Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
ASOSpotter
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:42 am

Inconsistent screening

Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:28 pm

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.
 
dgorun
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:54 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:13 am

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.
 
User avatar
wiggy
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:23 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:42 pm

Your not the only Dave!, I sometimes get them as well
 
jhud922
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:56 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Crosswindphoto
Screener
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:21 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:42 pm

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
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:47 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Crosswindphoto
Screener
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:21 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:11 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Miami
Posts: 6358
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:37 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:55 pm

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
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:48 am

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.
 
jhud922
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:49 am

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
 
User avatar
Miami
Posts: 6358
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:37 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:50 am

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.
 
jhud922
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:51 pm

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?
 
User avatar
Crosswindphoto
Screener
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:21 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:42 pm

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.
 
jhud922
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:52 pm

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
 
Psych
Posts: 3019
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:37 pm

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
 
User avatar
ASOSpotter
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:42 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:38 pm

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.
 
User avatar
ASOSpotter
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:42 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:10 pm

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
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:54 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Fri Nov 12, 2021 4:25 pm

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
 
dgorun
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:54 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Fri Nov 12, 2021 4:32 pm

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
 
User avatar
ASOSpotter
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:42 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:00 pm

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
 
dgorun
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:54 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Sat Nov 13, 2021 6:19 am

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
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4634
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:01 pm

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
 
jhud922
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Tue Mar 01, 2022 4:46 pm

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.
 
User avatar
ASOSpotter
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:42 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Wed Mar 02, 2022 11:59 pm

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!
 
jhud922
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Inconsistent screening

Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:00 pm

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.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21484
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Sun Mar 13, 2022 8:55 pm

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.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21484
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Inconsistent screening

Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:03 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos