful appeals are maybe 10% of my attempts and I imagine that's consistent with the total success rate of all appeals.
Bottom line is successful appeals are rare. More often than not the screeners get it right the first time.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 13): And how come a normal cockpit window shot rejected because of "unmotivated crop"?

What is a "normal cockpit window shot"?? Can we see this photo so we know what you are talking about? Not every subject or crop works...doesn't matter what it is.

I don't think I was attacking screeners, only compliments are allowed here? Other words will all be regarded as attack?

I've said once, it's not the single example that makes me think so. One photo could be rejected twice by two different reasons, one photo could be rejected once by soft and the second time by over-sharpened. One photo could be rejected by "information" which no information was wrong. One photo could be rejected by unmotivated crop, while same style of crop shots exist everywhere. Even God himself might not be able to explain so many weird things.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 13): Because you're a "First Class Member"?

Ha! No wonder! That's gotta be it!

Oh wait, I had an appeal rejected too....

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 13): And how come a normal cockpit window shot rejected because of "unmotivated crop"?

How come you ask questions about photos without posting the relevant photos?

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 15): Wow, are you kidding?

I'm starting to think that he is just having a laugh with all this, but oh well.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 16): I don't think I was attacking screeners

I believe you were.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 18):

This is attacking? Are you grown up in North Korea?

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 19): This is attacking?

You've made a few accusations. Just read your thread title. And you have attacked the integrity of the crew by accusing them of giving preferential treatment to paying First Class members.

You are not the first person to question the screeners and the site criteria but in just about every case the screeners are proven right. Your example is no different. If you are frustrated, take a step back and reevaluate. The screeners don't reject for the sake of rejecting. They are brutally harsh with their attention to detail and sticking to the rules, but they are more often than not correct in their decisions. If you feel a shot was incorrectly rejected, appeal. If the head screeners reject the appeal, it confirms that the shot has a flaw that prevents in from being accepted.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 20): If the head screeners reject the appeal, it confirms that the shot has a flaw that prevents in from being accepted.

As Ive said in many of my posts, the reject appeal is useless. I was rejected five seconds later myself, just like Jimmy. Its completely biased, and before a decsion can be made there must be a democratic vote or something along those lines, especially if the photographer insists.

Quoting MaximLezin (Reply 21): Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 20): If the head screeners reject the appeal, it confirms that the shot has a flaw that prevents in from being accepted. As Ive said in many of my posts, the reject appeal is useless. I was rejected five seconds later myself, just like Jimmy. Its completely biased, and before a decsion can be made there must be a democratic vote or something along those lines, especially if the photographer insists.

What does the time it takes have to do with anything? During the appeal they already have the reason and something to look for immediately.

If the appeal process was useless, appeals would never be overturned. The process works when the initial rejection was wrong.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 22): The process works when the initial rejection was wrong.

I never said the inital rejection was a bad process, I said appeal.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 22): What does the time it takes have to do with anything?

Secondary appeals dont take 5 seconds, Im sorry but they just dont. The head screener needs the opinion of other head screeners period. Plain and simple, I dont think its very democratic or "unbiased" if it takes 5 seconds. The image needs to be looked at properly, with at lease a couple of head screeners. Otherwise the mood of that particular screener(as an example) rules the day.

Quoting MaximLezin (Reply 23): Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 22): The process works when the initial rejection was wrong. I never said the inital rejection was a bad process, I said appeal.

Uh, if the initial rejection is wrong, then the APPEAL process works to catch and correct that!

Quoting MaximLezin (Reply 23): Secondary appeals dont take 5 seconds, Im sorry but they just dont. The head screener needs the opinion of other head screeners period. Plain and simple, I dont think its very democratic or "unbiased" if it takes 5 seconds. The image needs to be looked at properly, with at lease a couple of head screeners. Otherwise the mood of that particular screener(as an example) rules the day.

Who said this is a democracy? Clearly it isn't. It is what it is. If you don't like it, don't upload.

And 5 seconds is an exaggeration. Come on now. And it depends on the reason. If a shot is rejected for dirty and you appeal, it wouldn't take the screener long to spot the problem. And he wouldn't need a second opinion. If the appeal is kicked back immediately it means the problems was picked up immediately. I know for a fact that borderline shots are passed around to get many screeners' opinions. That will happen in the initial screening. For tough appeal calls, multiple head screeners will take a look and discuss. Again, if the problem is obvious it won't take long to reject and it won't take the entire team consensus.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 24): Who said this is a democracy?

I have no words.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 24): Uh, if the initial rejection is wrong, then the APPEAL process works to catch and correct that

Thats exacfly what I meant.  

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 24): Who said this is a democracy? Clearly it isn't. It is what it is. If you don't like it, don't upload.

