Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

unattendedbag · Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:09 am

I am sitting at my computer looking at a panning shot of an Air New Zealand aircraft departing during adverse weather conditions. It's a wonderful shot and as a panning photograph, a very difficult photo to capture.

Were there special circumstances surrounding it's acceptance? As a longtime contributor to this site, I feel justified in asking this question, as it is not the first picture I've seen recently that calls into question a change in the screening parameters and rules. Have the rules changed, and if so, can you elaborate on those changes?

[Edited 2015-07-03 19:11:53]

vikkyvik · Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:34 am

I assume I'm looking at the photo you are describing.

Granted, I'm on a laptop screen - certainly not my editing screen. But what's wrong with the photo? Or rather, what makes you think different screening criteria were applied? What would be this supposed change in the screening criteria?

unattendedbag · Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:57 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):
Granted, I'm on a laptop screen - certainly not my editing screen.

No problem, I'll wait till your on your "editing" screen.

yerbol · Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:29 am

Very very soft and noisy image. High ISO killed the details and sharpness. Didn't like it at all because of bad quality.
Even Nikon D4s has it's limits.

photopilot · Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:58 am

A LINK would have been wonderful.

Silver1SWA · Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):

I assume I'm looking at the photo you are describing.

Granted, I'm on a laptop screen - certainly not my editing screen. But what's wrong with the photo? Or rather, what makes you think different screening criteria were applied? What would be this supposed change in the screening criteria?

I'm looking on a retina iPhone screen which usually makes it impossible to determine quality but even on this screen I can see the issues described above. It's still a nice shot, though.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 4):

A LINK would have been wonderful.

A link would have killed this thread immediately.

Moose135 · Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:01 pm

Quoting photopilot (Reply 4):
A LINK would have been wonderful.

And then 87 people would have blasted him for that, because it's "not nice to call out someone like that"...

mx330 · Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:25 pm

There have always been this kind of cases, and I don't think they'll stop.

I guess there is always a 'human' factor into screening at the end.

On the other hand, I get this rejected for 'grainy':

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...e1434422431.147n932fr_5dm33742.jpg

Its not that I'm using this post to complain (I could use the appeal function if I cared), but just to state how wide criteria can be.

Just my two cents, and BTW I'm not bashing the ANZ shot.

vikkyvik · Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:56 pm

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5):

Quoting photopilot (Reply 4):
A LINK would have been wonderful.

A link would have killed this thread immediately.

The way he started this thread is about the only way to do it. Be very general, don't state the specific photo or what's specifically "wrong" with it.

I've personally tried to upload a few rainy-conditions takeoff shots. Haven't had much luck; not sure I want to put any more time into trying to edit them.

NZ107 · Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:11 pm

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5):
It's still a nice shot, though.

Of course. But if this isn't an "ISO 20,000 exception", I should theoretically be able to get my ISO 8,000 shots accepted, which are markedly better in quality than this photo. Yet 7 or 8 attempts later, I can't be bothered anymore.

alevik · Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:18 pm

That's a great panning image. Not sure how many of you have tried this, at really high ISO and low low light, but it is hard.

I could easily pull up dozens of similar images - the criteria for these haven't changed. Of course it isn't going to look like a late afternoon sunny side on.

Quoting mx330 (Reply 7):
On the other hand, I get this rejected for 'grainy':

Are you sure it was only rejected for grainy?

Not sure what the issue is with this, but hey, I just gave it a PC vote so that's my input.

Pete

Chukcha · Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:30 am

Nice image, and not an easy one. Why not try and be happy for the photographer, instead of having a whinge?

Striving for absolute perfection hasn't done any favours to this site.

Andrei

unattendedbag · Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:52 am

Quoting alevik (Reply 10):
I could easily pull up dozens of similar images - the criteria for these haven't changed. Of course it isn't going to look like a late afternoon sunny side on.

