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.

Other examples include being told contrast is too high when it is very low in Lightroom, make me question screeners computers and if they have a calibrated screen.

Who can there be so many inconsistencies across images that are screened?

I even had a rejection twice on a image that was told there was a dust mark on and dirty when it was a cloud and the image isnt dirty. I even sent the raw file to another tog who uploads on here and he can't see the issues being given. I'll add he also uses MAC and has a Canon mirrorless, and even he get rejections on that top end gear.

Then we have the issue of 'Personal message' with no explanation of what the issue of that is?

I'm a tad frustrated by this and when you question something the answer is one to two words. The site needs better feedback on images.

Hi,

Sorry you’re having issues. Exposure and contrast is always going to be a tough rejection since like you mention, it can be a calibration issue for sure. All it takes is a monitor being too bright or too dim. We have certain guidelines on what equipment we should use when screening. If you give me the photo id’s I can take a look at the photos. Not to sound presumptuous but you can have the best gear and yet not have the best quality photos. We have cell phone pictures accepted as well. I wold be glad to help.

Your not the only Dave!, I sometimes get them as well

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I mean I think these photos you've shared prove my point. None of them are particularly good. Maybe they pass the test because they are of unique registrations...? I guess add this to the list of things I don't get about this site's process.

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

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

Anet prefers tight crops.

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.

Is there a published guide somewhere about other foundational photography concepts that we can ignore when shooting with Anet in mind?

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?

https://www.airliners.net/faq/photo_acceptance_guide/
It needs some updating, but all the key points are there.

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.

Thanks for sharing

I read this thread and it got me thinking about photos taken on a phone.

I have been a contributor here for about 17 years and have been involved In many discussions on the forum about quality issues. Maybe there are still some screeners here who will recall! I was interested to read the comments about phone photos potentially meeting criteria and I found myself wondering whether I could get a photo accepted that meets criteria. I have to admit I enjoy high quality images and, thus, would not normally consider phone images having what it takes.

Please let me know if you think this might get past the screening process. It was a beautiful sunny day for a walk, but not to lug my DSLR equipment up a hill!

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... df820abde1

All the best.

Paul

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.

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.

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:

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.

Hi Dave,

I've checked your Air Tactor shot. It seems like originally it was oversharpened. When it was fixed it went back to blurry. Generally blurry shots can't fixed.

I was the one that screened your A340. Rubbish or not, if an aircraft does not have the airline titles on the fuselage, it needs to be uploaded as untitled, and then in the second airline field can have the actual airline that owns the aircraft. This was mentioned during screening.

Regards,
Daniel

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:

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

Hi Dave,

That image was added in error. It was removed as quickly as possible.

Daniel

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.

I think they use "underexposed" if the side of the plane you are photographing is backlit or even partially backlit.

Here's one I just had rejected for "underexposed" even though it is perfectly exposed as it appeared "in real life" at the time I took it. It's just backlit.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... cc725676e7

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.

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!

Right. And unfortunately other sites like JetPhotos are probably worse, they have more uploads and screeners who are just as inconsistent.

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!

Complaining about it while not sharing the rejected images is pretty pointless. Show us.

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.

Instead of complaining about every rejection, use them as a learning experience. If it doesn't say "Hifly" in big letters on the plane, then for this site, it should be uploaded as "untitled". You can still specify "Hifly" as the 'Airline 2' field. It's not that difficult to understand, but of course, it's easier just to moan.