Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jhud922 wrote:Cell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the screeners here. It better be of a plane literally crashing.
Crosswindphoto wrote:jhud922 wrote:Cell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the screeners here. It better be of a plane literally crashing.
While a cell phone may not be able replicate a DSLR in terms of top quality. A modern cell phone can take a photo of passable quality. We screen to accept, so if it is of passable quality, who the hell cares what it was taken on?
Tim
jhud922 wrote:Crosswindphoto wrote:jhud922 wrote:Cell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the screeners here. It better be of a plane literally crashing.
While a cell phone may not be able replicate a DSLR in terms of top quality. A modern cell phone can take a photo of passable quality. We screen to accept, so if it is of passable quality, who the hell cares what it was taken on?
Tim
Passable quality? That amount of fantastic photos that are rejected daily seems to imply passable would never be good enough. I'll stand by my assertion - there is no cell phone photo that should be able to pass the standards imposed here, unless its uploaded at 300px wide. But please, share the photos you've mentioned and I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong.
jhud922 wrote:Cell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the screeners here. It better be of a plane literally crashing.
Crosswindphoto wrote:jhud922 wrote:Crosswindphoto wrote:
While a cell phone may not be able replicate a DSLR in terms of top quality. A modern cell phone can take a photo of passable quality. We screen to accept, so if it is of passable quality, who the hell cares what it was taken on?
Tim
Passable quality? That amount of fantastic photos that are rejected daily seems to imply passable would never be good enough. I'll stand by my assertion - there is no cell phone photo that should be able to pass the standards imposed here, unless its uploaded at 300px wide. But please, share the photos you've mentioned and I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong.
I should stress that I don't mean a zoomed in photo of a fast moving aircraft taken on a phone will be any good, it won't. I mean a close up/side-on photo of a parked aircraft.
Take a look at: https://www.airliners.net/search?keywor ... lay=detail
All iPhone photos, are they top quality? No. Are they still passable? Yes.
Miami wrote:jhud922 wrote:Cell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the screeners here. It better be of a plane literally crashing.
Try again.
jhud922 wrote:Miami wrote:jhud922 wrote:Cell phone photos accepted? That statement alone should invalidate any screening process. There isn't a cell phone on the planet that comes close to the quality of a DSLR in the right hands. I'd love to see an example of a cell phone photo that meets the impossibly random and high standards of the screeners here. It better be of a plane literally crashing.
Try again.
By any generally accepted standards this is an average at best photo. The front of the aircraft is nearly cut off in the frame. But this is acceptable...? Ok
Miami wrote:jhud922 wrote:Miami wrote:
Try again.
By any generally accepted standards this is an average at best photo. The front of the aircraft is nearly cut off in the frame. But this is acceptable...? Ok
Anet prefers tight crops.
jhud922 wrote:Miami wrote:jhud922 wrote:
By any generally accepted standards this is an average at best photo. The front of the aircraft is nearly cut off in the frame. But this is acceptable...? Ok
Anet prefers tight crops.
Is there a published guide somewhere about other foundational photography concepts that we can ignore when shooting with Anet in mind?
Crosswindphoto wrote:jhud922 wrote:Miami wrote:
Anet prefers tight crops.
Is there a published guide somewhere about other foundational photography concepts that we can ignore when shooting with Anet in mind?
https://www.airliners.net/faq/photo_acceptance_guide/
It needs some updating, but all the key points are there.
ASOSpotter wrote:Thanks for the reply so far everyone. Im also interested in what are the minimum requirements in technology to be a screener. There would have to be some. In terms of screen power, and corrections. understanding of DSLR and photo processing would also be high on the list as a minimum. Or isn't there. I raised this due to what I'm sure others are seeing and experiencing. I noted a Singapore Airlines Cargo 747 that was accepted recently. It wasn't sharp, nor was it close cropped as is a requirement, and again I question the validity of a screener to except that photo.
ASOSpotter wrote:So tonight I uploaded a shot of an Airtractor. The screener said to fix the over-sharpening and the category. And said the following: Correct all listed flaws and reupload as "priority" (first in database). Thanks". So I reload it with the corrections and now another screener says simply- Blurry. How can it go from one extreme to another? I'm completely lost as to the process and the frustration this site, gives contributors who make the site what it is. Not impressed at all by the total lack of consistencity.
I also uploaded a shot of a A340 today which was knocked back because it was a Hifly aircraft without markings. Now the aircraft is owned by Hifly and flown by them. So it's a Hifly aircraft. But no not taken as the screener said it should be untitled. What total rubbish. The aircraft is owned and operated by the airline and hasnt been painted. So nothing wrong with my upload at all.
dgorun wrote:ASOSpotter wrote:Thanks for the reply so far everyone. Im also interested in what are the minimum requirements in technology to be a screener. There would have to be some. In terms of screen power, and corrections. understanding of DSLR and photo processing would also be high on the list as a minimum. Or isn't there. I raised this due to what I'm sure others are seeing and experiencing. I noted a Singapore Airlines Cargo 747 that was accepted recently. It wasn't sharp, nor was it close cropped as is a requirement, and again I question the validity of a screener to except that photo.