That answers my question perfectly. The criteria has not changed, however there is different criteria based on difficulty (ISO, shutter speed, panning speed, light level). Got it. It's good to see this shot met the high ISO and low low light criteria. I look forward to seeing many more shots like this in the future!

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 11):
Why not try and be happy for the photographer, instead of having a whinge?

Andrei, please read my original post, first paragraph, second sentence again (or apparently, the first time). We are all happy for the photographer, the shot made it to Top of 24 and will soon make it to PC. It's the screening criteria that is being questioned.

Chukcha · Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:52 am

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 12):
Andrei, please read my original post

I didn't mean you personally, there are a couple of other comments here I was referring to.

Chukcha · Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:56 am

And referring to your original post:

Quoting unattendedbag (Thread starter):
Have the rules changed, and if so, can you elaborate on those changes?

I don't really see anything in this photo that may challenge any existing rules; it is just a bit marginal, but difficult shots were always supposed to be given a bit of leeway; too bad it doesn't happen very often.

Silver1SWA · Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:51 am

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 14):
too bad it doesn't happen very often.

This is the best thing said all thread. These shots should be allowed! I can't tell you how many shots I've taken that are really great shots (can I say that without sounding like a pompous jerk?) but suffer too many quality issues that they won't stand a chance here. That's SUCKS! What's wrong with this site is every time screeners let one slide, everyone starts crying foul because an extremely difficult panning shot in pitch black darkness was accepted but their sunny side on showed too much grain (probably due to poor choice of settings or editing) and was rejected.

Exceptions should be encouraged! It only helps us all with chances of getting those one in a million shots accepted despite slight quality issues due to the conditions!

ghajdufi · Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:19 am

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 15):

Post of the Year Award goes to Ryan.

bustin · Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:32 am

Quoting unattendedbag (Thread starter):
Were there special circumstances surrounding it's acceptance? As a longtime contributor to this site, I feel justified in asking this question, as it is not the first picture I've seen recently that calls into question a change in the screening parameters and rules. Have the rules changed, and if so, can you elaborate on those changes?

Personally I think is not right to put into question an accepted picture. Nice photo also I have to say.
But it is evident that the method of work of screeners, many times they interpret the rules at will so to many acceptances and many rejections (specially rejections). Screener crew may calls this the "subjective" human factor. Others may call it "inconsistency".
But this has to be accepted so here. It will not have changed.

P.D. I used the translator here. So I hope I have not said anything wrong or could be misinterpreted.

airkas1 · Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:52 pm

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I have some difficulty with editing high ISO photos. Since the subject of this thread is the acceptance of high ISO image, I'd like to know how one would edit those photos.

I have yet to get any luck with getting one accepted, despite me thinking that they should be alright. For example, I currently have this one in the queue: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b....2335lv-fvm_aep_07-05-15kj---2.jpg

It's already a re-edit, because the first one was rejected for soft and grainy. But increasing sharpness = more noise and vice versa.

andrew50 · Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:15 pm

Quoting unattendedbag (Thread starter):
I have yet to get any luck with getting one accepted, despite me thinking that they should be alright. For example, I currently have this one in the queue: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b....2335lv-fvm_aep_07-05-15kj---2.jpg

That is a nice shot for sure! Hopefully that one will accepted this time around.

vikkyvik · Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:37 pm

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 15):
What's wrong with this site is every time screeners let one slide, everyone starts crying foul because an extremely difficult panning shot in pitch black darkness was accepted but their sunny side on showed too much grain (probably due to poor choice of settings or editing) and was rejected.

Yes and no. I don't really care that much if my sunny side-on gets rejected. But if my low-contrast, low-light, rainy, generally tough shot to take/edit gets rejected, then you start wondering why someone else's was accepted, and what I have to do to get mine accepted.

Unfortunately, in those cases, I've usually spent quite a bit of time editing the photo already, and probably won't want to go back and try again.

I took a bunch of shots in the rain back in December, I think. I haven't bothered to upload most of them (even though it's my favorite spotting weather), because the couple I have were rejected.

But oh well, what are you gonna do?

