Would it be worth to re-upload a shot like this?
I am not referring to the actual quality of this shot, I can improve that..............no, rather about the type of shot.
The chemicals falling on the leaves............

Change we needed - and change happened.
It will be great to see more creative shots in the DB - as well as good sideshots (I do agree with
Newark727's view on those).

Those of us who have an eye and ability to shoot unique creative shots will have easier time getting them accepted without worrying about grass covering more then X percent of main gear and those catering to spotters, sim and stats fans will enjoy uploading 3/4 views of aircraft on finals and not dread "contrast" or "re-upload in 1024 pix".

Everybody wins.
Thank you

I personally like the relaxing on contrast and centering. I actually took a cool shot the other day of a plane being towed into the gate. I sat there staring at it wondering if it will be worth my time editing it being "off-centered". I see in the coming days that might not be the case. If all this can be implemented and still maintain the high quality standard... I'll be happy with it.

As for the contrast and dusk... Does that mean backlit stuff can stand a better chance?

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 50): Would it be worth to re-upload a shot like this?

I see what you are getting at, but personally I don't think the connection between the leaves and the aircraft is clear enough; those could just be some random plant or tree that you had to shoot over. Now, if you have a shot where you have a more balanced view of the aircraft and the crops I think that would be very much telling a story as described by the screeners.

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 50): Would it be worth to re-upload a shot like this?

I'd say no. Motive doesn't work for me, plus the airplane looks blurry.

With that said, let's not turn this thread into a photo screening thread; that's what the Feedback Forum is for.  

Quoting len90 (Reply 52): As for the contrast and dusk... Does that mean backlit stuff can stand a better chance?

I don't think that's what the new guidelines are intended to focus on. Backlit shots, as always, will have to have a strong motivation for the backlighting. An airplane in shadow in front of a bright sky will still likely be rejected, while a good silhouette shot will still likely be accepted.

The new contrast guidelines are more to take into account the lowered ambient contrast that is typical of low-sun shots, where you may not have anything close to a true black.

Quoting len90 (Reply 52): As for the contrast and dusk... Does that mean backlit stuff can stand a better chance?

I hope not. Unless that's the desired effect and it works for that particular shot, there's no excuse for backlit photos. As mentioned above, there's still going to be a minimum standard required, just less petiness with certain criteria.

Darren

I hate that backlit photo is synonymous with bad photography on this website. Of course backlighting must be used effectively!! That holds true everywhere, but even when used effectively this site has had an issue with them. I, too, hope to see creative uses of backlighting accepted in the database.

People here need to specify that backlit isn't bad, it just isn't advisable for this site. Believe it or not there is a school of thought in photography that says one should always be shooting into the sun. Just saying...

[Edited 2013-07-03 00:45:43]

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 56): Believe it or not there is a school of thought in photography that says one should always be shooting into the sun. Just saying...

Well, for one thing, portrait photography uses this technique(carefully). Some people use the Sun as a rim light and offset the backlighting with some diffused fill flash. Now, if only I could rent enough strobes to mimic this effect with a 777....   

Interesting developments.

Do you expect an increased amount of uploads as a consequence of the changes?

If yes, how are you going to cope with the queue length? 14 days waiting time is way too long already and with crew members being involved in the new Quality and Acceptance Criteria team I can't see how the queue will be brought down.

Stefan

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 56): I hate that backlit photo is synonymous with bad photography on this website.

It's not. It's just generally not accepted here, unless done well with proper motivation.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 56): Of course backlighting must be used effectively!!

Of course, but we see a lot of backlit shots in the queue, and most of them aren't effective - the photog is just on the wrong side of the airplane.

I'm sure there are plenty of backlit shots in the database, because they were worth adding:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Jet Visuals


As mentioned, there are tons of silhouette shots too.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 54): With that said, let's not turn this thread into a photo screening thread; that's what the Feedback Forum is for.

Thanks for the honest feedback.

No, I wasn´t trying to turn it into a "photo screening" thread, just wanted to get an idea of how artistic the new rules have become.

