Photo rejection 'help'.

[Colin Parker]

Can someone please explain the following to me?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=416867

It is a little low in the picture because there is a fence in the way, but unless you are picking faults, it's not that noticeable. As for the other rejection reasons, I am speechless.

I believe it is a worthy addition to the database, and if the screeners want to emulate airliners.net ones, they are well on their way to success. To reject good photos for pedantic reasons is just silly. Is it not the aim of this website to provide good and interesting photos for people? I believe it is easy for people to lose sight of the 'big picture'. it happens almost everywhere and unfortunately I think it is happening here.

[LX-A343]

I'm sorry, you're feeling that way. On the other hand, we as screeners try to apply a screening system as consistent as possible. For that purpose we have defined a set of standards. Your pic just didn't meet these standards, that's all. Don't take it personal in any way. You think, it is a nice pic and worthy to be added here, the screeners felt different.

My first feeling, when I saw the pic was "bad centered". It's simply way off balanced and more than only noticeable, it's disturbing. The reason WHY it is not centered is simply irrelevant for that matter. Had the aircraft been centered, it would probably have been accepted. I say "probably", because some screeners may think, the colors and the contrast are not that good, or because of the halos here and there (for example around the wheels).

As for the rest, [MODE SARCASM ON] yes we are aiming to be like A.net (whatever this means in your opinion) and yes we like to reject pics for whatever reasons. And yes, if there is noe reason for a reject, we invent one. We even prefer to reject good pics to get rid of the good photogs. Happy now? [MODE SARCASM OFF]


Gerardo

[Colin Parker]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the aircraft is not centered, but how about the other two reasons for rejection? You did not refer to those at all. I cannot think of any other reason other than you are not actually being sarcastic at all!

p.s. What halo around the wheels? I am curious about this one. perhaps I can learn something!

[LX-A343]

The "Aircraft Not Centered in Frame" is clear apparently.

I don't know, why the involved screener(s) selected also the "Part of Subject Cut Off/Missing" and the "Bad Cropping (Photo Edges)", but the pic could have indeed been better cropped, zooming more into the nose area. That way, for some people this pic may show too much aircraft for a close up. Hence "bad cropped" and "part ... missing".

The halos: look closely on the wheels. Do you see the bright "shine" around them? That's called "halo". One way to produce them for example is to use the highlight/shadow feature in Photoshop CS in a wrong way.

Gerardo

[HelmutS]

Crop it short of the C in the Airline name, get it centered and resubmit it. I think it's an excellent, sharp picture showing lots of detail on the aircraft.

[Colin Parker]

Thanks for the advice. If the appeal doesn't work, then I guess that is what I will have to do, although I do like the fect that it also shows part of the engines and wing root as well.....but if others think that that spoils the photo, then what can I do?

As for the halo, doesn't this also result from simple reflections from bright sunlight against a shiny tyre? if so, there's nothing I can do to prevent it!

[kukkudrill]

Colin how do you manage to get such sharp detail in a shot of a flying aircraft?

I've had a similar experience as Colin in having a photo rejected for what is, in my opinion, too strict application of the criteria. It's at:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=416563

The reasons given for the rejection are valid on the face of it, but as I explained when I appealed (unsuccessfully) this aircraft is located in an extremely confined space and it wasn't possible to get a better shot without shooting from almost dead ahead, in which case the photo might be technically "better" but less satisfying to the viewer as it would show little other than the big engine up front.

I think there are circumstances, such as shooting in confined spaces, when the normal criteria lose a lot of their validity and insisting on them means only that some subjects are permanently excluded from the database. But whoever saw the appeal didn't see it the same way.

Just for the record, though I disagree with the screeners on this one I still think they are a dedicated bunch of people without whom this site wouldn't be possible -- and no I'm not in sarcasm mode!

[BA747-436]

The cut off/missing is always a problem when shooting Cathay side ons and trying to get a front section shot. Cathay puts its titles quite far back meaning that they start around the middle of the aircraft. With most airlines you can crop the photo to the very start of the wing root and still have the entire airline title in full view. If, however this shot was at an angle to the photographer and the same process has been applied (and the aircraft was centered) then id be more inclined to say the shot would be accepted. Like i said CX is a hard one to shoot and use just the front end on side ons.
If it had been my shot i would have croped it to just behind the RR sign on engine #3 and infront of the main gear. I moved my screen to view what it would look like and to me it seemed alot more pleasing. Give it a try and see what you think

[LX-A343]

Thanks for the advice. If the appeal doesn't work, then I guess that is what I will have to do, although I do like the fect that it also shows part of the engines and wing root as well.....but if others think that that spoils the photo, then what can I do?

Do you prefer this shot to represent your photography work to a better centered and better looking photo?

As for the halo, doesn't this also result from simple reflections from bright sunlight against a shiny tyre? if so, there's nothing I can do to prevent it!

Just a test: compare this shot with the original. Without seeing the original, I can't judge, if you can do something to prevent it or not.

Gerardo

[Simpleboy]

I've had a similar experience as Colin in having a photo rejected for what is, in my opinion, too strict application of the criteria. It's at:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=416563

The reasons given for the rejection are valid on the face of it, but as I explained when I appealed (unsuccessfully) this aircraft is located in an extremely confined space and it wasn't possible to get a better shot without shooting from almost dead ahead, in which case the photo might be technically "better" but less satisfying to the viewer as it would show little other than the big engine up front.

I think there are circumstances, such as shooting in confined spaces, when the normal criteria lose a lot of their validity and insisting on them means only that some subjects are permanently excluded from the database. But whoever saw the appeal didn't see it the same way.

First off, not every screener has been to every place where a photo has been taken and can remember exactly what it is like to apply this 'looser criteria'.

Second of all, the pic had a bit of space to the right but cuts off the left, i know the space isnt enough but its a start. Second of all, had you moved foward and got a nose shot it would have been something different and unique, it would have been accepted.

The main point Im maing is that screeners dont know exactly what conditions the photo is taken in so therefore having loose standards for such situations is pretty stupid cause it would eb evn harder to enforce as some people not in such situations would complain because they have seen similar pics taken in such circumstances, it just wouldnt work.

[Legend_Airlines]

Colin:
I quite like the photo. Nice shot!

[Crazy764]

Colin,

Your photo could have been easily centered by cropping some dead space away from the top. If the ratio gets all messed up, you can then crop some pixels away from the left. (Therefore, bad cropping).

Screeners don't lower standards just because of special circumstances (ie fence in the way). There are many shots of properly centered CX Cargo 747s at Hong Kong, so I know it's doable. Your photo isn't really that special that it should warrant special treatment.

Or maybe I'm all wrong and it's just the fault of one of those newbie screeners that are being hired.

[Colin Parker]

Thanks for all the advice. Once the photo is no longer in the appeal queue then I will try cropping it.

As for the shiny tyre, sharpening the photo has brought out the shine a little more, but the original also has shine.

[kukkudrill]

having loose standards for such situations is pretty stupid

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/688331/L/

[LX-A343]

having loose standards for such situations is pretty stupid

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/688331/L/

So what? Other websites, other screeners, other human beeings, other decisions.