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 2):
No problem, I'll wait till your on your "editing" screen.

I see what you are talking about now.

clickhappy · Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:51 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20):
I've usually spent quite a bit of time editing the photo already,

If you are spending 'quite a bit of time' editing you are doing something wrong.

vikkyvik · Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:06 am

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 21):
If you are spending 'quite a bit of time' editing you are doing something wrong.

Eh, I knew someone would post that.

A high-ISO shot in low light will usually take me more time to edit than a low-ISO shot in bright sunlight. Throw rain in there and it gets more difficult. I don't take many of them, therefore I'm not as experienced at editing them (even if I was, it would still take me somewhat longer, just to add NR and stuff that I don't add to "normal" shots).

It's all relative, but if it makes you happy, I'll upload a bunch of quick edits and you can reject them all (justifiably).

mx330 · Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:16 am

Quoting alevik (Reply 10):

Quoting mx330 (Reply 7):
On the other hand, I get this rejected for 'grainy':

Are you sure it was only rejected for grainy?

Grainy + soft
Does it make a difference?

To my two cents, non screener eye, the shot has like 300% less grain then the one discussed.
It's not soft, like the one discussed and its also not blurry on the nose, winglet and APU area, like the one discussed.

Again, this is only my personal opinion.

To my believe ANZ shot is great, but does not meet the A.net standards, at the end, what counts its that screeners decided to accept it and that probably means it meets the standard.

Juan

kann123air · Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:22 am

Some amazing panning in that shot. He's either really lucky, or has an incredibly steady hand!

I couldn't help but notice the ISO level... 20000. My camera would start smoking at such a figure!

Amrit

derekf · Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:50 pm

Some interesting thoughts here. As far as the image is concerned, if the photographer had not put the ISO in the comments would the photo still have been accepted?

I always understood that to get photos accepted here they had to meet the "criteria"; the circumstances and the technical detail of the how the image was achieved was largely irrelevant. The only thing that matters was the end result and that it fell within the "rules". Now it seems we have an image that was accepted precisely because it was low light and high ISO.
If that is the case then it would seem that the acceptance criteria have indeed changed.

I welcome that fact that images like this cane be accepted but I suspect that this might be a one-off as does open up debate of "why wasn't mine accepted".

unattendedbag · Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting derekf (Reply 25):

I always understood that to get photos accepted here they had to meet the "criteria"; the circumstances and the technical detail of the how the image was achieved was largely irrelevant.

That is exactly what I was thinking when I started this thread. Would this photo have been accepted if the comment field was left blank? I think that question deserves an honest answer.

There was a second photo accepted a short time after this one that also was a heavy hitter, taken with the same camera and it shares many of the same attributes that the first photo has. However, it doesn't contain a "high ISO" remark.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

scbriml · Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:48 am

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 26):
Would this photo have been accepted if the comment field was left blank? I think that question deserves an honest answer.

The screeners are photographers too. They would fully understand the challenges of a shot like the one in question.

alevik · Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:57 pm

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 26):
That is exactly what I was thinking when I started this thread. Would this photo have been accepted if the comment field was left blank? I think that question deserves an honest answer.

There was a second photo accepted a short time after this one that also was a heavy hitter, taken with the same camera and it shares many of the same attributes that the first photo has. However, it doesn't contain a "high ISO" remark.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Surprised this thread is still alive, given the answers provided already. Some of us screeners actually take photographs too, and even ones that are technically difficult. You don't need to be a rocket surgeon or read the comment field to get the difficulty of that shot.

The criteria HAVE NOT CHANGED. Simply, a sunny side on (like most posters in this thread upload) has higher criteria because they are dead easy simple photos that should be technically perfect. If all photos had to look like those, we would never have the great shots of aircraft landing in reverse thrust in the rain, brilliant panning shots, or awesome night window view shots.

Really not sure what the confusion is all about.