Noob question: you posted a link to the Feedback Forum...........where can I find this on the main page, please?
It´s not between other Forums and not in the Photographer´s corner, as far as I can see!

Thanks!


No Tax On Rotax

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 49): There is a site called flickr where the quality of many of those shots rivals what you see here

I too upload some photos to Flickr, but many aviation photograper's dont. Therefore I would miss many great photos if I only would use Flickr.

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 60): No, I wasn´t trying to turn it into a "photo screening" thread, just wanted to get an idea of how artistic the new rules have become.

Not a problem, just didn't want a bunch of people to start posting photos here.

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 60): Noob question: you posted a link to the Feedback Forum...........where can I find this on the main page, please? It´s not between other Forums and not in the Photographer´s corner, as far as I can see!

Correct, it's not in those places. If you go to the Av Photo forum (the one this thread is in), the link is at the top, just above the thread index.

Quoting NOTAXONROTAX (Reply 60):

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 62):

You can also find it in the drop down "Change Forum" at the top of any forum page.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 62): If you go to the Av Photo forum (the one this thread is in), the link is at the top, just above the thread index.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 63): You can also find it in the drop down "Change Forum" at the top of any forum page.

My thanks is great, gents!

Back to topic........I am curious to see if this new philosophy will have any influence at all on my acceptance rate!
Still browsing through old rejected pictures of mine, but in all reality: I think I need to buck up my game!

No Tax On Rotax

It's on this website own interest to try and completely eliminate any form of bias out of the photo-screening process. I see this set of advanced screening techniques as a step forward in that direction.

My concern though - and I don't know if this issue have ever been tackled on here - is that of screener's personal relationship to certain contributors or fellow crew members. Since the inception of this website and others, I heard many stories about it along airport fences. Friendship and/or national pride should not be a criteria for accepting low quality or repetitive, dull pictures. Diversity shots should be rather encouraged.

Wonder if Airliners.net have thought of adopting/implementing any internal policies on this regard?

I like these new changes, I stopped uploading long time ago due to the difficulty of having photos accepted here.
Maybe its time to start again.
Mario

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 58): If yes, how are you going to cope with the queue length? 14 days waiting time is way too long already and with crew members being involved in the new Quality and Acceptance Criteria team I can't see how the queue will be brought down.

Hi Stefan,

We are not expecting it to have any influence on the screening queue, The screeners involved in this crew will still be doing the normal amount of screening required, It may cause a bit more of a workload for them but it is in the best interests of the site and community.

Quoting connector4you (Reply 65): My concern though - and I don't know if this issue have ever been tackled on here - is that of screener's personal relationship to certain contributors or fellow crew members. Since the inception of this website and others, I heard many stories about it along airport fences. Friendship and/or national pride should not be a criteria for accepting low quality or repetitive, dull pictures. Diversity shots should be rather encouraged.

There is no bias screening be done or none that I have ever heard of going on. We accept images from all over the world. Head screeners do screen the appeal queue so if there was a pattern with the same screener rejecting the same photographers photos every day or week than they would see a issue and deal with it accordingly if those images in questioned are overturned on appeal.

Cheers Mark

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 67): There is no bias screening be done or none that I have ever heard of going on.

My experience with screeners uploading is that their images are scrutinized more, not less than non-screener uploads.

Quoting connector4you (Reply 65): repetitive, dull pictures

While you may find some images dull or repetitive, I am certain the photographer(s) who upload them do not. The screening team do not control what types of images photographers upload. If they meet the quality criteria, they will be accepted.

Part of this site's function is to act as a database, and there are many photographers out there who do an amazing job of documenting new registrations and airframes to the database every day. Other photographers go for the creative image. Some do both. While we hope to encourage more creative images to be submitted, we certainly do not want to dissuade those photographers who document registrations and frames.

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 58): how are you going to cope with the queue length?

We have a team of volunteer screeners, as you know. We will do our best to reduce the queue, and maintain quality and consistency. From the responses in this thread, the priority as I see it from the uploaders is asking for quality and consistency with the new approach, not blowing through the queue. As we say building megaprojects, you can have fast, cheap, quality. Pick two.

