How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

[hkgspotter1]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY FOR VH-ADG
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VH-ADG,

What the hell is your problem women ??, get of my back and don't say things about me EVER AGAIN.

Have you ever spoken to me in person ?, Have we ever been in the same room ? NO, SO SHUT UP.

I have NEVER BEEN BANNED ON YOUR LOVED SITE, DO YOU UNDERSATND THAT ??, GOT THAT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD ??. Why don't you go attack all the people that got banned or even kicked off ??. I got sick of their crap and left......UNDERSTAND I NO LONGER SEND MY PICS THERE, SO ITS OVER.

If CHRIS, I say CHRIS has a problem with what I'm saying he will contact me. Since when are you the webmaster of this site ??

Good day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Very sorry to the rest of you but she has just pushed me over the limit.

[PolishAir42]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

Some of us have wayyyyyyy to much time on our hands...

Thats it im going back to school...best get there before i get a friggin tardy [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img]

[FinalApproach]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

[img]offtopic1.gif[/img]
Actually Polishair, Even though some of us seem to have a constant flow of conversations, interesting ones at that, I for one don't have much time on my hands but I choose to use it here!!! I have a fun 80 KM trek to work myself now and then an 8-10 hour shift and then a 80KM trek back!!! [img]laff.gif[/img] [img]offtopic1.gif[/img]
It's all gooouuuuood!!!

[ADG]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

One at a time boys .. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

> (What they were personally trying to say to me was, your
> not a first class member, or you aren't one of our
> favoured photographers)

Geez, even *I* know that that statement is not true (I have refained from using the more appropriate term there). This is nothing more than someone trying to not take responsibility for their own problems. Blame everything but yourself... helps you sleep at night? The fact is that your pictures are not good enough for the site in the format that you upload them. Live with it. I have.

> You know what else, they probably don't even look at
> some pictures when they reject them!

and I know for a fact that you're wrong and I know for a fact that the screeners have cleared that fact up ad nauseum, but you guys still go on. Again, it's simply an excuse that stops you from having to accept the facts.

Remember, many of the screeners are on broadband.

> No one could ever prove to me that airliners.net rejects
> everyone fairly and that is the point that some of us
> are trying to make!

The point you appear to be making is that even if someone jammed the facts right up your back end you still wouldn't believe them.

I get the impression that your problem is more that the site doesn't run the way you want it to than any of the reasons you have given.

> THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY FOR VH-ADG

whoo my very own personal message ... yay! [img]love.gif[/img]

> What the hell is your problem women ??,

I have been very clear on that hkg, you having a problem with basic facts?

> get of my back and don't say things about me EVER AGAIN.

LOL

> Have you ever spoken to me in person ?,

you don't remember whether we have spoken or not? Very strange indeed.

> Have we ever been in the same room ? NO, SO SHUT UP.

Hkg, I'm not sure why you are asking me questions that you know the answer to and as for telling me to shut up I suspect that this is the crux of the issue. You appear to want everything your own way and if you don't get it you throw a hissy fit. Well hkg, this just goes to show that you don't run everything and if you are going to slander something that I like i'll respond until I am stopped from doing so. Your statments about airliners.net cross the line to dishonesty from time to time and your continued focus on how bad it is, and how insulted you are by whatever Johan sent you in eMail, dont' bring his site down, it brings this one down.

Does Chris want his site to stand up on it's own merits or does he want it to be know as the site that those who aren't good enough for airliners.net to use? Because that's the message you appear to be sending in your constant *****ing about airliners.

> I have NEVER BEEN BANNED ON YOUR LOVED SITE, DO YOU
> UNDERSATND THAT ??, GOT THAT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD ??.

And you say you're an adult? [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] I'm not quite sure where I said you had been banned ....???

> Why don't you go attack all the people that got banned
> or even kicked off ??.

Why would I want to do that when I have you

> I got sick of their crap and left......UNDERSTAND I NO
> LONGER SEND MY PICS THERE, SO ITS OVER.

Actually hkg, given what YOU have said, I can assume Johan got sick of all your crap and sent you something via eMail that you didn't like. You took offense to that, got all huffy and now have a huge vendetta against airliners.net that you must vent in this forum. That's my take on what has happened based upon what you have said.

> If CHRIS, I say CHRIS has a problem with what I'm saying
> he will contact me. Since when are you the webmaster of
> this site ??