  

If this was a democracy, we'd all vote on which photos to add and which to reject.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 24): I know for a fact that borderline shots are passed around to get many screeners' opinions.

  

See this post from Dana in another thread in response to a question about the percentage of photos that go through various screening processes:

Rough estimate only:

HQ: 35%
SO: 10%
IA: 10%
Rejected: 45%

Discounting immediate rejections, roughly 82% of shots get seen by more than one screener (the "HQ" and "SO" percentages).

Quoting MaximLezin (Reply 23): Secondary appeals dont take 5 seconds, Im sorry but they just dont. The head screener needs the opinion of other head screeners period. Plain and simple, I dont think its very democratic or "unbiased" if it takes 5 seconds. The image needs to be looked at properly, with at lease a couple of head screeners. Otherwise the mood of that particular screener(as an example) rules the day.

Well, actually, secondary appeals apparently DO take 5 seconds!

Have you thought about what photos are being appealed? Maybe most of the appealed photos really didn't "deserve" an appeal, and were obviously correct rejections. Why take up everyone's time when a photo clearly will not be added?

For that matter, why make someone a Head Screener if their opinion isn't the final word on a photo?

It's also been well documented that even Head Screeners pass around questionable photos.

Honestly, I'm amazed at the level of vitriol directed at the screeners.

Quoting MaximLezin (Reply 25): I have no words

The screeners have the final word. Always have, always will.

Quoting MaximLezin (Reply 25): Thats exacfly what I meant.

Sorry, I misread. Doing this on my iPhone so it's hard to see these tiny words.  

Anyway, the initial screening involves multiple screeners having a look. They ask for second and third opinions when necessary.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 27): The screeners have the final word. Always have, always will

Perhaps, but the opinions of various people will always remain constant, but the dominant ones are those of the screeners, I do agree. BTW you have some incredible shots on your flickr account (a little random). You sure are talented.  

Quoting MaximLezin (Reply 28): BTW you have some incredible shots on your flickr account (a little random). You sure are talented.

Right on, thank you. I appreciate the compliment.  

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 24): Who said this is a democracy? Clearly it isn't. It is what it is. If you don't like it, don't upload.

Since you've said this, all my words can't be attack, because I was just telling some sad truth.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 5): I used tinypic.com for link

Let me put some disclaimers first:

1. I have nothing to do with the screening process.
2. I have uploaded here for almost 10 years and only recently joined the article editing.
3. My pictures get rejected/accepted the same way as everyone else.

facts:

1. I am speaking from experience of uploading here for almost 10 years. My rejection rate hovers around 50%
2. I have been vocal about screening issues (mostly critical) hence i consider myself impartial.
3. My appeal success rate is less than 5%


With all that background info behind us, I will tell you that I agree with the screeners after viewing your picture. Sorry!

[Edited 2012-04-21 04:24:41]

[Edited 2012-04-21 05:07:26]

If your feel your image(s) have been wrongfully rejected in screening than you have the right to appeal if you have valid reasons to appeal it which you need to include to the headscreeners "appeal comment field".

There are a handful of images that do get accepted after being appealed.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 5):

Regarding the tower shot,It is quite soft overall and there is some jagged parts around the stairs and edges of buildings,
It can be quite common for blurry photos to get soft/blurry and oversharpened rejection reasons as some try to compensate for blurriness by applying too much sharpness to the image.

We dont look at images intending to reject them,We look to accept,If there are flaws in the image than we do reject them.

Finally,Mistakes do happen from time to time in screening as we are humans but we do try our best to be fair and honest with the screening process.

Cheers Mark

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 5): http://i44.tinypic.com/34owz9y.jpg

Talking about a shit pic...

Anyways, I do not think you have any reason whatsoever to start a riot on these forums when clearly your question has been answered already by 2 screeners.

The screeners are doing there job. I only have 4 pics on here but even my eyes see your picture is just an instant reject: heat haze, soft and oversharpened.

You cannot, I repeat cannot make a bad picture good. Only when the picture at the base is good you can improve it and get it submitted to a database that stands for quality images only. If you cannot cope with this, I suggest you open your own website and accept any image in the world (even the bad ones, thus including this one).

Secondly if you cannot cope with critics, I think you are in the wrong place. Everybody is willing to help you, but not when YOU are attacking the screeners because YOU think your picture is good enough. I've seen your landing gear picture and honestly: I didn't see the motive in the picture for such a crop/zoom on the landing gear and it's kinda blurry in my eyes. I'll leave that to the screeners though.



So please do listen to people instead of arguing all the time when you are wrong. It will not only help yourself, it also shows respect to people who have been photographing a lot longer and have obtained more experience than you have until now. People are willing to share their experience, but why share it if the person isn't willing to listen anyways?