Screeners (I hope) are allowed to take their summer vacations also. If anyone wants to volunteer to help the community out in a very meaningful way, feel free to contact the headscreeners to apply for a screening position.

I've read the new proposals again and I suspect that the vast majority of us will see little difference. The proof will be apparent in the next few weeks. It is good that screening inconsistency is being looked at even if the reasons for it in the first place are not.

Quoting connector4you (Reply 65):

My acceptance rate is below 50%, actually no where close to it. If anything it has gone down since becoming crew.
Most likely due to sub standard image quality:D

Quoting alevik (Reply 68): If anyone wants to volunteer to help the community out in a very meaningful way, feel free to contact the headscreeners to apply for a screening position.

If new screeners are required to increase numbers following recent resignations, maybe a new topic with details is in order? I would hope the selection process would be transparent and fair with clear minimum requirements that are adhered to? Some of us have already volunteered / expressed an interest for this role but amongst other things, was told (by yourself as representative of the screening team) that because I had a voice and an opinion on matters, that I wasn't suitable. Bearing in mind many of the issues we raised are now coming to light sparking changes, and I know things run deeper than are mentioned here, was told no thanks because it meant I wasn't a team player for having an opinion and wishing to discuss it. I hope things like this will also be relaxed as part of the selection process too?

Quoting derekf (Reply 69): I've read the new proposals again and I suspect that the vast majority of us will see little difference.

I agree Derek, I don't think it will make much of a different and rightly so to the majority. It remains to be seen if the changes lead to an improvement in consistency with less petiness, but other than that, it shouldn't make a difference. For those that are thinking they'll be able to get more shots accepted due to reduced quality criteria, I think they've misunderstood the nature of the changes as it's not about that.

Quoting derekf (Reply 69): It is good that screening inconsistency is being looked at even if the reasons for it in the first place are not.

Again, I have to agree and although I'm bite my tongue here a little, I hope the community has aired it's views enough in order for DM to know the contributors are what make this site and need to be listened too and communicated with. I know that is beginning to happen and changes are afoot, hopefully for the better, but it needs a strong screening team to back that up who can make their own decisions.

Darren

Quoting derekf (Reply 69): If anyone wants to volunteer to help the community out in a very meaningful way, feel free to contact the headscreeners to apply for a screening position.

Just out of interest, what are the criteria for a screening position?

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 71): Some of us have already volunteered / expressed an interest for this role but amongst other things, was told (by yourself as representative of the screening team) that because I had a voice and an opinion on matters, that I wasn't suitable. Bearing in mind many of the issues we raised are now coming to light sparking changes, and I know things run deeper than are mentioned here, was told no thanks because it meant I wasn't a team player for having an opinion and wishing to discuss it.

I think you are misrepresenting the email discussion we had regarding this. If you like I would be open to a better balanced representation of the facts here in the public forum, or by private email.

In the past we have posted threads asking for new screeners and had poor response. What better place than in a thread where members are voicing their dissatisfaction with how things are in the screening world than to look for motivated volunteers? My own personal experience is that I sure thought I knew everything about screening and how all my perceived ills with the process could be cured - until I tried screening.

From a previous thread, this was the criteria for new screeners:

In an effort to reduce the size of the queue, we would like to announce we are actively seeking new screeners. We are looking for people that can meet most, if not all of the following criteria:

1. First and foremost, be able to commit the necessary time. We look for screeners to be able screen somewhere around 1000-2000 images a month. On average, that means something in the region of 2-4 hours a week of your time. The screening can be spread out, and doesn't need to be done every day, as many have work or other schedules that make that difficult. We understand, and can accommodate people with varying schedules.

2. Have at least 250 images already accepted here. We may make exceptions for lower numbers if all of the other criteria are met or exceeded, so please still apply if this is the only one you don't meet.

3. Have a relatively high acceptance ratio over the past year or so. There is no exact number we are looking for, but it should at least be over 50%, and preferably higher.