Since when did I suggest I was hkg? Like you, I have signed up to use this forum and to my shock I see you using it as nothing more than a conduit to "bag out airliners.net". Get over it son, there is more to life than uploading to airliners.net.

> Good day.

Always, but you appear not be having one ...

> Very sorry to the rest of you but she has just pushed me
> over the limit.

And just proved how low your "limit" is...


VH-ADG [img]love.gif[/img]

[PolishAir42]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

"and I know for a fact that you're wrong and I know for a fact that the screeners have cleared that fact up ad nauseum, but you guys still go on. Again, it's simply an excuse that stops you from having to accept the facts."

Actually, alot of the photos you can tell right away from the thumbnail if they are acceptable or rejectable. I open each one before I screen it, except if I know the person is a well established photog, and wont go to the trouble of uploading photos he/she knows are crappy.

[hkgspotter1]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

Is this topic not going to get deleted ??

As for her, I'm not even going to read her reply. Seem's she like many others have left the forums over there for this one [img]laff.gif[/img]

[Polaris]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

I am curious. What is the goal of jetphotos.net and/or airliners.net? Why are photos by the pro-pros eg. George Hall, Mike Reyno etc not on these sites? Or do they use an alias? Is or will airliners.net go back into the archive and delete the photos that do not meet their standards today?

I still believe (obviously contrary to standard practice) is to put a big watermark on the photos to ensure copyright security. I believe that would attract those who may be a little (or a lot) cautious.

[oe-vap]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

quote:

---

.... NO, SO SHUT UP. ....

---

Wow, nothing beats a nicely worded love letter
I like that style

[FinalApproach]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

This page is going to need a two player boxing match program for the members to compete!!!!!

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! [img]clap.gif[/img] [img]clap.gif[/img] [img]laff.gif[/img] [img]laff.gif[/img]

[FinalApproach]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

Now it is you turn to read my novel o fun!!!
BOLD SAID BY VH-ADG
Actually Gary,Those who have been whinging loud and long on airliners are slowly removing themselves. Look at Hkg, he's nothing but a pathetic low life whinger and when Johans patiences reaches the ending point and he is apparently rude to hkg, hkg runs off takes his bat & ball and goes home. I have no idea what Johan said to him but if you look at hkg's reaction it much have been pretty rude although I suspect that it probably wasn't.

THIS ABOVE IS JUST NOT VERY NICE, COALS IN YOU STOCKING THIS YEAR!

I have recently engaged in a behind the scenes discussion with the moderators to remove posts from people like Hkg as the negativity brings the site down. It's not removing free speech to remove comments such as "this site sux". "this photo is fake" is not the beginning of a constructive discussion.

"I have recently engaged in a behind the scenes discussion with the moderators..."

Thanks that could explain you pro airliners.net attitude!

"It's not removing free speech to remove comments such as "this site sux". "this photo is fake" is not the beginning of a constructive discussion"

Well any good business or company would take this critisism and use it to create a better service for their customers or in our case photographers!!!

Jetphotos is a new site, it's got 10,000 photos and it's growing very nicely, but currently it's standards are lower than airliners.net (yay!). Wait until it's been here for 4 years and has 300,000 pictures and many hits a day and see if it's the same friendly little place it is now. Is he still going to upload 80% of all shots when he has used 120Gb of hard drive space (and growing?)? Only time will tell.

Believe it or not I agree with some of the above... But when that time occurs for this page, Chris and fellow moderators will have to decide on of a few options:

1/Delete early not as popular photos
2/do what airliners.net is doing and making photographers frustrated
3/heighten the limits BUT heighten them the same for every one!

And see how Chris feels about people who consistantly ***** about his site when they've been doing it for years as well...

Well this is fully up to Chris, if he wants to accept only good feedback and ban users, or if he will try his best and act on complaints to make everyone at jetphotos.net happy!
(This is what I think JOHAN is lacking, not acting on these complaints by his members or viewers. I sent him an e-mail, which he didn't seem to read, which contained some suggestions! He e-mailed me back only to say use the appeal section for photo complaints! This had nothing to do with my suggestions! infact this where my beef with A.NET flared up)


************************It really comes down to the simple fact that airliners.net is currently *the* premier aviation photography site on the net and it's standards are now so high that they're beyond the reach of some people (myself included). Rather than take that as a challenge many of you would rather blame the site or the screeners or the administrators than accept that your skill level just isn't high enough any more.*****************************8

This is the route of their critisizm! if they are soooooo good then why are there still many photos in their DB that wouldn't look good in a newspaper! When I see photos that look like this, I am insulted when my photos are rejected! I take it as their way of insulting me or anyone else who feels this way!

