Quoting Len90 (Reply 49): I don't think that is the case

lol if you do not paranoid does not mean that you do not spied upon  

Quoting Len90 (Reply 49): I completely understand how everyone has busy lives and this is done by people in their spare time. But with that said, how much time does it take for a quick response over the past 5 days? Even other screeners who are active on the board have passed by this thread only to post in others.... which is more the reason for why I appreciate your input.

I'm active in the forums throughout the day almost every day, but unfortunately most of that is on my phone so my input is of no use in this forum unless I'm in front of my screening monitor at home. But honestly, my time on my editing/screening computer is very limited as it is so my time is better spent screening. That said, I would like to be more involved in this forum.

Quoting Len90 (Reply 49): Pete is still listed as a HS but I haven't heard from him in a long time. Also I remember Mick was pretty active as well before he left.

Pete still posts occasionally. Mick used to be fairly active, probably behind Dana and Pete.

I'll always remember what Dana said one time when I thanked him for all his help in the forum (paraphrasing) - "if it prevents a whole bunch of rejectable photos from being clogging the queue, then it's worth it".

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 48): I have a theory too; "In Soviet Russia, 200K photos accept A.net"

  

Personally I think it would be good if part of the requirement to be a screener or head screener is the willingness to allot some time to answering questions here. The feedback through the regular screening interface is simply not adequate in many cases (not the screeners' fault, just the way it is).

Quoting angad84 (Reply 47): The last HS to regularly post here was alevik (Pete Nickerson),

Quoting Len90 (Reply 49): Pete is still listed as a HS but I haven't heard from him in a long time.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 52): Pete still posts occasionally.

I am still quite active screening both the regular queue and appeals. I also participate on the creative team.

Unfortunately my personal time has been limited as I have started a new position with a company that I have also purchased shares in. (There's nothing like ownership to induce accountability). Something had to give and right now that is my participation in the forums. When I have the time I will contribute - I still have one kid in high school and another in university though so I have pay the bills first  .

Quoting Len90 (Reply 49): Hahaha. I don't think that is the case in terms of the site having a quota. What I do think happens is we get periods of time where the screening team becomes overly strict and then other times where the site is more lenient.

Having been screening for quite some time now, and particularly with my time as a HS, the level of leniency or strictness does vary over time. Of course there is no quota for the number of images accepted.

I'm certain feedback in the forums helps people when they decide what to upload, reducing the images in the queue that don't have a chance. To be honest, I have also seen a fair share of uploaders who are given advice by a screener or HS, but disregard it and upload anyway, so I'm not sure what the net benefit is when you take that into consideration, but I believe it is positive.

I think I have mentioned this before, but for every batch of appeals, an email is generated that goes out to the entire screening team. For each appeal it lists the screener name, what the original rejections were, what the revised rejections are (or if the appeal is accepted it is shown as a successful appeal, listing the original reasons). In doing the appeal we can type a message that goes to the photographer, and a separate message that is included in the appeal outcome email that all screeners can see. This is probably the best way we have to align the screening team when we see things getting out of hand. I have also sent quite a few "calibration" emails to the team when a specific area needs addressing.

I understand that consistency is often raised as an issue, and of course there is inconsistency. That definitely determines the rate of acceptances versus rejections. The quality of the images uploaded has probably a bigger impact though - there are times when I screen 300 images on a weekend day, and reject a lot of them. There are other times when I accept a lot of them. If we can assume I can be fairly consistent, then there is a big element of queue quality that is apparent.

Anyway, just thought I'd reply so that even though I haven't been active in the forum you know I'm still alive.

Pete

Quoting alevik (Reply 53): I am still quite active screening both the regular queue and appeals. I also participate on the creative team. Unfortunately my personal time has been limited as I have started a new position with a company that I have also purchased shares in. (There's nothing like ownership to induce accountability). Something had to give and right now that is my participation in the forums. When I have the time I will contribute - I still have one kid in high school and another in university though so I have pay the bills first

Good to hear you're still alive.  

Of course life is more important, and certainly can get in the way. No worries there. I just wish there were more than one or two screeners regularly posting here - and some more experienced screeners would be good too (absolutely no offense intended to Joshua or Kas).

But ultimately, I can't take, edit, or upload as many photos as I used to, due to life and work. So no big deal in the long run.