4. Have no recent warnings or bans issued for violating the upload rules.

5. Be a good team player, a good listener and learner, and be willing to help others. Getting along well with the other members of the team is very important, as we are all volunteers, it is important to maintain a good working atmosphere.

6. Be able to communicate well in English, in both writing and reading. As we are a multi-national crew, all communication is done in English. Any other languages you may speak would be considered an asset, so please let us know if you have ability in any other languages.

As an addition to further possible changes. I'd mention double rule. Double is clearly called to protect site from tonns of similar boring staff. However this rule applied as universal (with minor exceptions) as for side shots, as for other kinds of photography.

I guess the double rule has to be applied for similar motives only. If photos describes the plane from different angles, various views of the cabin - what for should it be restricted? We can have same Easy Jet made by 4-5 different photogs in one day and at the same time rare shots of certain plane are restricted from one photog. Any winners?

I'd suggest to apply double rule just for the clearly similar motives or at least extend limits and borders for acceptance of 'double' shots.

Regards,

Fyodor

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 74): If photos describes the plane from different angles, various views of the cabin - what for should it be restricted?

Personally, I feel there's already enough latitude within the double rule. How much more flexibility do you need?

View Large View Medium Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium Photo © Steve Brimley

View Large View Medium

Photo © Steve Brimley

And I still have an exterior shot to upload yet!

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 74): I'd mention double rule

Not sure if this addresses your concern, but the double rule was updated not that long ago providing some additional flexibility in some situations.

In order to receive this rejection, the other (similar) photos in the database must also have been taken by you, at the same day and at the same airport. Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxiing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Even though these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar. Please select the best shot from the sequence and upload only that one. Images taken from different sequences such as one during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.
In certain cases you can also get this rejection if there are photos in the database that are nearly identical to the one(s) rejected here, but taken on another date by you. Examples of this are photos of stored or preserved aircraft that have not moved since you took the other photos.
For air-to-ground airshow, boneyard, and airport overviews, we accept both a wide view and closer crops of each of the aircraft visible in the wider view. For closer crops of structures such as terminals or concourses, they will only be allowed if there is no overlap with the wider view (i.e. the same structure is not visible in both images).
For images of space vehicle launches, we accept two images if they are of different motives (i.e. taken from different angles or remote set ups.
For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives. So in other words the maximum number of accepted window views of the same registration on the same flight all taken by you would be 4.
For cabin shots, we accept one wide view, and one close up of the seat/row for a maximum of 2 images per cabin, per flight. If the flight should start and end on different dates, you will still be allowed only the 2 images per cabin.
We only accept multiple cockpit shots if:
They clearly show different parts of the cockpit.
When the outside view is showing a different airport.
When one is taken in daylight and one taken at night.
One is a wide view, and the other is a well-composed close up of a specific instrument, set of gauges, screens or HUD etc.
Note: This rejection might also occur if you have similar photos in the upload queue that are still awaiting final screening.
Note: Pick your best image! We will not delete photos later so you can upload a different shot.
Note: if you do not provide us with the full date day/month/year we reserve to reject the image if it looks very similar to others. In rare cases we even reject images taken on different days if they are nearly identical.
We reserve the right to add more than one image of special or unique events, even if those images might otherwise be considered double. It is at our discretion what constitutes a special event, but the belly landing of the LOT 767 is a good example.

On a given day, uploading one image for each sequence such as take-off, landing, approach, taxi gives many options, and as you indicate, avoids multiple images taken on one day of the same aircraft doing the same thing.

I'm not so eager to add images or be part of the forums anymore. But this may just make me return to both! Thanks!
Spence

Peter, I know about the new rules indeed. I mean generally that double rule is quite senseless and good for the very limited cases.

My point to change approach for this rule from what is allowed to what is not allowed and to be considered as double. And apply it in clear cases staff is the same.

As about existing rules I'd say with the wide abilities for outside shots - interiors - cockpits, cabins - are quite limited with no clear reason. And good and attractive staff can not be presented.