An analogy here would be athletics. Jetphoto is the local comp where everyone is welcome, and airliners is the olympics where a certain level of expertise needs to be reached prior to competing.

Look closely at the PICS and you will see that this is a very ANALogy!!!
[img]laff.gif[/img]

This hopefully will explain ...maybe 40% of the A.NET critisism spree!!!! [img]clap.gif[/img] [img]sleep.gif[/img] [img]sleep.gif[/img] [img]sleep.gif[/img]

[ADG]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

> THIS ABOVE IS JUST NOT VERY NICE, COALS IN YOU STOCKING THIS YEAR!

you appear to be assuming that i'm christian ... sorry, but i'm not.

> Thanks that could explain you pro airliners.net attitude!

I'm not sure I need to explain my pro airliners.net attitude to you and the fact that I utilise eMail rather than a public forum to engage in discussion about something I don't like is not indicative of anything in particular. Indeed, it's something that others should try, although I assume it's far to invisible for some, they like their rants to be out there for all to see (I suspect it's an ego thing).

I like airliners.net because it's a great site. I also like this one, but feel quite sad that the overall quality of the site is being dragged down in the forums to be little more than an extension of airwhiners.net.

> Well any good business or company would take this
> critisism and use it to create a better service for
> their customers or in our case photographers!!!

Within reason that's true. But it's clear from reading here over the last week that it goes well beyond constructive criticism and into the realm of slander. It seems to me that some people are upset because they cant' get their pictures on airliners.net and rather than moving here and enjoying this site and building it up to be as good as any other, they use it as nothing more than a conduit to continue their vendetta against airliners.

> Believe it or not I agree with some of the above... But
> when that time occurs for this page, Chris and fellow
> moderators will have to decide on of a few options:

Yes, when it gets to that site, Chris and fellow moderators will have to decide and when they decide those who use the site will have to abide by the decision, will they do that or will they run over the the newest aviation site, and then continue a vendetta against jetphotos.net for having the nerve to make decisions about the running of their site?

> 2/do what airliners.net is doing and making
> photographers frustrated

You do realise that in the big scheme of things only very few photographers are frustrated and in a lot of cases they appear to be people who:

1. think their photos should be uploaded because of who they are; or
2. think their photos should be uploaded because they used to be.

> 3/heighten the limits BUT heighten them the same for
> every one!

See I keep seeing this, I am absolutely aware of how the airliners.net screening process is and your inference is just absolutely untrue AND has been denied AD NAUSEUM by the screeners. The fact that you choose to ignore that doesn't make it true, it just makes you stubborn.

> Well this is fully up to Chris, if he wants to accept
> only good feedback and ban users, or if he will try his
> best and act on complaints to make everyone at
> jetphotos.net happy!

There is a definite difference between constructive criticism and abuse/vendettas.

> (This is what I think JOHAN is lacking, not acting on
> these complaints by his members or viewers. I sent him
> an e-mail, which he didn't seem to read, which contained
> some suggestions! He e-mailed me back only to say use
> the appeal section for photo complaints! This had
> nothing to do with my suggestions! infact this where my
> beef with A.NET flared up)

Ah it all makes sense now. Well just as you have a right to make suggestions he has a right to not implement them. I can't comment on your eMail as obviously I haven't read it. Seems to me that your beef is simply because he wouldn't do what you wanted. Well you don't always get what you want you know.

> This is the route of their critisizm! if they are
> soooooo good then why are there still many photos in
> their DB that wouldn't look good in a newspaper!

Because they're not being taken to look good in a newspaper. What many people fail to realise is that photography (art) is subjective. What you like I may dislike and vice versa. We just have to live with that. I think some shots are absolute crud but they have thousands of hits .. and other shots I think are absolutely brilliant have no hits at all. I know of one photographer that thinks the sun shines out of his butt, but I think his photos are nothing special at all. Does that mean his pictures shouldnt' be there? Or does it simply mean that art is subjective? After all, you may see his pics and think they're fantastic .. we all need to accept that.