Pete

derekf · Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:56 pm

I don't think it's too hard to understand is it?
It was always the quality of the final image that mattered. If you took a tricky nighttime shot or one in the rain and it turned out blurry then that was tough. If I take a shot of a helicopter in daylight at 1/25sec to get a bit of rotor blur and it turns out a bit blurry then would it be accepted? It's pretty tricky getting those sharp after all. No, it would be rejected.
Now it seems that the difficulty of achieving the shot is taken into account. I shall bear that in mind in future.

vikkyvik · Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:21 pm

Quoting alevik (Reply 28):
Really not sure what the confusion is all about.

Just by way of explanation: people get confused when their shots - that appear to be better quality than those accepted - get rejected.

I'd wager it happens to most of us. I know I've had shots taken in difficult circumstances that I personally feel were better quality than some accepted shots. But what are you gonna do, you know? Can be annoying, but it's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

But I've decided to go back and upload a bunch of shots that I never bothered uploading because I didn't think they'd have a chance. If they make it, cool, if not, oh well.

Silver1SWA · Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:28 pm

Quoting derekf (Reply 29):

It's simply not possibly for shots taken under certain conditions to be as squeaky clean as a sunny side on photo. Should this site not allow anything taken in those conditions? I personally find the those tougher shots more interesting to not only look at but to shoot. To each his own, I guess.

And I know from personal experience in the past that the screeners have been more lenient on shots that have pushed the limits so this isn't anything new. The edit still needs to be darn good. It's not like they are accepting trash because of the settings. The shot in question is still impressive, IMO.

You can't make everyone happy.

derekf · Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:46 pm

I understand all that but the point is that those "tricky" were generally rejected in the past and now it would appear that if you put the settings in the comments field then you might have a chance of getting them accepted. As I said, I'll bear it in mind although I have managed my expectations.
Makes no difference to to me anyway. I haven't learnt anything in 35 years of photography as I can't get sunny side-ons accepted.

alevik · Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:48 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 30):
Just by way of explanation: people get confused when their shots - that appear to be better quality than those accepted - get rejected.

Not very often do I see emails replying to rejection messages saying "yeah, you are totally right, other accepted ones are better than mine". Photographers often cannot be subjective about their own images, it happens with all of us. That's actually why images are screened, right? You've seen some of the crap that gets uploaded, then appealed - those folks think their stuff is amazing, and how dare you reject it, and so on.

Quoting derekf (Reply 32):
Makes no difference to to me anyway. I haven't learnt anything in 35 years of photography as I can't get sunny side-ons accepted.

Exactly my point.

Pete

vikkyvik · Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:53 pm

Quoting alevik (Reply 33):
Not very often do I see emails replying to rejection messages saying "yeah, you are totally right, other accepted ones are better than mine"

Oh, I know.

Though, if I think the screeners are correct, why would I send a reply?

unattendedbag · Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:32 pm

Quoting alevik (Reply 28):
The criteria HAVE NOT CHANGED.

Talking about this seems to be like walking on eggshells.

Not since this shot, in this modern day of photography, have we seen a photo that so displays the "consequences" of low low light and high ISO. I'm not a screener and I have no idea the wide range of images that come across your computer screen on a daily basis, but this image is unlike any modern image that I have seen before on this website. That is what got my attention.

Again, should the image stay? Absolutely! Hopefully this image and others after it will encourage other photographers to try a shot that they may have thought wouldn't make it before.

derekf · Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:43 pm

I too hope the image stays (and others like it) . I might try a low shutter speed shot to get a bit of rotor blur and see how I get on. I'm assuming a bit soft or bit blurry would be OK.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 35):
Talking about this seems to be like walking on eggshells.

Absolutely. No wonder this forum is a pale shadow of what it once was.

Quoting alevik (Reply 33):
Quoting derekf (Reply 32):
Makes no difference to to me anyway. I haven't learnt anything in 35 years of photography as I can't get sunny side-ons accepted.

Exactly my point.

I guess sarcasm doesn't come over well.

Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

RE: Recent Changes To The Screening Rules?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net