Regards,

Fyodor

Quoting scbriml (Reply 75): And I still have an exterior shot to upload yet!

Lucky you are  

Guys asked not to make this thread for discussion on certain photos so I'd just can say that double policy is quite various and I can bring you number of opposite examples when shots - rather different in my view - was recognised as double. I just see no winners in that. I put my argument in the post above.

Judging by my recent rejections nothing has changed in terms of latitude for contrast or centring.
Maybe it will take a while to settle down, or maybe it won't. Oh well.........................

Derek - most of your rejections are for soft, in fact some are so soft that they appear to be out of focus.

To lay that at our feet is unfair.

If you would like some help, drop me an email; [email protected]

Quoting derekf (Reply 80): Judging by my recent rejections nothing has changed in terms of latitude for contrast or centring. Maybe it will take a while to settle down, or maybe it won't. Oh well.........................

Derek - I screened a number of your images the other day. As Royal said some were so soft they looked out of focus. Perhaps if you posted some of the rejections on the feedback forum you could get feedback from your peers. If you like I can also do that for you, so that others can judge whether the accusation of a lack of latitude is warranted. Statements like yours without showing the images is quite one sided.

As someone who has argued for a long time now, both in the Forum and in private conversation, for the system to give the photographer more 'benefit of the doubt' in what might have been considered borderline photos, in principle I must say I welcome change. That said, I shall be watching with great interest, because I would hate to see the reputation the site has for the highest quality photos threatened in any way. Some of the issues highlighted in the original thread starter are ones that have been the subject of heated debate for some time - like colour casts versus natural light hues; too harsh contrast decisions; and the dreaded grain (which for some reason had seemed to get rather out of hand of late). So I am pleased that these issues have been taken on board.

A few photographers were heavily involved recently in a thread in the Feedback Forum about quality standards. Overall, that was a frustrating discussion, in part due to a refusal to move the thread to this Forum, where it would have received more 'airplay', but also because of the relative lack of open 'two way' communication between photographers and screening team (with a couple of notable exceptions). I am sure there is always more to these things than meets the eye, but one thing I have also always been very keen on is a very open communication culture - and for members to feel they can influence the way the site develops. It seems many have been put off continuing to contribute to the site due to the perception of overly harsh screening decisions - and hopefully they may be drawn back to the site. I also hope that another facet of the site's reputation - how it communicates with its contributors - is similarly enhanced so that open and honest conversation rule the roost here.

My best wishes to the screening team in their efforts to regulate the decision making in this revised environment.

Paul

Whether the pictures were soft or "out of focus" is irrelevant. We were informed that there would be more leeway over centring and contrast and what do I get? A couple of dodgy contrast reasons and a centring one. Perhaps the new criteria are not being fully applied yet.

I don't want to get into a debate about individual photos but are we really saying that this deserved a contrast rejection? It was done for soft as obviously.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0613_9vswr_d7000_dsc_6629-edit.jpg

This was done for centre (as well as soft obviously)

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...413_n18119_d7000_dsc_5947-edit.jpg

Judging from these, and that's all I can go by, the centre and contrast criteria are just as tight ( and as baffling) as ever.

Quoting derekf (Reply 84):

So wait, let me get this straight. You feel, because of the new changes to the criteria, that your shots should not have been rejected despite being soft?

I didn't see anything that says they will no longer reject for contrast and centering and will override all other flaws, like soft.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that they should not have been rejected for centring or contrast if we really have a greater tolerance of these issues. The fact they were also rejected for soft is irrelevant to this discussion. As far as I can see, the requirements for sharpness have not changed.

If they had been sharper, would or should they still have been rejected?

Anyway, it only proves what most of us suspected is that these new criteria will make little or no difference to most uploaders.

Hello,

Not to be rude, but, perhaps the new rules would be applied if the image was close to being on center. The PMCO 75, however is no where near close to centered. Also, The SQ, while a bit more debatable, also appears to be flat. I do not see what the issue is. The new rule aplly when it is a close call. These are not, really. The new rules were intended (I assume) to allow photographers more leeway in situations and judgement calls that could go either way. I would say that even if they were sharper, yes, they would have been rejected, and justly so, imho.