> When I see photos that look like this, I am insulted
> when my photos are rejected! I take it as their way of
> insulting me or anyone else who feels this way!

That's a pretty sad attitude to have. Do you feel insulted every time you see a picture in a magazine that you don't like, knowing (in your mind) that yours are better? Do you then run around and bag out that magazine?

> Look closely at the PICS and you will see that this is a
> very ANALogy!!!

The analogy had nothing to do with the quality of the pictures on this site rather where the rejection line is.

My pictures are on here, I wouldn't consider uploading them to airliners.net, they're just not that good. But this site has lower standards which is fantastic because it allows me to upload my pictures and have them accepted.

To each their own. I believe both sites can exist together, without the requirement to denegrade the other site in the process.

> This hopefully will explain ...maybe 40% of the A.NET
> critisism spree!!!!

I understand your frustration as I can't get pictures uploaded to airliners.net either! But I don't see that as a reason to run around and denegrade the site. After all, it is better for this site that I come over here and upload my pictures, it fills his database up with pictures. So not being able to upload to airliners.net is a postive for jetphotos isn't it?


VH-ADG

[cicadajet]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

Bron, I'm sure you have your own standards although you repeatedly write only of lower standards vs. higher standards in regard to A.net. I think the fact that there has been only one quality site for an airliner gallery has really ghetto-ized people's thinking.

Certainly, in terms of JP vs. A.Net it is toughter vs.easier... and generally, yes, higher vs. lower. Its pretty much a backhanded compliment to give JP its due as a niche alternative to A.net -high quality vs. low quality.. (though the mission statement at JP invites that comparison its true) Take a look at a.nets Editor's Choice section..theres some images in there from not that long ago..a few years..that *might* not even be accepted in the database at all today.. so, things change fast.

When I see the people contributing here...some very familiar names, I am fairly confident, if it sticks around, jp will be more than a low quality vanity gallery of the mediocre. - especially when you stop to think how many airframes Airbus and Boeing build in a year. There are so many people in this hobby now, and granted, some people are uploading warbirds, choppers, old photos and military...but the bad common rejection will make many many quality images available going forward.

But, what sort of standard is a "bad common" ? Is it a "higher standard" artistically or image-wise? Or merely a #s game?

I submitted an image not long back and it was rejected as a "bad dupe". Problem was it was not a dupe, but the screener made an error and confused it with another photographer. no problem. I resubmitted it with an explanation, and it got rejected with "bad common". (a week later it had become a "bad common". By what standard had it become a "bad common"? - in one weeks time? Is this a "whilst" one person quantifies quality one way, another quantifies quality another way - it is all subjective bit?? anyway, no problem..I appealed it with a note and the Admin accepted the image. - with a note to me that I ought to not put an explanation in the remarks field...(the 1st explanation I guess that it was not a bad dupe..for the screeners..). A day or so later, I am back in the forum over there, and a screener is advising an uploader to re-upload an image with a note to the screeners... so obviously there is no policy.

We could get into rejections for typos in the Registration # when images make it in with wrong airline etc..(which would be impossible to happen if three [3] screeners really looked at the upload..), but I'd rather not. There is one "solution"/option for the disgruntled uploader over there, and that is for the uploader to really raise the quality of their submissions to be up there with the very very best in terms of what A.net places a premium on (if they can) ...so they do not get bogged down in the "process", but thats about it. Or they can upload elsewhere..as is suggested these days.

But my point is not that the screeners are bad people looking for petty reasons to reject images, not at all, (fact is they can be quite generous at times) but to emphasize to you and whoever else, that I have had no problem with handling rejections over there for four years...like you I did not imagine myself as a great photographer...so its not just a matter of quality and sour grapes.. its simply not worth the time, if there are too many consistency problems...

Yes, there are many folks who you can find on record as defending A.net standards to the hilt right up until the hour they discovered their ox was getting gored. No question.

I have no wish to see A.net bashing on this board...but I don't care for the automatic implication that there is but one reason to upload elsewhere... images are not "good enough" for A.net's "high standards". If thats your honest opinion, I will accept it from you, but it also just happens to be the formula "objection response" script to any and all questions/complaints regardless of the tone..(as far as I can tell).