Great to see there are still people around, just sadly nobody else offered input to the original question... Now onwards and forwards to some of my latest rejections:

US Airways Express ERJ175: Soft
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...326_m1458211667.8547img_5644r1.jpg

Delta Connection ERJ145: Soft
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...326_o1458272058.8168img_5665r1.jpg

Delta MD 88: Soft/Dark
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...326_z1458271946.5564img_5652r1.jpg

AA A332: Soft/Dark
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...326_u1458272837.7708img_5682r1.jpg

Thoughts on these? All were done at the same time so it was the same screener for all four. Now also compare these to all my recent acceptances from that same day and around the same time of day: https://www.airliners.net/search/phot...Len%20Schwartz&distinct_entry=true

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): US Airways Express ERJ175: Soft

Agree. Mostly fuselage (except reg.).

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): Delta Connection ERJ145: Soft

Looks slightly oversharpened.

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): Delta MD 88: Soft/Dark

Brightness seems ok, slightly oversharpened.

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): AA A332: Soft/Dark

Brightness seems ok, slightly oversharpened.


I'm sorry to say this, but some photos do look a bit 'marginal' as we call it. Meaning the screening result could go either way. This is probably the result of what one screener finds passable and another one doesn't.

Wow....I'd have a very hard time calling any of those soft. That's leading you in the wrong direction for corrections.

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): US Airways Express ERJ175: Soft

Looks blurry/OS to me, which makes it look sort of soft.

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): Delta Connection ERJ145: Soft

Definitely not soft. Moderately OS.

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): Delta MD 88: Soft/Dark

Somewhat OS.

Quoting len90 (Reply 55): AA A332: Soft/Dark

Somewhat OS.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 56): I'm sorry to say this, but some photos do look a bit 'marginal' as we call it. Meaning the screening result could go either way. This is probably the result of what one screener finds passable and another one doesn't.

   I'd have to agree. In general, your shots tend toward oversharpened to my eyes - even the accepted ones. Though the 4 or 5 that I just looked at aren't quite as noticeable as these rejections.

Tough to say if it's just an editing issue, or an original-photo quality issue.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 57):   I'd have to agree. In general, your shots tend toward oversharpened to my eyes - even the accepted ones. Though the 4 or 5 that I just looked at aren't quite as noticeable as these rejections. Tough to say if it's just an editing issue, or an original-photo quality issue.

I agree with Vik. It almost seems like the images are heavy crops, or are shot at low resolution settings, or there is an editing workflow problem.

Pete

Thanks everyone for the responses. I tend to feel that I have been going a bit more on the sharpening than I like just to get acceptances. Seems like that is the consensus here. However, if I use less sharpening I will still be prone to Soft rejections. These four images are a perfect example of that and would be completely misleading for me to "Correct" them.

Pete, could you possibly use this as a quick refresh/reminder as they are incorrect rejections. All but one reject reason was incorrect leading me to feel that particular screener might need some help.

Kas, you just hit the nail on the head with your statement:

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 56): I'm sorry to say this, but some photos do look a bit 'marginal' as we call it. Meaning the screening result could go either way. This is probably the result of what one screener finds passable and another one doesn't.

It goes to show the huge subjective nature of screening and how we will have a VERY tough time achieving some sort of sharpening standard. My OS pictures were canned by a screener for being soft. A former screener, yourself, and a head screener all say differently.

I'll go ahead and tone down my sharpening a little bit. Images are all taken at full resolution on my camera and are not heavily cropped. 100-400 lens on a full frame camera at Hog Island Road for PHL doesn't allow for much wiggle room and loose shots. Images are fine before any work or downsizing. I'll tone down the sharpening, but I just hope it doesn't result in every picture now getting canned for soft.

Quoting len90 (Reply 59): A former screener, yourself, and a head screener all say differently

I don't mean to nitpick, but all 3 of us kind of agreed with each other (?)

[Edited 2016-03-27 14:19:42]

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 60): Quoting len90 (Reply 59): A former screener, yourself, and a head screener all say differently I don't mean to nitpick, but all 3 of us kind of agreed with each other (?)

All three of you said the same, which is different than what the screener who rejected images said  Semantics with english language  

I agree with the dirty part... but what about the soft/dark?
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...328_m1458358991.9488img_5700r1.jpg

"The photo needs sharpening and brightening; also, there's a dust particle below the aircraft. Regards soft dark dirty personal"


Always nice when the screener is personal and gives you a comment. I just wonder if this images is actually OS like the other 4.

Quoting len90 (Reply 62): I just wonder if this images is actually OS like the other 4.

Certainly is.

They all look like they were quite soft, and you've had to add a lot of sharpening. But they're definitely OS now. Adding more sharpening will not help.

So while I can kind of see why a screener might say soft, it really doesn't help the photographer with the next edit.

Not soft or dark. It's sharp but passable for me.

[Edited 2016-03-28 13:03:51]

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 64): Not soft or dark. It's sharp but passable for me.

Thanks! It has that spot which needs to be removed. Won't take long to really just redo it with slightly less sharpening though.