My Respectful Opinion,

John

Quoting derekf (Reply 86):

I think, in the case of your second photo, the change to centering rules are intended for shots that don't fit the typical mold, like creative stuff. These changes are intended to make it easier to get unique photos accepted. A shot like yours should still be centered properly. It's like comparing a side-on ramp shot off-level by .5 degrees to a shot inflight where the shot is unlevel with the horizon for dramatic effect. One can be attributed to careless editing, the other a motivated decision made by the photographer.

[Edited 2013-07-07 16:01:55]

This thread is starting to be filled with lots of speculation about specific photos regarding the new rules and it seems as if it has lost its purpose.


When are the screeners going to just archive it so people stop speculating?


Everything is spelled out about the rules (what they are and why they have them) and there is nothing new to add to this thread.

Quoting screeners (Thread starter): - Creative and exceptional shots - Lighting around dawn and dusk to take into account local conditions more. - Unusual shots or those composed that tell a story. - If a shot, even the usual, has been seen by a couple of screeners and only a minor aspect of the image is in question, the next to see it accepts it. - Contrast can be very subjective and we will show a little more leeway toward it - Grain and noise in low light situations with subjects that are not static will receive more leeway - Centering requirements will be relaxed somewhat, and more leeway will be exercised

I don't think the "relaxation" of the rules on centring and contrast have anything to do with "creative" shots. I thought that the rules were applied to all photos. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the above.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 89): Everything is spelled out about the rules (what they are and why they have them) and there is nothing new to add to this thread.

I'm sorry but I don't see what is wrong with using examples in order to define where the boundaries of these relaxed criteria are. It would appear that they are no different from previous boundaries and so will make little difference whatsoever to the vast of majority of uploaders.

Quoting derekf (Reply 90):

I think you are expecting too much leeway with these changes. A judgement call still needs to be made, otherwise you're just accepting everything. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I still think it's silly to be worked up over your shots since they would be rejected for soft anyway. Perhaps if they weren't soft, leeway would have been given regarding contrast and centering!

Perhaps a screener can clarify exactly what kind of leeway will be given. I felt these changes were supposed to make it easier for more "outside-the-box" stuff to have a chance.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 89):

I don't understand why discussion is such a bad thing. Why would they archive this? Is this discussion hurting anyone?

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:07:23]

Quoting derekf (Reply 90): It would appear that they are no different from previous boundaries and so will make little difference whatsoever to the vast of majority of uploaders.

Hi Derek,

I think I just about side with the screeners here and think they've applied the new rules justifiably. To be fair, even though the rules have more tolerance now, the Unites 752 is a touch high in the frame. There's not been any change in the site preference with regards to centre as far as I'm aware, it still needs to be roughly centred. While the rules have been relaxed, there's still a minimum requirement and I think yours is a touch too hight. The SQ is more debatable. I think it could do with a touch more contrast personally. Given the local conditions, did you increase the midtones or use any shadow / highlight to bring some detail back from the shadows? I have to agree with John, it does look a little flat. Again, even with more tolerance, I think it's still a justified rejection for contrast. I think your main problem here is heat haze, it's a killer at this time of year.

Quoting southwest9 (Reply 89): Everything is spelled out about the rules (what they are and why they have them) and there is nothing new to add to this thread.

I agree, the new rules seem pretty clear to me but one of the other things we've been asking for is better communication. If examples are posted here for debate over the application of the new rules, that's got to be a positive thing? - so long as we also get screener input. Other than the likes of Dana and more recently Vikkyvik, screener input to discussion on these types of topics has been largely lacking historically.

Darren

[Edited 2013-07-08 00:10:57]

Quoting derekf (Reply 90):

Derek,

Here's an example from personal experience. Perhaps I interpret the new rules the way I do because this happened a couple days before they announced the changes.