As long as screener A will add your shots while screener B will not..."A.net standards" is merely an imaginary goal post in one's mind. (not even suggesting the guy adding your shots is "right", and the one not adding your shots is "wrong".)

Anyway, I looked at a few of your images here the other day..and I didn't study them, I opened them up and glanced at them because they looked like interesting subjects. I do remember thinking that they were better than many a boring pin sharp approach shot in bad weather, bad light, on A.net.

Thats all I'm going to say for now apart from wishing both sites well and hoping childish attacks stop on A.net and a good part of the A.net crew can resist trawling these forums to rebut every childish attack...(the reason they're here in part and you don't see these threads on A.net btw is because jp discussions are banned over there...which has moved the whining over here (after all, wouldn't they prefer the wider audience over there to whine??) Also, I would point out that the forums becoming a cess pool over there never appreciably harmed or threatened the credibility of their site (actually it probably did, but we can't measure it)....so I doubt if that will happen any differently here either -- over time.

And, Airwhiners.. what a bizarre site...a bit nasty too... anyway, it doesn't have a gallery/photodatabase.... its just an extension of A.net non-av forum.

Tom Turner

[ADG]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

> Bron, I'm sure you have your own standards although you
> repeatedly write only of lower standards vs. higher
> standards in regard to A.net.

Because that's the crux of everyones whinges, that their photos dont' get accepted any more. That the cut off standard on airliners is now to high. Seems that airliners should take into consideration the personal circumstances of all of it's uploaders... ignore the standard because someone had a baby, ignore the standard because someone can't afford a new camera ... all these obstacles are laid out there to everyone, treating everyone the same but they're dragged out all the time by those who just want to whinge.

> I think the fact that there has been only one quality
> site for an airliner gallery has really ghetto-ized
> people's thinking.

It's not the only quality site out there, it is just the one I prefer.

> Certainly, in terms of JP vs. A.Net it is toughter
> vs.easier... and generally, yes, higher vs. lower.

It's only higher v lower in regards to the acceptance point, this site is almost a carbon copy of a.net, look at the uploaders, all the same names! Seems that it's popular enough that the airline enthusiasts are going to support both which is something good. It's spoilt by the need some people have to bag out the other site.

> Editor's Choice section..theres some images in there
> from not that long ago..a few years..that *might* not
> even be accepted in the database at all today.. so,
> things change fast.

That's technology for you. 3 years ago my camera was the ducks guts, now it's so poor in quality that the pictures aren't acceptable (I have to theive the S1 to get a.net quality pics now and have you ever tried to get a camera off an aviation photographer while planes are flying?).

> When I see the people contributing here...some very
> familiar names, I am fairly confident, if it sticks
> around, jp will be more than a low quality vanity
> gallery of the mediocre.

I agree. It's very popular and I think it will continue to be so.

> - especially when you stop to think how many airframes
> Airbus and Boeing build in a year. There are so many
> people in this hobby now, and granted, some people are
> uploading warbirds, choppers, old photos and
> military...but the bad common rejection will make many
> many quality images available going forward.

True, altough how many pictures of a QF747 running down the runway at Sydney without it being extremely boring?

> But, what sort of standard is a "bad common" ? Is it
> a "higher standard" artistically or image-wise? Or merely
> a #s game?

I can't speak for them, but really do we need 1000 pics of the same plane doing the same thing with the only difference being the date it was taken? Sure if it were a different angle that would be OK. In reality though, I don't necessarily see the badcommon as being a good rejection reason (but that's my personal opinion). I believe if I don't want to look at a picture, then I won't.

> all subjective bit?? anyway, no problem..I appealed it
> with a note and the Admin accepted the image. - with a
> note to me that I ought to not put an explanation in the
> remarks field...(the 1st explanation I guess that it was
> not a bad dupe..for the screeners..). A day or so later,
> I am back in the forum over there, and a screener is
> advising an uploader to re-upload an image with a note
> to the screeners... so obviously there is no policy.

In reality though, the place to discuss that is in the site_related forum of airliners.net (or via private mail to the screeners),not here on another site. If it makes you feel any better, I can slap a screener for you

> the "process", but thats about it. Or they can upload
> elsewhere..as is suggested these days.

You have always been able to upload elsewhere .. I made my own site to put my pictures on (that way I dont' get any rejections ).

> But my point is not that the screeners are bad people
> looking for petty reasons to reject images, not at all,

There are many who suggest they are.