Hi Dave,
We don't have any requirements for equipment/technology to be a screener. We chose screeners based on their history of uploads on the site.
Can you provide a link to the Singapore Airlines Cargo picture you are referring? I would love to take a look.
Cheers,
Daniel
ASOSpotter wrote:dgorun wrote:ASOSpotter wrote:Thanks for the reply so far everyone. Im also interested in what are the minimum requirements in technology to be a screener. There would have to be some. In terms of screen power, and corrections. understanding of DSLR and photo processing would also be high on the list as a minimum. Or isn't there. I raised this due to what I'm sure others are seeing and experiencing. I noted a Singapore Airlines Cargo 747 that was accepted recently. It wasn't sharp, nor was it close cropped as is a requirement, and again I question the validity of a screener to except that photo.
Hi Dave,
We don't have any requirements for equipment/technology to be a screener. We chose screeners based on their history of uploads on the site.
Can you provide a link to the Singapore Airlines Cargo picture you are referring? I would love to take a look.
Cheers,
Daniel
Hello Daniel, thanks for the reply.
The Singapore shot I was reffereing to is now deleted.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapo ... lj%2B7KC1e
This was the link.
Look forward to discussing this more with you
ASOSpotter wrote:I'm having a real issue with photos on this site.
Having gone to a full frame canon camera, having a Macbook Pro and Lightroom to post edit my photos in I still get rejections on images that I look at on my screen.
With comments like under exposed on a loaded image then being told its over exposed in the next upload.
jhud922 wrote:I'm sure we've all had photos rejected for "editing halos". Well here's one, in the DB, that clearly has halos.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Alaska- ... 81Kg%3D%3D
https://imgur.com/ZYg2FdA
Also, vignetting is a common rejection
this one has obvious vignetting - https://www.airliners.net/photo/America ... S2/QHLCDVv
More editing halos - https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... S2/QHLCDVv
Strange crop cutting off both wing and stabilizer - https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-A ... S6/gHLVDVx
Now to be clear, my intention is not that any of these photos be removed. They are all excellent photos and deserve to be in the DB. Personally I find the rejection categories to be arbitrary and pedantic. My point is simply, there is tremendous inconsistency. You can easily find within minutes plenty of examples of photos that meet the same rejection criteria except they are accepted daily.
ASOSpotter wrote:jhud922 wrote:I'm sure we've all had photos rejected for "editing halos". Well here's one, in the DB, that clearly has halos.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Alaska- ... 81Kg%3D%3D
https://imgur.com/ZYg2FdA
Also, vignetting is a common rejection
this one has obvious vignetting - https://www.airliners.net/photo/America ... S2/QHLCDVv
More editing halos - https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... S2/QHLCDVv
Strange crop cutting off both wing and stabilizer - https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-A ... S6/gHLVDVx
Now to be clear, my intention is not that any of these photos be removed. They are all excellent photos and deserve to be in the DB. Personally I find the rejection categories to be arbitrary and pedantic. My point is simply, there is tremendous inconsistency. You can easily find within minutes plenty of examples of photos that meet the same rejection criteria except they are accepted daily.
Could not agree more with your assessments, I had another rejection today for planes that are yellow being too yellow! And over exposed, when another shot I uploaded was rejected for not being exposed enough. It drives me bonkas!
ASOSpotter wrote:jhud922 wrote:I'm sure we've all had photos rejected for "editing halos". Well here's one, in the DB, that clearly has halos.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Alaska- ... 81Kg%3D%3D
https://imgur.com/ZYg2FdA
Also, vignetting is a common rejection
this one has obvious vignetting - https://www.airliners.net/photo/America ... S2/QHLCDVv
More editing halos - https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... S2/QHLCDVv
Strange crop cutting off both wing and stabilizer - https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-A ... S6/gHLVDVx
Now to be clear, my intention is not that any of these photos be removed. They are all excellent photos and deserve to be in the DB. Personally I find the rejection categories to be arbitrary and pedantic. My point is simply, there is tremendous inconsistency. You can easily find within minutes plenty of examples of photos that meet the same rejection criteria except they are accepted daily.
Could not agree more with your assessments, I had another rejection today for planes that are yellow being too yellow! And over exposed, when another shot I uploaded was rejected for not being exposed enough. It drives me bonkas!
ASOSpotter wrote:I also uploaded a shot of a A340 today which was knocked back because it was a Hifly aircraft without markings. Now the aircraft is owned by Hifly and flown by them. So it's a Hifly aircraft. But no not taken as the screener said it should be untitled. What total rubbish. The aircraft is owned and operated by the airline and hasnt been painted. So nothing wrong with my upload at all.