I uploaded this photo for priority screening with a note to the screeners acknowledging that the shot is not centered by anet definitions and the crop is rather loose which left the possibility for a distance rejection. I also explained that if centering and distance were too far outside of anet preferences, that I had another more traditional, perfectly centered side-on shot I could upload instead. To my surprise, they quickly accepted the photo.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Ryan Pastorino


I tried similar shots of water salutes in the past and had them rejected for the two reasons I mentioned above. I was pleasantly surprised to see the screeners give some leeway for the shot above and it made perfect sense to me a few days later when they started this thread, why it was accepted.

So it would appear that although it says this:-

Quoting derekf (Reply 90): Centering requirements will be relaxed somewhat, and more leeway will be exercised

But it still has to exactly in the middle.  

The Singapore 777 is taxying on a concrete apron in bright sunlight. How might that affect the overall lighting of the aircraft, especially the underside? That photo was only cropped and sharpened. Nothing else.

Anyway. I think I get it now. I though that maybe, just maybe, things might change a little so I might not get photos rejected for trivial reasons. Sadly I was wrong.

I shall cease and desist.

Quote: When are the screeners going to just archive it so people stop speculating?

Screeners don't archive threads.  

That said, I do think the Feedback Forum is a better place to ask questions about specific shots.

Quoting derekf (Reply 90): I don't think the "relaxation" of the rules on centring and contrast have anything to do with "creative" shots.

They don't - those are more general guidelines.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 91): I felt these changes were supposed to make it easier for more "outside-the-box" stuff to have a chance.

Some of the changes, that is indeed true. Others are geared toward consistent screening, and generally, looking to accept.

Quoting derekf (Reply 84): Perhaps the new criteria are not being fully applied yet.

As with any change, it will take a bit of time for all of us to adjust and calibrate. We are certainly working towards it, but it simply doesn't happen overnight.

For what it's worth, Derek, your UA shot is on the higher end, but I think it's acceptable with regard to centering. I personally would have appealed it, were it not for the other issues.

Your SQ shot is not far off with regard to contrast, but could certainly use a shot of it.

Derek, with my great respect to you let me bring my two cents to the discussion.

First - I totally agree with Vik - there is a good proper place for certain photos discussions -the Feedback forum. As I understand the sense and role of this thread - it is to talk globally about how changes work and what else can be done.

Second - both photos are clearly soft. And it can be easely solved. As for the rest of reasons - again - it is a chance to appeal or to discuss it in proper place. If it will be principal and interesting case - be sure, people will join this discussion.

Let give this thread to be as it was called for.  

Regards,

Fyodor

[Edited 2013-07-08 01:08:13]

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 95): That said, I do think the Feedback Forum is a better place to ask questions about specific shots.

I agree but we are discussing them in the context of the screening changes in this thread which is why I brought the subject up. I thought it might be helpful to understand where the boundaries now lie and already it appears that a screener (thanks Vik) thinks that my shots would have been OK but non-screeners disagreed. That must be worth knowing surely?


I wish I hadn't bothered now.......

Quoting derekf (Reply 97): appears that a screener (thanks Vik) thinks that my shots would have been OK but non-screeners disagreed. That must be worth knowing surely?

Did you miss my comment a few replies up (before Vik's) where I said perhaps if not for the softness issue, your shots might have been acceptable?! Leeway might have been given if not for the fact they are doomed by softness, which Vik has confirmed!

That's like getting a rejection for common and soft/overexposed/"insert reason" and getting worked up by the "common" part. It's silly.

[Edited 2013-07-08 01:54:41]

Quoting derekf (Reply 94): Anyway. I think I get it now. I though that maybe, just maybe, things might change a little so I might not get photos rejected for trivial reasons. Sadly I was wrong.

Quite possibly not.

Many screeners will list all the issues with a shot when rejecting it to avoid the "fix one issue/upload/reject for another" cycle. It's entirely possible that the centre "issue" wouldn't have been one without the other problems.

In the past I've had rejections for say, a missed dust spot, and the screener's added a comment to the effect "could also be a touch higher in frame".