Tom

[Edited 2012-04-21 05:06:59]

There are two main types of image I see entering the screening process - those that have been planned to some extent and executed well (this includes sunny side-ons as a certain amount of forethought is required) and those that, while perhaps planned to some degree, are no different to a quick holiday snap that couyld've been taken by practically anyone.

Both the images you've linked here fall into the latter category I'm afraid. As well as the faults outlined above, both appear to suffer from contrast issues in my opinion. The undercarriage shot definitely looks blurry, so unless you expect such shots to be accepted here it's fit only for your personal collection.

As most here know no-one is more critical of the screening process at times than me, and I have seen evidence of blatantly unfair rejections (which have been upheld on appeal) and dodgy acceptances; but unless your technique is improved significantly I can well understand the current screening decisions regarding your images.

Quoting Tomskii (Reply 33): You cannot, I repeat cannot make a bad picture good

With the advent of Photoshop and high-resolution sensors this unfortunately is possible. Shots that would have gone in the bin had they been on slide can now easily make it here with a bit of editing wizardry.

Karl

I think we need our friend Paul Markman around here to help out   !

It must be indeed be very frustrating for newbies (in the sense of uploaders) to begin here, since they are joining the company of not only very gifted photographers, but also highly trained photography editors and very strict judges, because that's what you need to be successful in uploading lots of pictures.

First, you will need to actually take good pictures to begin with (and many will argue that this is the most important step, as it arguably can make your life further along the process much simpler).

Then, you will need to review the pictures out of the camera and be able to scan them very self-critically and choose only the very best (if not perfect but to the highest standard), which is really difficult as we all tend to be much more forgiving when viewing our own pictures than when we judge others.

Then you need to know quite a bit about editing, and in particular what is A.net-allowed and what not, and to what extent. This is not easy at all, despite all the efforts made in the past by the A.net screeners to prepare upload and rejection guides.

Finally, you will have to know all of the uploading process and what is required from you to do.

So, once you have gone through all that trouble, have waited anything between 7 and 14 days, a quick and short email arrives saying the result of your work was "rejected"! Most probably you will not agree, as you are not stupid, so if the picture was so bad you wouldn't have uploaded it the first place. So you appeal, only to be rejected again.

Let's face it, all this business of uploading can become very frustrating, in particular if you don't know much about how all of this works "behind the scenes". In this respect, the PR work that in particular screeners are doing here is highly valuable and to be commended, as it helps to bridge the knowledge gap. Also the long-time uploaders can lend a hand to the newbies, as it has been done in this thread.

While of course I cannot and will not endorse any bad treatment to the crew, who, let's not forget it, gives up their free time for free in order to keep the steady flow of pictures getting in, we also have to be patient and understand the underlying frustration that many new uploaders feel here.

JimmyLWH, with 4 pictures on the site, you will need some time to learn and understand how everything works really around here. It's not easy at all, but if you hang in there and try not to get frustrated, eventually you will succeed. An in the meantime, there are a lot of people around here who share our love and passion for these beautiful machines, and who are more than willing to help you along. All you have to do is reach out for them, be nice and polite, and be a little patient.

Cheers,
Andres

Well, you can always find a reason to reject a photo, and after that I've re-edited it and uploaded it again, then it'll be rejected again by another reason. You say you dont look at images intending to reject them,you look to accept. But the truth is quite different, since A.net is having more and more photos. Of course I don't expect someone could admit that, I'm already used to this kind of situation.

And under such a thread, any photos posted here will no doubt be considered a bad photo. And the landing gear picture was an accepted photo, though I myself was pretty surprised. You see, I've said once before in another thread, There'are standards, there're also no standards.

Finally, I'm so sorry if I've broken anyone's little heart.

Quoting acontador (Reply 35): All you have to do is reach out for them, be nice and polite, and be a little patient.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 36): Finally, I'm so sorry if I've broken anyone's little heart.

 

This will not earn you many friends around here, nor that you seem to care at all, just too bad for you!

I doubt you've broken anyone's heart. We are all still uploading, still getting acceptances, and still giving advice to newcomers. Whether those newcomers choose to take heed is up to them.

As the screeners will tell you, I can be VERY critical of the process, yet most of my images are still being accepted. I have had a few very 'questionable' rejections lately (a couple of which have been accepted on appeal) and I do think there's a duty amongst screeners to try and stick to a screening decision where possible (to preserve integrity), but it is fundamentally a 'human' process. In other words, it's not going to work properly all of the time.