> (fact is they can be quite generous at times) but to
> emphasize to you and whoever else, that I have had no
> problem with handling rejections over there for four
> years...like you I did not imagine myself as a great
> photographer...so its not just a matter of quality and
> sour grapes.. its simply not worth the time, if there
> are too many consistency problems...

This is, and always remains, your choice. My issue here is with those who feel the need to go elsewhere and then continue to whinge about airliners.net even after they've found a site perfectly suited for their pictures. My point is that it makes jetphotos look bad, it makes it look like the site you have to go to when the premier site won't take your pictures.

I'm sure that's not true, and i'm sure that's not what people want others to think of this site. Leave the airliners.net issues at airliners.net and concentrate on making jetphotos a site in it's own right.

> Yes, there are many folks who you can find on record as
> defending A.net standards to the hilt right up until the
> hour they discovered their ox was getting gored. No
> question.

Rofl ....

> As long as screener A will add your shots while screener
> B will not..."A.net standards" is merely an imaginary
> goal post in one's mind. (not even suggesting the guy
> adding your shots is "right", and the one not adding
> your shots is "wrong".)

You will find that whereever you go. Jetphotos doesn't have that problem because it doesn't have a plethora of screeners (yet). Lets see how it goes when they do.

> Anyway, I looked at a few of your images here the other
> day..and I didn't study them, I opened them up and
> glanced at them because they looked like interesting
> subjects. I do remember thinking that they were better
> than many a boring pin sharp approach shot in bad
> weather, bad light, on A.net.

Thanx. The shots I like the most such as the props of the C130 are not the type of shots they want on airliners.net, so they're better suited here anyway.

> Thats all I'm going to say for now apart from wishing
> both sites well and hoping childish attacks stop on
> A.net and a good part of the A.net crew can resist
> trawling these forums to rebut every childish attack...

I'd go a step further and hope that the attacks stop and they didn't have to troll and rebut petty attacks on themselves. This site doesn't need it, it can stand up on it's own merits.

> (the reason they're here in part and you don't see these
> threads on A.net btw is because jp discussions are
> banned over there...

There is no need to discuss jp over there and no need to discuss a.net over here.

> which has moved the whining over here (after all,
> wouldn't they prefer the wider audience over there to
> whine??) Also, I would point out that the forums
> becoming a cess pool over there never appreciably harmed
> or threatened the credibility of their site (actually it
> probably did, but we can't measure it)....so I doubt if
> that will happen any differently here either -- over
> time.

But a.net isn't new and trying to find it's niche on the net as jp is. It would be too easy for it to become the poor mans a.net where in reality it'd be much better for it's uploaders if it became a competitor rather than a poor brother.

> And, Airwhiners.. what a bizarre site...a bit nasty
> too... anyway, it doesn't have a
> gallery/photodatabase.... its just an extension of A.net
> non-av forum.

Good call.

VH-ADG

[cicadajet]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

Bron, you caused me to choke on my drink...very funny. [img]laff.gif[/img]

Yes, we agree. I thought that we might.

At first the high vs. low quality commentary sounded a bit paternalistic or condescending to my ear...but, yes, in the context of the more routine or irrational whines of rejection...I understand where you are coming from 100%.

And of course, I don't begrudge anyone defending themselves if they are maliciously attacked.

Looking forward to seeing more of your photos. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Tom


> Bron, I'm sure you have your own standards although you
> repeatedly write only of lower standards vs. higher
> standards in regard to A.net.
Because that's the crux of everyones whinges, that their photos dont' get accepted any more. That the cut off standard on airliners is now to high. Seems that airliners should take into consideration the personal circumstances of all of it's uploaders... ignore the standard because someone had a baby, ignore the standard because someone can't afford a new camera ... all these obstacles are laid out there to everyone, treating everyone the same but they're dragged out all the time by those who just want to whinge.

[Braniffnut]

How many of your excellent photos were rejected by Airliners

Well, it certainly did not take too terribly long for this forum to get dragged down into the mud with the best of them. Frankly, I not can not recall how long is has been since I have read a thread that said abosuletly NOTHING! [img]sleep.gif[/img]

Gary, HGK......you guys are obessing waaaaaaay too much over nothing! I would advise that neither of you make the arts a career. Both of you way too thin skinned.

Thomas