I'm happy you've managed to get four of your photos here, but to find some real consistency you're going to need quadruple that figure at least. If the majority of your efforts are anything loke the examples we're discussing here I'm not surprised they were rejected. It's all very well thinking that your own photos are faultless, and to wonder how we have the audacity to criticise, but you have quite a few experienced people here telling you that they're not up to scratch. If you think they are, that's fine; start a website as was mentioned earlier.

Your linked photos have glaring faults that are quite obvious to experienced eyes. I have 25 years' experience photographing aircraft, and I still get it wrong sometimes. Many others here have double that experience, and they still get it wrong sometimes. Having an acceptance or two here doesn't mean you've learned all there is to know; it's just the start.

Get out there, enjoy shooting the planes, enjoy the weather, enjoy the company, and most of all enjoy the pub afterwards!

Karl

People always seem to forget that airliners.net is not a public website in a way that some official institution pays for it

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 36): Well, you can always find a reason to reject a photo, and after that I've re-edited it and uploaded it again, then it'll be rejected again by another reason.

I did not take a look at the picture but I'm almost certain that it will get rejected. The picture is suffering from heat haze and that is something that cannot be saved. Also I don't know why you took that picture from such a distant location when you can get a lot closer which eliminates heat haze.

Stefan

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 34): With the advent of Photoshop and high-resolution sensors this unfortunately is possible. Shots that would have gone in the bin had they been on slide can now easily make it here with a bit of editing wizardry.

I was mainly reffering to the blurry side. Or can you make a blurry pic good? :p (Not sure if it is actually possible but I suppose not)

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 39): I did not take a look at the picture but I'm almost certain that it will get rejected. The picture is suffering from heat haze and that is something that cannot be saved. Also I don't know why you took that picture from such a distant location when you can get a lot closer which eliminates heat haze.

You see, this is the problem of A.net,it's not just with this single photo. In the rejection reasons they didn't mention heat haze, so even if I re-edited and the photo is no longer soft and over-sharpened, it will also be rejected with another new reason. Someone says screeners intend to accept photos, but the truth shows the opposite.

Not sure if anything will change you opinion but the quality rejection reason is explained in the rejection guide which is also linked in the screening mails. And in case you can't find out yourself what the exact problem with a picture is you can still seek advice in the feedback forum.

Stefan

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 39): People always seem to forget that airliners.net is not a public website in a way that some official institution pays for it

What do you mean by this? Every website has a boss, or a company which owns the website. So which website is a public website in your opinion?

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 41): You see, this is the problem of A.net,it's not just with this single photo. In the rejection reasons they didn't mention heat haze, so even if I re-edited and the photo is no longer soft and over-sharpened, it will also be rejected with another new reason. Someone says screeners intend to accept photos, but the truth shows the opposite.

What about the fact that for a year or so now, my acceptance rate has hovered around 60-70%? Oh wait, it must be because I'm a First Class Member!

Look, it took me probably a year and a half and 100 or so acceptances before I felt comfortable with A.net's standards, even for basic side-on shots. It took a lot of listening to feedback and a lot of patience.

Currently, my acceptance rate is back down around 20%, because I'm striving to expand my photographic range. Again, it's taking a lot of patience.

So, I hate to say it, but you just sound butt-hurt. Get a grip - it's a website to which you've obviously chosen to contribute. If it stresses you or pisses you off, just walk away for awhile.

Quoting JimmyLWH (Reply 41): You see, this is the problem of A.net,it's not just with this single photo. In the rejection reasons they didn't mention heat haze, so even if I re-edited and the photo is no longer soft and over-sharpened, it will also be rejected with another new reason. Someone says screeners intend to accept photos, but the truth shows the opposite.

If you want to upload images to A.net than I suggest you read the upload and rejection guidelines prior to uploading again,It may explain things more thoroughly for you to understand,As Stefan mentioned above the quality rejection clearly explains what will cause a quality rejection.
https://www.airliners.net/faq/rejection_reasons.php#quality

You continue to make the bold statement that we intend to reject images not accept but where is the proof of this,You have uploaded a handful of images with a few acceptances,Its obvious your editing needs some work and the screening team and fellow photographers on this forum do help out in the pre/post screening threads,If you continue with the type of attitude your showing at the moment than no one will bother helping you out.

We do our best by providing a personal message with a rejected image to help guide the photographer in the right direction with re-editing these days,It may slow the screening down abit leaving personals if we feel the image can be improved which may lead to its acceptance,We also try to help out photographers who send us emails and in the forum.


Cheers Mark.

I would say it's time to lock this thread! I have seen threads with quite a bit more relevance get locked for some strange reason. I think Jimmy has got his 15 minutes of fame, and nothing anyone says is getting through to him, even with some good explanations from members of the screening team.

Andrew Compolo